Re: Israel. Obama will act for mutual security, whereas Paul would have been likely to just abandon obligations.

Re: Economy. Obama will restore to a status of responsible and enforced regulation, and rational tax policy.

Paul proposed to de-regulate nearly everything, and pursue the policy of tax reduction/elimination as somehow fiscally responsible.

Is Paul more like Obama or like McCain? As the economy is a FAR more significant area of issues in the current, Paul is republican dyed and true, supertrue to a dying and killing thesis (less taxes is by definition better taxes).

This can only mean that an attack will occur very soon.

We're f—ed.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1215330937574&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Obama (a Con Law teacher) just recently help put another nail in the Constitution with the FISA bill. We can be spied on and tapped for any "suspicious" reason.

Obama is not fighting against the banking cartel and our federal reserve system, which has caused so much harm to us as a people. The fed funds wars, and massive entitlements here at home.

Obama voted against a bill that would require doctors to save an aborted baby, if it comes out alive. He voted AGAINST! Heartless.

I would suggest reading up on the effects of government intervention in the economy (Economics in one lesson by Henry Hazlitt) and around the world (Blowback by Chalmers Johnson)

What is the lifeblood of any economy? Money. What is our dollar? Paper.
Our dollar is collapsing, unemployment is up, productivity is at a low. More government intervention will only prolong this.

Obama's change will not address this. He is more of a socialist it sounds like than a Constitutional Law professor.

Mcbama.

You completely misunderstand Paul's economic policy. His first line of attack, is to cut spending, not to just cut taxes. In case you haven't noticed, the dollar is tanking and the country is insolvent. Long term projections see our entire future taxes paying almost exclusively the interest on Chinese and Japanese debt, enriching those nations and impoverishing our own. Our future social security and medicare obligations are unfunded to the tune of 10s of trillions of dollars over the next 2 decades.

No country ever taxed itself to prosperity. Paul intended to, and keeps fighting to free up the creative energy of small business, to restore rational spending (not rational taxing which is an oxymoron ), and to promote individual liberty.

Your understanding of fiscal and monetary policy seems only surface deep. I advise you to understand and consider, that the government has no limit on debt spending, and will continue spending regardless if taxes are 10% higher or lower. They are totally unconstrained by revenue, and that is why attacking taxes only, either cutting as Paul would, or increasing as Obama claims, is pointless. There has to be spending cuts, and Paul was the ONLY candidate running this primary, who advocating cutting back government, killing waste and restoring accountability.

What would he cut? That is the proper area of legislative power. If the legislature enacts a program, that is its power unless expressly unconstitutional (most of which is undefined one way or another).

Bush stated that he wished to cut spending as well, as does McCain (without naming ANYTHING)

And why did he not oppose the tax cuts in 2001 – 2003, without reductions in government spending?

How is his view different than that old con?

What would he cut?
-One is easy, foreign Policy, we are an empire all over the world.
That is the proper area of legislative power. If the legislature enacts a program, that is its power unless expressly unconstitutional (most of which is undefined one way or another). – Constitutionally sound money would put things in perspective mighty fast. If we were directly taxed for all of these programs (whatever they are) there would be a revolt. Inflation eases the feeling of hardship and spreads it out. Sound money is the opposite of inflation. The constitution explicitly condemned bills of credit.

Bush stated that he wished to cut spending as well, as does McCain (without naming ANYTHING)
- Department of Ed (how has that helped), Department of Energy (Free markts are far more efficient) many more.

And why did he not oppose the tax cuts in 2001 – 2003, without reductions in government spending?
- He represents people who want some of their money back, any way to keep money that we earn in our pockets, he will do.

How is his view different than that old con?
- He is principled.

Only in the coming times, when their country has been long since bankrupted by the wars for Zionist Jews, will the Boomers fully comprehend the folly of their ways. It will happen as they have been wheeled outside and dumped, as they lay face down in a snow bank and are left to die on the sidewalk outside the crumbling old folks home that no longer receives their maintenance checks from the broke federal government. And younger generations walking by won’t lift a finger to help, understanding that they are only now, finally, getting their just deserts.