Peegee

so the daily paul has an article of 'what could president paul do?'

because the role of the president is specific, and because (as Dignified Toland keeps saying) he can't introduce bills HIMSELF, I started to think again of what a president paul could do. Here's a list:

President Paul could:

- order every troop worldwide to return to usa. this would do the following in one order:
1) close gitmo
2) stop nation building
3) stop needless spending
4) make [url=i116.photobucket.com/albums/o28/djpatryan/threatmapsplash.jpg]this nonsense[/url] go away
and more...
- veto every bad bill that passes. NDAA with indefinite detention? vetoed. SOPA/PIPA/CISPA type laws? Veto. The house didn't even have 2/3 majority. Do you think a revote would suddenly get 2/3 majority? I don't
- veto every UNBALANCED BUDGET presented. This is huge. Things like debt ceiling increases and the like might have bipartisan approval, and I'm willing to bet probably unbalanced budgets must have bipartisan approval. But instead of being president rubber stamp like Obama, at least we the people will see the president trying to stop this nonsense.

I haven't paid attention to whether budgets have bipartisan approval or at least 2/3 majority approval, but if not, this would effectively halt congress and the federal government if a budget cannot be passed. That's always a good thing.
- RP can assign certain people to certain roles - he could replace Bernanke with somebody else, say, an Austrian economist. I'm not certain yet what an Austrian economist would do differently (the only concrete thing I've ever read was to peg the interest rate at 3% regardless of what the market says, but that idea was eventually disproved. Was it a Mises fallacy? I forget), but what I do know is the person would not loan money to foreign countries and then say 'hey we're going to get interest on that, so it's a good investment'.

I also expect RP to approve into law all sorts of craziness but that's only if they have congressional approval to make its way to him to sign into law. So things like how life is defined as starting 2 weeks before conception, or how abortions are federally not allowed, I don't think he can really get done (and surprise surprise, I actually think that even if the federal government says it's okay to have abortions you should STILL get your STATE government to allow abortions. That's more defensible than me arguing 'hurr durr there shouldn't be any federal mandates that contradicts states. you're on your own texas', but I bet some of you who like the right to have abortions will still disagree). It's too irrelevant.

My belief is he will minimize the government for 4 or 8 years, and within that time period your economy will be bussling again. I do not see any reason not to vote for him, because the alternative candidates, from Brock 'I can afford to nation build while unfunded entitlement programs go up to 100 trillion dollars and i have no solutions for either unaffordable mandate' Obama to Gary 'I'll still occupy the middle east, yes really. yes I'm a libertarian lol' Johnson to Mitt 'I'm going to treat usa like a new company I acquired and slash and burn it to the ground' Romney - if you actually support any of them you're deluded into thinking everything is okay.