Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Romney rejects Ron Paul-style austerity, will increase military spending
Washington Times ^ | May 7, 2012 | Seth McLaughlin

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: cuts; military; paul; romney

1 posted on 05/09/2012 8:12:22 AM PDT by Gennie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Gennie

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.


2 posted on 05/09/2012 8:16:33 AM PDT by dayglored (Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gennie

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”.


3 posted on 05/09/2012 8:17:51 AM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dayglored

Military spending is not a problem as it is mandated by the Consitution. Romney is going to cut domestic spending.


4 posted on 05/09/2012 8:18:23 AM PDT by DarthVader (Politicians govern out of self interest, Statesmen govern for a Vision greater than themselves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Romney?


5 posted on 05/09/2012 8:19:08 AM PDT by NoRedTape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Gennie
add 100,000 active duty personnel

Is this something that a president can just snap his fingers and do? Don't you have to have a pool of recruits that large before you can fill it? Someone on here with a military background needs to tell me how this is done, or just a transparent speech point.
6 posted on 05/09/2012 8:20:01 AM PDT by HenryArmitage (it was not meant that we should voyage far.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gennie

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.


7 posted on 05/09/2012 8:21:52 AM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DarthVader
> Military spending is not a problem as it is mandated by the Consitution.

Agreed whole-heartedly.

> 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.

8 posted on 05/09/2012 8:21:52 AM PDT by dayglored (Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

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!


9 posted on 05/09/2012 8:22:09 AM PDT by broken_arrow1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Gennie

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 ...


10 posted on 05/09/2012 8:22:41 AM PDT by mosesdapoet (The best way to punish a - country is let professors run it. Fredrick the Great p/p)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

He would have an ally in Congress, mainly Paul Ryan.


11 posted on 05/09/2012 8:25:33 AM PDT by Perdogg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Gennie
"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."


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.

12 posted on 05/09/2012 8:26:12 AM PDT by Idaho_Cowboy (Ride for the Brand. Joshua 24:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mnehring
> 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”.

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.

13 posted on 05/09/2012 8:30:02 AM PDT by dayglored (Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: broken_arrow1

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.


14 posted on 05/09/2012 8:30:19 AM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Gennie
Romney can run against Ron Paul if he likes. Unfortunately Mr. Paul is not our current President.

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.

15 posted on 05/09/2012 8:30:38 AM PDT by Steely Tom (If the Constitution can be a living document, I guess a corporation can be a person.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HenryArmitage

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.


16 posted on 05/09/2012 8:33:04 AM PDT by entropy12 (You betcha I won't do anything to help the dog eating, crack smoking socialist thug from Chicago)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Gennie
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.

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!

17 posted on 05/09/2012 8:33:27 AM PDT by Idaho_Cowboy (Ride for the Brand. Joshua 24:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DarthVader
Military spending is not a problem as it is mandated by the Consitution. Romney is going to cut domestic spending.

Spending for defense is great. Spending for the sake of your contractor friends that are in the war industry not so much. We can and must spend smarter in our military. We already have a standing army and technology to defend our borders from invasion from ANY THREAT, but we do not place them at our border. No one will argue with spending for defense, but there has to be a point that we see that any further spending does nothing to increase our defense, right? Just because we are allowed to spend on something does not mean that we shouldn't do it wisely.
18 posted on 05/09/2012 8:35:23 AM PDT by HenryArmitage (it was not meant that we should voyage far.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DarthVader
Military spending is not a problem as it is mandated by the Consitution. Romney is going to cut domestic spending.

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.

19 posted on 05/09/2012 8:42:14 AM PDT by Idaho_Cowboy (Ride for the Brand. Joshua 24:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: entropy12

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.


20 posted on 05/09/2012 8:42:41 AM PDT by HenryArmitage (it was not meant that we should voyage far.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: HenryArmitage

If nothing else, the responses on this thread are a great example of why RINOs like Romney are dangerous. “Conservatives” lack the moral courage to oppose them and happily encourage more military spending as some kind of federal jobs program. I’m not making any judgements on whether military spending needs to be increased or decreased but our founders warned against both debt and unnecessary military action.


21 posted on 05/09/2012 8:43:27 AM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: DarthVader
Military spending is not a problem as it is mandated by the Consitution.

Agree. It's one of the few things the federal government should be doing. No further cuts in defense spending are needed, and I am fine with Romney increasing the budget to acquire new weapons platforms.

Romney is going to cut domestic spending.

I seriously doubt it. He might slow the increases in spending, but I don't think Romney will be an aggressive budget cutter.

Still, Romney could turn out to be the RINO squish many fear and he'd still be vastly better than Obama.

22 posted on 05/09/2012 8:45:13 AM PDT by Longbow1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
Our task is simple really:

1. Remove Obama

Then:
2. Close our borders and enforce existing immigration laws
3. Mandate that Congress obey it's own laws
4. Make English the language of America
5. Stop benefits to non-citizens
6. Make drug screening mandatory for welfare recipients

These steps would go a long way to funding a strong defense and balancing our budget and there are a lot of candidates out there who are strong on these measures. We need to support them. It is the citizens' job to build a strong congress that supports our constitution.

23 posted on 05/09/2012 8:51:28 AM PDT by Baynative (Please check this out - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFIcZkEzc8I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

From what I have read with the whole NKorea/SKorea thing that battle would pretty much be started and ended in a few hours with Seoul in ashes and NKorea a glass parkinglot. This is before we can even get a plane in the air. In past wars/conflicts an outposts main job was to communicate the current situation to a central intellegence, is that as critical now that information can travel from one end of the world to another in moments?


24 posted on 05/09/2012 8:51:58 AM PDT by HenryArmitage (it was not meant that we should voyage far.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Gennie
Mr. Romney drove home that point, saying he will add new ships to the U.S. Navy, add new aircraft to the Air Force and add 100,000 active duty personnel.

Excellent! This is a campaign commercial in itself.

This Bachmann-turned-Santorum supporter is now solidly in Willard's camp, and I'll be sending him (a small amount of) money, and I'll look for other (legal and ethical) ways to support the man, in this, the most critical election of my, my kids' (who currently wear our Country's uniform), and my grandkids' time.

.

25 posted on 05/09/2012 8:53:33 AM PDT by Seaplaner (Never give in. Never give in. Never...except to convictions of honour and good sense. W. Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

You be careful now, calling Romney out will get those Romneyboots kicking at you for being a liberal troll/BHO supporter in disguise.
;-)


26 posted on 05/09/2012 8:58:16 AM PDT by svcw (If one living cell on another planet is life, why isn't it life in the womb?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: svcw
You be careful now, calling Romney out will get those Romneyboots kicking at you for being a liberal troll/BHO supporter in disguise. ;-)

LOL if I were easily intimidated by the mob I would be a democrat.
27 posted on 05/09/2012 9:02:06 AM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: DarthVader

I will make this prodiction here and now! The federal budget will not decrease in real spending by a single dime, in fact the budget will increase YOY as long as Romney or Obama is president. Romney will only cut the projected spending under the democrat’s.


28 posted on 05/09/2012 9:10:12 AM PDT by qman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Idaho_Cowboy

I thought Mitt knew how to fix the economy. The threat to our economy is massive government spending . . . . . . .
___________________________________________________________

No sir the major problem is hardly government spending. The problem is the government borrowing.

As it is I don’t see a good way out of the financial hole we are in. I studied economics in college, it was one of my majors. There are no simple solutions, but, you have to have full employment to combat debt. If we were to take 5% off the unemployment roles we just might with the help of high inflation pay off the debt with out a default.

What we and the Europeans have done is hardly Keynesian economics. Keynes taught that the government could have a positive effect and stimulate the economy but the effect would be small and must be used sparingly. What our government has done is taken over the economy, hardly Keynesian, even though they call it that.

Right now the whole world uses dollars, it soon will not and our dollar will become worthless in the world, the intention I fear of President Obama. If we can start producing again, raise tax revenues substantially and cut borrowing we may survive with the dollar diminished but still there. Mind you I didn’t say raise taxes I said raise tax revenues, they are not the same. Our taxes are too high. Make the top rate of taxes in the 20-25% range and the economy will catch fire. Get rid of business/corporate tax and the world will flock here to build and create, we would have a shortage of labor, less than 3% unemployment. We would be hiring people heretofore considered unemployable.

You have to have a strong military if you want strong international commerce. If you don’t have a strong military then you have to depend on someone else for safety in the world, who can we depend on?

I believe the first duty of our government is to protect us, not to feed, cloth and house us. Certainly not to take care of our health. Our founding fathers decided that education was important but did nothing for it in the federal organization, they surely thought the land was important but did nothing to protect it, they left it to the states. The federal government has over shot its mandate. We don’t need a Department of Health and Human Services, we don’t need a Department of Education or a an Environmental Protection Agency. We don’t need to send dollars from Florida to protect Snail Darters in California.

IF Romney wins and that is indeed a big IF, and he does reduce government overall while increasing the military that Obama has shredded I for one will be thrilled.

We have to stop borrowing. Borrowing is simply a way for Bureaucrats and the power brokers to lavishly supply money to their friends the bankers. Thomas Jefferson was right, we should have never had a central bank that could create money.

Romney is not a lawyer, he is a business man and should understand how finance works, I hope he does and that congress will give him what he needs, if he wins.


29 posted on 05/09/2012 9:10:25 AM PDT by JAKraig (Surely my religion is at least as good as yours)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Seaplaner

yes we need lots of 135 million a peace F35s and at only 4 billion each the Zumwalt destroyer is a great deal.


30 posted on 05/09/2012 9:22:03 AM PDT by jpsb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Gennie

OMG that was the only thing I agreed with Ron Paul on was cutting all those programs and spending...

Romney pisses me off more and more each and every day....

If Sarah Palin doesn’t run for the Constitution Party I may have to vote for Gary Johnson.

The Whig party (GOP Elite) is really starting to annnoy me.


31 posted on 05/09/2012 9:27:41 AM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: broken_arrow1

[ 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! ]

In a way because those countries didn’t have to spend as much for their own self defense this enabled them to spend more money on the “national drug” known as “social programs” which led to their bankruptcy.


32 posted on 05/09/2012 9:35:56 AM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: JAKraig
You are quite true on the lack of following Keynes's theory. We only use half of it, government's are great at dis-saving, not so good at saving.

The problem is without a major tax increase, which comes with major economic problems, you can't cut borrowing without cutting spending. If try, as alluded to, you have to monetize the deficit which causes massive inflation. I think that's the fear of those who are afraid the dollar will quit being the major international currency is that we will devalue it too quickly and countries will begin to trade in safer currency.

I agree whole heatedly on your thoughts on the tax rate being too high and actually causing tax revenue to be lower. Are you aware of any studies that indicate what the optimal tax rate would be in the United States?

33 posted on 05/09/2012 9:42:19 AM PDT by Idaho_Cowboy (Ride for the Brand. Joshua 24:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Gennie

Austerity should only be applied to funds earmarked for those targeted by Rep. Ryan, it shouldn’t be applied to reducing our role as world military policeman and nation builder. Really?


34 posted on 05/09/2012 9:54:50 AM PDT by ex-snook ("above all things, truth beareth away the victory")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gennie
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."

This is frustrating. Romney should know that we are not taking 1 trillion out of the economy. We are taking 1 trillion out of government and putting it into the private sector. Presumably which will create jobs and investments according to wants and needs of people (markets) and not according to bureaucrats (government) picking winners and losers.

35 posted on 05/09/2012 10:28:13 AM PDT by 11th Commandment (http://www.thirty-thousand.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Idaho_Cowboy
I thought Mitt knew how to fix the economy.

Nope, he already proved how badly he impacts an economy in Massachusetts with its massive tax/fee hikes and ranking 47th in job creation during his time.

the man needs a lesson in Conservative Economics.

He's a politician from Massachusetts. He doesn't believe in conservatism and doesn't govern as a conservative. He never has and never will. All he knows how to do is say he's a conservative. That is apparently enough for most people.

36 posted on 05/09/2012 12:32:32 PM PDT by JediJones (From the makers of Romney, Bloomberg/Schwarzenegger 2016. Because the GOP can never go too far left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: 11th Commandment

Frustrating maybe, but it shouldn’t be surprising. Romney has consistently touted liberal economic policy throughout the primaries and governed that way in Massachusetts. You don’t create Romneycare unless you believe in socialism and the ability of big government to solve people’s problems by taxing and spending. Romney is identical to John Kerry and Ted Kennedy in his economic views. Here are some of Mitt’s other greatest economic policy hits:

* Raised taxes/fees to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars in Massachusetts

* Massachusetts ranked 47th out of 50 in job creation under his tenure as governor

* Campaigned on taxes staying higher on people making $200,000 or more; even Obama only wants them higher on $250,000 or more

* The Wall Street Journal said his tax plan was “timid” and similar to Obama’s

* Said the poor are doing just fine by being stuck in the safety net and he isn’t concerned with them, doesn’t apparently believe they can or should get off welfare

* Waffled on John Kasich’s efforts in Ohio to curb union abuses

* Taxpayer-funded abortion and Planned Parenthood in Romneycare


37 posted on 05/09/2012 12:41:01 PM PDT by JediJones (From the makers of Romney, Bloomberg/Schwarzenegger 2016. Because the GOP can never go too far left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: mnehring
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.

Kinda' like when my wife tells me how much money she saved by buying things we don't need because they were on sale! We have nukes and drones that can spread a lot of pain to the enemy in a short time-frame WITHOUT boots on the ground....and we have new delivery systems that can get them there within hours not days. SEND ALL OUR TROOPS HOME AND PUT THEM ON THE SOUTHERN BORDER!

38 posted on 05/09/2012 12:41:13 PM PDT by broken_arrow1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: jpsb
LOL, although it appears that you were being sarcastic, my FRiend, I agree with what you wrote.

Freedom is not free, and military superiority is a bargain compared with true costs of the alternative.

.

39 posted on 05/09/2012 2:17:50 PM PDT by Seaplaner (Never give in. Never give in. Never...except to convictions of honour and good sense. W. Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Idaho_Cowboy

I agree whole heatedly on your thoughts on the tax rate being too high and actually causing tax revenue to be lower. Are you aware of any studies that indicate what the optimal tax rate would be in the United States?

__________________________________________________________

Historically, at somewhere between 20%-25% you have diminishing returns in either direction.

I hate inflation. That being said, and as horrible as it is it is the only way out of this mess. People have every right to fear inflation, it robbs money of its value.

Put your money into something tangible that will hold its value. The experts have gone to gold only because they know very high inflation is coming, much too high for interest rates to keep up. I have been telling people for years “get rid of your cash”.

You have, maybe, until the election, after that I expect to see inflation going through the roof. It has to happen, the money is already out there just waiting to be spent.

If Romney decreases taxes and regulations business will take off. Higher employment will put even more money into the system. It will be at least as bad as the Carter years. I bought a house back then at 16-1/2%. Holy cow I couldn’t wait to dump that loan. It will happen again. The bankers will get rich off the inflation, the government will go wild with the extra dollars from inflation and we will be the ones to pay for it with higher rates of tax, and inflation eating at our paychecks which won’t be able to come close to keeping up.

Convert your dollars into silver or gold NOW! It will SOON be too late.

Good luck!


40 posted on 05/09/2012 2:21:03 PM PDT by JAKraig (Surely my religion is at least as good as yours)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: HenryArmitage

My feeling on the patriotic issue is, many go in for the benefits, but come out much more patriotic than before.


41 posted on 05/09/2012 4:23:47 PM PDT by entropy12 (You betcha I won't do anything to help the dog eating, crack smoking socialist thug from Chicago)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Gennie

Well, at least Romney is right on talking about the need for national defense. We’ll see as the campaign goes on what he means by that.


42 posted on 05/10/2012 8:40:12 AM PDT by darrellmaurina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gennie

The GOP establishment are all Keynesians.


43 posted on 05/10/2012 12:19:39 PM PDT by B Knotts (Just another Tenther)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DarthVader
Military spending is not a problem as it is mandated by the Consitution.

Huh? So, because Congress has authority to declare war, there is no limit to how much we should spend? Not sure I follow you there.

Surely, there is some reasonable limit on how much we spend on defense, allowing for national security needs. Don't think for a minute that the armed forces are exempt from the governmental tendency to waste money.

George W. Bush promised in 2000 to stop "nation building" because of Clinton's record in places like Somalia and Bosnia. As conservatives, we still believe in some limits on how far we extend our military, don't we? Even more than our money, we should be especially protective the lives of Americans in the armed forces who protect us.

Also, if we are to go to war, let us go to war, all the way, and without tying the hands of the military to actually win. That has been a problem in recent years.

44 posted on 05/10/2012 12:27:37 PM PDT by B Knotts (Just another Tenther)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Gennie
Romney's a big government Republican, so this doesn't surprise me. Mindlessly growing the defense budget is not conservative, btw. We don't need a massive Cold War military right now, we need a lean, surgical force that can capably handle the threat of international terrorism and Islamic radicalism.

The dollars we borrow to pay for unnecessary defense programs are just as expensive and difficult to pay back as the dollars we borrow to pay for the left's projects. And while just about everyone here honors the people who have worn the uniform, the military should never be used as a make-work program. We should spend what we need to spend on defense to protect this country, and not a penny more.

45 posted on 05/10/2012 3:09:10 PM PDT by BearArms
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson