Skip to comments.Romney rejects Ron Paul-style austerity, will increase military spending
Posted on 05/09/2012 8:12:08 AM PDT by Gennie
You can almost hear the collective gasp from Ron Paul's loyal band of supporters.
Speaking Monday at a town hall style-meeting event in Cleveland, presumptive GOP presidential Mitt Romney plunged a fork into the idea that he could come around to embracing Mr. Paul's call for deep cuts in federal spending.
"My job is to get America back on track to have a balanced budget. Now I'm not going to cut $1 trillion in the first year," he said, distancing himself from Mr. Paul's (http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2011/oct/19/paul-time-cut-spending/) plan to slice more than a quarter of the estimated $3.8 trillion being spent by the the federal government.
Why not, someone in the crowd apparently asked, sparking a response from the former Massachusetts governor.
"The reason," he explained, "is taking a trillion dollars out of a $15 trillion economy would cause our economy to shrink [and] would put a lot of people out of work."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Why should we be surprised that a Big Government Libe(R)al wants to spend other people’s money like it’s free? This is no shock — this is Not News.
Commander in Chief is the primary role of the President and providing for the common defense is one of the primary Constitutional mandates to government. One of the main reasons most dont take paul sqeriously for this role is his irrational call to reduce the military to “one or two submarines”.
Military spending is not a problem as it is mandated by the Consitution. Romney is going to cut domestic spending.
Anyone who really believes overall spending will be cut by Romney or just about anyone else is an idiot.
Same old song and dance, cut spending in one place while increasing elsewhere.
> Romney is going to cut domestic spending.
We shall see.
I rather prefer Barry Goldwater's approach:
"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is 'needed' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' 'interests', I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can."
Barry Goldwater (Conscience of a Conservative, 1960)
We shall see how "conservative" Mr. Romney is, should he get the chance to prove it. I'm not holding my breath.
I don’t want my tax dollars spent on securing Japan, Spain, Korea, Eastern Europe, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afganistan, Germany, France, England.
Let these free-loader countries pay for their freakin’ own defense for a change!
There is a recent poll (perhaps Reuters) which shows if Ron Paul enters the race as a 3rd party he would droaw frpm Onama because of Pauls opposition on end all wars. Leading to a Romney win . Can this be the ploy Romney will use to negate the “conservativeo” in the GOP and entrench GOPE ?
Dangerous game ...
He would have an ally in Congress, mainly Paul Ryan.
Classic Keynesian argument. I thought Mitt knew how to fix the economy. The threat to our economy is massive government spending, do we really want to get our economy further hooked on government spending like Europe, and continue to careen over a fiscal cliff (that even Ben Bernanke can see)? Somebody put him on the phone with Walter E. Williams, the man needs a lesson in Conservative Economics.
Ron Paul is a loon.
Military spending for the common defense is one of the few absolute requirements in the Constitution.
One may argue about the offshoots, such as nation-building and "defending ourselves halfway around the world". But in general, our military is one of the best places we can spend our federal money.
Outpost bases is an ancient and efficient strategy of helping keep fires in another area from blowing up and spreading to your homeland. It is a lot cheaper to have a presence in South Korea, for example than letting a massive regional war erupt and eventually reach us.
But what the heck. McCain ran against... I don't actually know who he ran against. Certainly he didn't run against Obumbu. That would have risky. Might have had to say something negative about a Holy Black Man. Maybe he was running against Adlai Stevenson.
Romney == McCain.
with upto 50% unemployment among “yoots”, as Rush calls them, why would it be a problem to find recruits for the military?
My nieces came out of the military with a good basket of benefits, including absorption of aeronautical know-how.
Any shaking noises resembling an etch-a-sketch coming from Romney's campaign is purely coincidental. But wait, there is a silver lining to this cloud! is now the RNC can denounce the Julia add of Barrack Obama's campaign that talks incessantly of how the Romney/Ryan budget will make life hard on Julia. Now Romney can run an add about how he will spend even more on Julia. Brilliant electioneering!
In theory, I agree with you, but it still runs up our national debt and drains our economy. I have the deepest respect for those that serve, and I believe in a more Teddy Roosevelt/ Ronald Reagan idea of our military’s existence. Is this just a brilliant way to decrease unemployment and put them on the Federal Payroll?
The libertarian in me asks against what enemy do we need to have a larger standing army than we do now? It also suggests you look for the phrase standing army in the Constitution and see if maybe the founding father's didn't have a problem with the idea.
I’m not going to argue with the benefits military service can embue on a child(soon to be an adult after the first day of basic from what I hear). But I think we can all agree we would rather have soldiers that feel it is their patriotic duty to serve and not just people that enlist because they have no other choice. Thank your nieces for their service from a random internet Guy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.