Ron Paul Soft on Big Government???

[Whosyer]

It looks like some folks "walk softly and carry a big wooden spoon".

 

[Chefcook]

 

[Denny347]

Interesting how so many gov't affiliated members of INGO (lawyers, cops, politicians, chickenhawks) like/want to bash Ron Paul. Is there a job security/boot stomper issue here?

Not really accurate, I like Ron Paul and I'm a JBT.

 

[jeremy]

Not really accurate, I like Ron Paul and I'm a JBT.

You have to choose to be one or the other...

 

[Expat]

You have to choose to be one or the other...

Seems pretty clear to me that the Paulistas do not welcome rights abusers in their fold.

In fact, they are anxious to see some payback soon.

 

[jeremy]

Seems pretty clear to me that the Paulistas do not welcome rights abusers in their fold.

Careful or they might try yo gang up on you next....

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Attempting to steer this back on track, why do you believe Ron Paul was so soft on Big Government? This is especially confusing to me because, as Mark Steyn says, Paul is one of the few pointing out that the USA is broke.

1. Baby steps, eat the elephant one bite at a time, unrealistic to assume it will all get done in one move?

2. This plan has the most political support in Congress?

3. This plan would cheese the fewest number of people off?

4. Some other motive?

If the USA is as broke as Paul repeatedly says, then why not more dramatic plans than this?

 

[NYFelon]

Not really accurate, I like Ron Paul and I'm a JBT.

I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree. From the majority of your posts I have read, so long as they are truthful (and I see no reason to conclude they are not), you sir are what most officers should strive to be.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I thought Politician was Synonymous for Active Supporters of Big Government...

No, he's synonomous with do nothing but back bench and collect a fat check for 23 years, rising above the railing every four years to run for a position he doesn't understand and has no chance of winning.

 

[ocsdor]

Wanting to cut $ 1 Trillion from the budget doesn't seem soft on big gov't to me.

 

[CarmelHP]

Attempting to steer this back on track, why do you believe Ron Paul was so soft on Big Government? This is especially confusing to me because, as Mark Steyn says, Paul is one of the few pointing out that the USA is broke.

1. Baby steps, eat the elephant one bite at a time, unrealistic to assume it will all get done in one move?

2. This plan has the most political support in Congress?

3. This plan would cheese the fewest number of people off?

4. Some other motive?

If the USA is as broke as Paul repeatedly says, then why not more dramatic plans than this?

Kirk, why are you trying to stir up the natives?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I'm not trying to stir up anyone and I am not unsympathetic to Paul's stated goals.

I just have questions. If I can't ask questions, then what's the point of political discussion? Geez, it's like pulling teeth around here.

 

[88GT]

LOL. In his press conference he said "That's a start." He's gotta win over this party first, most of whom are themselves Big Government supporters.

And if Ron's plan is soft on Big Government, then join me in calling the rest of the candidates active supporters of Big Government.

But when the rest of the candidates offer up "That's a start" plans, they're just big government pawns and socialist-lite because it's not enough? Have to remember that one.

Unfortunately, we lack the manpower and money to actually police the globe. Other nations have lined their pockets and built up their militaries while relying on us for protection instead of actually being partners with us (see Israel, the U.N., NATO) which is a net negative for us as a nation. Our military is to protect the U.S., that's it. It's also for our allies, too, but let me know when we get one of those.

Being able to project power is important: a few crucial foreign bases with a few other backups to form a solid backbone for support is fine so long as it is organized purely to serve our best interests. But we are not capable or responsible for preventing war across the globe.

Nobody says we have to police the world. But I'd like you to tell me what an appropriate level of spending to keep us ready and capable to meet any foe that initiates aggression might be? So just how much cuts are acceptable beyond those eliminating waste and fraud?

Kirk, I'd have to rank this thread somewhere in your bottom 10. And I thoroughly enjoy most of your threads. This one just doesn't deliver.

This is exactly what Rambone does on a daily basis: make specious conclusions about articles that are only loosely connected to the claims being made. Unless you're just disappointed that Kirk stooped that low, I fail to see the problem.

 

[hornadylnl]

I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree. From the majority of your posts I have read, so long as they are truthful (and I see no reason to conclude they are not), you sir are what most officers should strive to be.

This.

 

[Hotdoger]

Wanting to cut $ 1 Trillion from the budget doesn't seem soft on big gov't to me.

Wanting and 24 years in office with little effect sure is stellar.

 

[Bond 281]

But when the rest of the candidates offer up "That's a start" plans, they're just big government pawns and socialist-lite because it's not enough? Have to remember that one.
...
Nobody says we have to police the world. But I'd like you to tell me what an appropriate level of spending to keep us ready and capable to meet any foe that initiates aggression might be? So just how much cuts are acceptable beyond those eliminating waste and fraud?

Most candidates have no real intention of actually reducing government size, no history of supporting limited government, and no real plan to reduce the budget. So, calling them socialist-lite is a very fair and accurate statement.

As for meeting any aggressive foe....there's no country that's possibly able to invade the US. It's essentially strategically impossible. The absolute best any country could possibly do is try to bomb us, and it wouldn't take much of a military presence to have bases where we could retaliate. I see no reason why we have a need to be able to invade any country in the world at a moment's notice.

 

[RockofStrength]

Nobody says we have to police the world. But I'd like you to tell me what an appropriate level of spending to keep us ready and capable to meet any foe that initiates aggression might be? So just how much cuts are acceptable beyond those eliminating waste and fraud?

In the post you quoted, I stated that I believed that only a very few crucial bases, with a limited number of backups to ensure that all our eggs can be spread out a tiny bit are necessary.

We have to ask if we're attempting to be ready to assault any nation on earth at a moment's notice, or are merely trying to maintain a limited foreign presence so that we can join a fight against an army before it reaches our shores. At this point it seems we're attempting to do the former which is simply unreasonable. Doing the latter would mean that we keep many, many more troops at home and ensure that we spend less on foreign bases and more on the means to move troops from place to place in mass numbers.

 

[jmiller676]

Most candidates have no real intention of actually reducing government size, no history of supporting limited government, and no real plan to reduce the budget. So, calling them socialist-lite is a very fair and accurate statement.

As for meeting any aggressive foe....there's no country that's possibly able to invade the US. It's essentially strategically impossible. The absolute best any country could possibly do is try to bomb us, and it wouldn't take much of a military presence to have bases where we could retaliate. I see no reason why we have a need to be able to invade any country in the world at a moment's notice.

What about countries?

The problem I have with Ron Paul is he is not a leader. He has been in office quite a long time and has not rallied any support behind him in order to accomplish what he wants. Don't get me wrong our country is pretty ****ed up but, nobody has stepped up in the quite a while to really go after it.

 

[88GT]

Most candidates have no real intention of actually reducing government size, no history of supporting limited government, and no real plan to reduce the budget. So, calling them socialist-lite is a very fair and accurate statement.

Where do you buy your crystal ball? And why are you wasting such powerful gifts sitting around on INGO?

 

[The Bubba Effect]

Attempting to steer this back on track, why do you believe Ron Paul was so soft on Big Government?

I do not think Paul is soft on Big Government. Even the article you linked in the OP says that it's title is "tongue in cheek".

What indication do you have that Paul is soft on Big Government?