Ron Paul: "Warfare, Welfare, And Wonder Woman: How Congress Spends Your Money"

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Ron Paul via the Ludwig von Mises Institute blog,

Supporters of warfare, welfare, and Wonder Woman cheered last week as Congress passed a one trillion dollar “omnibus” appropriation bill. This legislation funds the operations of government for the remainder of the fiscal year. Wonder Woman fans can cheer that buried in the bill was a $10,000 grant for a theater program to explore the comic book heroine.

That is just one of the many outrageous projects buried in this 1,582-page bill. The legislation gives the Department of Education more money to continue nationalizing education via “common core.” Also, despite new evidence of Obamacare’s failure emerging on an almost daily basis, the Omnibus bill does nothing to roll back this disastrous law.

Even though the Omnibus bill dramatically increases government spending, it passed with the support of many self-described “fiscal conservatives.” Those wondering why anyone who opposes increasing spending on programs like common core and Obamacare would vote for the bill, may find an answer in the fact that the legislation increases funding for the “Overseas Continuing Operations” — which is the official name for the war budget — for the first time since 2010. This $85 billion war budget contains $6 billion earmarked for projects benefiting Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, and other big defense contractors.

Ever since “sequestration” went into effect at the beginning of last year, the military-industrial complex’s congressional cheering session has complained that sequestration imposed “draconian cuts” on the Pentagon that will “decimate” our military — even though most of the “cuts” were actually reductions in the “projected rate of growth.” In fact, under sequestration, defense spending was to increase by 18 percent over ten years, as opposed to growing by 20 percent without sequestration.

Many of the defenders of increased war spending are opponents of welfare, but they are willing to set aside their opposition to increased welfare spending in order to increase warfare spending. They are supported in this position by the lobbyists for the military-industrial complex and the neoconservatives, whose continued influence on foreign policy is mystifying. After all, the neocons were the major promoters of the disastrous military intervention in Iraq.

While many neocons give lip service to limiting domestic spending, their main priority remains protecting high levels of military spending to maintain an interventionist foreign policy. The influence of the neocons provides intellectual justification for politicians to vote for ever-larger military budgets — and break the campaign promises to vote against increases in spending and debt.

Fortunately, in recent years more Americans have recognized that a constant defense of liberty requires opposing both war and welfare. Many of these Americans, especially the younger ones, have joined the intellectual and political movement in favor of limiting government in all areas. This movement presents the most serious challenge the bipartisan welfare-warfare consensus has faced in generations. Hopefully, the influence of this movement will lead to bipartisan deals cutting both welfare and warfare spending.

The question facing Americans is not whether Congress will ever cut spending. The question is will the spending be reduced in an orderly manner that avoids inflecting massive harm on those depending on government programs, or will spending be slashed in response to an economic crisis caused by ever-increasing levels of deficit spending. Because politicians are followers rather than leaders, it is ultimately up to the people what course we will take. This is why it is vital that those of us who understand the dangerous path we are currently on do all we can to expand the movement for liberty, peace, and prosperity.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Crawdaddy's picture

Back in 1981, Bitches just now be catchin up.

CognacAndMencken's picture


Before I git started with my anti-LIBTARD rant, I just want to say the crawdaddy avatar is fucking BADASS!!!  BOSS!!!! listen up, patriots....

A homosexual, Socialist, Nazi, communist, "help the poor" LIBTARD tried telling me that Ron Paul sent 41 earmark requests in 2011, totaling $157 million.  And better yet, this same stupid liberal tried telling me that in 2010 Ron Paul requested over DOUBLE that: $398 million.  That would make Ron Paul one of the BIGGEST earmark, pork barrel spenders in the GOP!!!  

*LOL* IMPOSSIBLE!  stupid libTARDS.  

Another homosexual pervert liberal tried telling me that Ron Paul requested $51 million in 2010 to build a hurricane evacuation route. IMPOSSIBLE!!!!  I specifically remember RP making a speech some years ago condemning the government for trying to help hurricane victims because those hurricane victims CHOSE to live in an area where hurricanes exist. It's THEIR fault they got fucked up by a hurricane.  To suggest that RP would spend tax payers money for a hurricane evacuation route makes RP look like a HYPOCRITE....


TEA PARTY POWER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! <bang> <bang> <bang>  <firing some heat 'down-range' for effect 'cuz that's what's uppp in fucking Amurica!!!!!>  

Freedom to have lots of GUNS!  Freedom of speech!!!  Libtards should be stoned to death!!!



DontGive's picture

Don't worry, they are stoned - out of their fuckin' minds..

LegalizHazing's picture

WWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAA God you cry like a little bitch. Are you sad that the progressive political group is less credible than other groups. The dude's got things to say that people want to hear.  

new game's picture

why are people that are on the correct side of the fence kinda wimpy, squeky voiced?

ron paul, can you here that sucking sound-ross perot, and pimco's one and only...

roadhazard's picture

Don't worry, the Compassionate Conservatives will save you.

captivemind's picture

A cautionary tale should you decide to place your faith in politicians, especially those of the Washington variety.

Never_Put_Down's picture

The responsibility of a Congressman was to take his constituents project funding requests to Washington, regardless of how ridiculous they are - I thought that was an earmark and that was the purpose of the earmark - requests for Federal tax dollars to be spent in the district where they were generated. Without earmarks, the executive branch gets to spend the money however they chose (war, bailouts, etc.). The earmarks are voted on in the House before any appropriations are made, Ron Paul NEVER voted for earmark spending that was not authorized in the Constitution, even if if the earmark came from his own district. So RP IS NOT a pork barrel spender if he voted no for the appropriations

RP is a patriot. "Libtards" want Liberty

adeptish's picture

Lynda Carter gives me the horn.

Real Estate Geek's picture

I think that's called pegging.  Seems like it'd be uncomfortable.

BLOTTO's picture

When i was a teen i use to wish she would lasso my NUTS...



DaveyJones's picture

 a red white and blue prostitute with fictional powers is an excellent image for our second branch

BLOTTO's picture

But seriously too,

Imo, i dont and never did believe that RP was the white wizard we are looking for anyway...

Skateboarder's picture

Lots of RP supporters, and for good reason, but he's only a spokesperson. Real action's gotta come from the people as no fruitful outcomes can come out of the election / presidential / congressional / judicial / all-in-all-executive system.

And did someone say White Wizzard? Enjoy the cheese, BLOTTO (you gotta watch the whole way if you want to see the wizzard - he's awesome, as you would expect).

FreedomGuy's picture

I think what many do not really get is that it is actually not Ron Paul himself. It is the ideas that he espouses that motivate the majority of his fans. I would be most who like him also like his son Rand and probably a host of other libertarian types.

Now, I will say that those messages have to be delivered by a person and that person and his skills matter. Even more important, the reliability of that person is paramount. That is where RP excels. If he was a typical politician he could have voted very differently and spoken very differently to get more poll points. Who would pick a person who is not particularly photogenic, has a high pitched voice and does not speak in large empty vagaries? No one. Yet, he has dedicated me.

Freedom and the things that go with it is actually a very tough sell these days.

jeff montanye's picture

unfortunately the powers, albeit largely for evil, are all too real.  and the image fits all three branches like ww's starry briefs.

the ten grand sum spent on a ww play is probably one of the better than average ways money is spent in that bill.  compared to the wars on whatever it is sweetness and light incarnate.

GoldRulesPaperDrools's picture

I think you meant to say `a horn` or, more simply, `wood`. ;)

She is definitely a lovely lady ... sort of the antimatter-universe version of Hillary Clinton.

Grande Tetons's picture

Lynda Carter and Dawn Wells made jacking off the mainstream sport it has become today. 

GoldRulesPaperDrools's picture

Dawn Wells made those denim shorts look *mighty* fine. :)

Kirk2NCC1701's picture

Ah, Lynda Carter. My favorite Carter.

q99x2's picture

She is 33 years older now.

MSimon's picture

Well she give ME the slot. Or a reasonable facimile thereof. Hey. I didn't know they were detachable.

Rob Jones's picture

They could at least spend it on booze and hookers. Then I wouldn't feel like it was being WASTED.

AchtungAffen's picture

Yeah, sure. So to those people who fall there should be no safety net at all? Is that what he's talking when he said "in recent years more Americans have recognized that a constant defense of liberty requires opposing both war and welfare."? Because I believe those who fall and can't be helped by a safety net are those who end up losing their liberty.

dexter_morgan's picture

That's not what he said, but if you feel that strongly, YOU can always help those within your personal sphere of influence instead of sitting back and complaining that gubmit and those funding it - US, can't do it anymore. YOU can be that safety net.

AchtungAffen's picture

Well, all experience on "private" safety net-like charity or something always proved highly lacking. If you would draw down on your military expenditures, most surely the US could afford a decent safety net. And I guess they can still do it now, just look at how much money they're throwing at the banks. They could also stop giving them free moneys and use that too for safety net expenditures, don't you think?

LocalBoy's picture

He advocates from the federal perspective, not from the "I want to run your life" side.
welfare is a local issue, its a tenth amendment issue.
Welfare at the State and local level  - put the corruption closer to the pitch forks.
Warfare is prohibited to us locals, not sure why........ 

Greenskeeper_Carl's picture

I have a better idea. Draw down our military expenditures, stop throwing free money at ANYONE and use those savings to eliminate the deficit rather than waste it on more stupid shit

rwe2late's picture


Nothing wrong with the quote from RP above, except the spelling.

"The question is will the spending be reduced in an orderly manner that avoids inflecting[sic] massive harm on those depending on government programs?"

It all depends on the details.

Real Estate Geek's picture

WB, you are quick!  Only 10 minutes for that?  Amazing!

jeff montanye's picture

i'm guessing janet yellen would give several billion dollars (they're only dollars.  it's not like they're federal reserve notes and you have to actually print them) for that waist/hip ratio.

GoldRulesPaperDrools's picture

That picture is *so* wrong on so many levels ... ;) ... good one.

seek's picture

shudders. folks. You can thank me later.

ebworthen's picture

Thank You!

(FYI - the "Alternate Version" is for Man lovers)

sixsigma cygnusatratus's picture

Thanks Seek ...that's just what the doctor ordered.

IridiumRebel's picture

"My eyes! Zie goggles....they do nussing!"

Manipuflation's picture

Damn it Seek.  Do you know how much time I spent looking at that link?  Objectification of women is just so...  Oh fuck that, I am going back to look at it again. 

MeMongo's picture

Damn! Could watch that all day! Thanx eye bleach;)

satoshi101's picture

Bin Laden was the money-man for al-queda under ronald raygun,

Yellen will be the money-woman for prez Hillary-2016

did wonder-woman  have a partner? Like cat-woman?

Who will be Yellens partner in comic?

How about from playboy magazine "Betty Boop" with the huge tit's, that be our HILLARY CLINTON, albeit aged to 120+

jeff montanye's picture

i'm sorry but some errors are just too harmful to ignore.  

betty boop is (she is art and immortal) a spunky, callipygous brunette with reasonable bosoms created in the '30's by max fleischer:

the improbably breasted playboy beauty to whom you refer is the illustrious blonde, little annie fanny:

satoshi101's picture

yep, thanks for the correction, ...hillary clinton as little annie fanny :)

Then show all the dead men around  here, like Vince Foster,... funny everywhere hillary goes she leaves whire male corpses

Seeking Aphids's picture

Up arrow for callipygous..........a new word for me! Thanks Jeff!

MSimon's picture

Mad Magazine. It was subversive once.

Reaper's picture

The front face of the female Janus as Yellin, the goddess of perpetual prodigal spending.    Wait till they see the back face of that female Janus, as Cankles, the goddess of an unending groveling doom.

Spanky's picture

You've ruined WW for me... forever. ;>)