Skip to comments.Paul Touts Spending Cuts ... (Meet the Press, legal video at link)
Posted on 10/23/2011 12:12:45 PM PDT by Kurt Evans
In a wide-ranging interview on Meet the Press today, Ron Paul talked about his plan to cut $1 trillion in spending, his hope that the government will eventually get out of the housing market, and his frustration at the U.S. military intervention in the Middle East.
Paul also lamented the uselessness of some of the arguments in the GOP primary debates.
I mean, arguing over who mows Mitt Romneys lawn, Paul said. In the midst of a crisis, a sovereign debt worldwide crisis, the biggest in the history of the world, and the financial system of the world is about to collapse. Were about to have another devaluation of our credit rating. This is serious, and no control in the spending.
Were going to have to get a hand on this, Paul added. We have to quit worrying over whos mowing Mitt Romneys yard.
Dr Paul is really good at mentioning the Constitution in every other sentence. Actually following the Constitution in his political dealings....not so much.
Moron? Well....I love you too. Could you be more specific on how I am mistaken? All the Best, CK
In practical terms, the several hundred miles long southern border without a physical barrier is tantamount to an open border. Have you seen the video’s of unauthorized people crossing the border, many carrying illegal drugs and arms?
A simple answer to your question about earmarks. The Constituiton is quite clear that all budgets have to be approved by Congress. Elimination of earmarks, under most proposals, would centralize that power unconstitutionally in the executive branch.
Ron’s general policy regarding Israel is the same as his general policy toward every other nation in the world. How does that sound like discrimination against Jews?
You could do the research yourself but I doubt you have the stones to do so.
I’ve not seen this. Could you be more specific to help me research it.
Let it go, CK. You won. :)
Words are wind, actions matter. Dr Paul talks a good game but that is all it is, talk.
Yes, I’ve seen those videos, but I think most people understand the phrase “open borders” to mean unrestricted immigration, which Ron doesn’t support.
He is the only Republican candidate with campaign posters being carried by the OWS crowd. That’s kind of a turn off for me....just saying.
Ok, uh how bout specifics. I’m not even sure what your talking about.
10th amendment - States rights.
Actually I wouldn’t even say he talks a good game anymore. He’s become careless because his followers aren’t the most questioning bunch.
I used to think he would make a fine treasury secretary but these days I’m not sure he can be trusted with that.
Very few, if anyone has been held to account for this monumental fiscal mismanagement.
There are some that channel their anger at the wrong entities...uninformed if you will.
I don't support the occupy thing, but I'm damn upset about the mismanagement of our tax dollars...by republicans,democrats, treasury, federal reserve, bankers and so forth.
How’z this Paul's fault. I mean, really.
I think it’s a mistake to base your political opinions on the actions of the OWS crowd. Just saying.
Can you point to a single vote Ron has cast in the last 35 years that you believe is inconsistent with the Tenth Amendment?
I think it’s a mistake to put your faith in a politician. Like it or not politicians are judged by their supporters all the time...mostly with good reason!!!Just saying.
Every other nation is not surrounded by muslim nations wanting to wipe them off the face of the earth! Israel is a sovereign nation that needs the support of its allies, just as it has supported and been a trustworthy ally of the US.
So you believe we should stop supporting Israel when Iran wants to go nuclear? When Iran wants Israel gone?
This nation must not turn its back on Israel now, or ever.
Wow, you’re a real sweet guy aren’t you.
When did not giving someone our federal tax dollars become the same as turning the nation’s back on them? Why are so many conservatives unable to see the fallacy here?