Posted on 06/06/2012 8:21:57 AM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
...wow, you completely miss the point.
The bigger point is that unless there’s something done to get spending not only under control, but below our income THERE WILL BE NO MILITARY.
If something is not done, there will be no money for equipment, nor for pay. It is foolish to think that sour soldiers will stick around w/o being paid.
Ah, no.
It was my point, so I couldn’t have missed it.
Again, my point - Paul and the Tea Party have nothing in common.
Yes they do: responsible spending.
The TEA [Taxed Enough Already] party wants a reduction in taxes, this can only legitimately be achieved through responsible spending (otherwise it is just pushing the problem somewhere else).
Ron Paul has always been for responsible spending — yes, he puts lots of earmarks in bills; though he believes that all fund allocation should be done that way: specific “ear-marks” for specific purposes, rather than a general “this is for ‘infrastructure’” fund — and he has always seen the Federal Reserve as a malicious force, which I believe he is right.
Besides, so long as the government can print/borrow money, and the Fed is one interment facilitating it, they have little incentive to spend responsibly... God help us all when the piper needs paid.
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.