Ron Paul is the only fiscal conservative running for president on a major-party ticket

I want to preface my argument by saying that I agree with clsmooth that government spending should be restrained and taxes should be cut. However, I disagree with his rhetoric. What my opponent has done is frame his argument, not in terms of practicality, but in terms of radical extremism. A $150 billion dollar cut, while, in many ways, could be considered a very good things, is impractical. I think that we can all agree that such a cut will never pass Congress, even if Ron Paul was President. Thus, a politician, such as Ron Paul, who promises such a radical spending cut is either practicing extreme rhetoric in order to garner votes, or is greatly disillusioned. Secondly, my opponent ignores the democratic spirit of America. The huge federal government that America has is the product of the people, and is very much supported by the people. There is a reason why Social Security and Medicare and welfare remain as government sponsored programs--because the people want them. While I personally believe that such programs are bad, there is a very significant majority of Americans who like the programs, thus, for better or worse, they are here to stay. Crunching the numbers from the 2005 budget, a person will find that the programs such as welfare, health care, and social security made up over 50% of the budget, or $1418.4 billion. Defense spending, which many conservative are calling an increase for, and is especially necessary in this time of war against Islamo-facists and an aggressive Iran and China, made cost $600.1 billion. Since a defense cut, especially under the current circumstances, would not pass a Congress where the Republicans had filibustering power, it the $600.1 billion is likely to remain, as well a the $241 billion for interest spending, the running of government, and internal security. That leaves just $212.7 billion to be cut from education, transportaion/infrastructure, and other spending. I would argue that it is unrealistic for any cuts of above $50 billion from this group--as they constitute hugely popular government programs. Thus, the question I have for Ron Paul, and clsmooth is, where will you cut the money? For these reasons, it is my belief that Ron Paul is not a fiscal conservative, but, rather, a fiscal extremists. While I disagree with government spending in general, I believe that fiscal promises should be practical. Both Romney and Huckabee have promised to cut taxes, as well as reduce unnecessary government spending. Such promises, I believe, fall within the pall of reality. In addition, my opponent's belief that a tax cut will only be a true tax break if combined with a spending cut is a simplification. The Laffer Curve shows a much better picture. In short, a society that is on the left-side of the curve is producing less government revenue because of overtaxation, which leads to less incentive to work and produce taxable revenue and income. A cut in taxes, according to the curve, would then result in greater revenue. Thus, a tax break, in today's tax enviroment, could be equated to an increase in federal revenue, thus providing for the necessary government funding without any more taxes, direct or indirect. 2005 budget breakdown: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...