I’m a Ron Paul supporter, but what you have to say is pretty much correct. The arguments about unconstitutional wars I think are strong. But spending a ton of money on the military isn’t unconstitutional.
And I should add that his “wacky foreign policy views” were mainstream conservative thought pre-Kristol.
I’d argue that this was the debate Ron Paul really only would want 89 seconds. Often people object to the wording as much as the underlying policy.
The idea of saving a whole lot of money by cutting back on our bombs budget is appealing to some conservatives though. Some conservatives realize that we’ve got a truly serious budget problem caused by too much spending and instead of a new national sales tax, or, more of the same and hope the problem goes away, we have to make serious cuts. Ron Paul hopes that by giving the Democrats something that they like, and the Republicans something that they like, he will actually be able to make cuts.
I want to see the size of the federal government shrink a lot. I would like to see a lot of cuts. Way too many people work for the government or depend on money from the government. The government does not do a better job at buying stuff for you. You do a better job of buying stuff that you want for you. So the government should just let you keep your own money and buy your own self. The government is not a good personal shopper.
I think we have enough bombs. I didn’t want to buy them. I woulda bought something else with my share of the bombs money.
Thoughtful reply with which I find much to agree with. As someone said: “the problem with the federal government is that it spends to much to buy things we don’t want.”
The problem with RP’s defense budget stance is that it’s not just ‘bombs’ he would cut. Read closely, RP is advocating a massive reduction in troop and unit levels. Of course, personnel is where the money is and not in ‘bombs’. So if he’s really going to reduce defense costs, personnel and units are where you cut.
RP maintains we don’t really need these high strenght levels if all we need do is defend our borders. I agree with that but I do not agree with the strategic concept behind that. I would much rather fight our wars on their territory than upon ours. Seems to make sense to me.
Or course, RP would say that if we don’t station troops abroad then we’ll will have no enemies. I find that to be a strange thought that defies human nature or the world as it is. We will have enemies regardless of what we do.
The leaders of Iran want our destruction not because of our support to Israel or our troops in Iraq or elsewhere. They believe they have a religious obligation to establish muslim rule across the world and see our defeat and conversion to Islamic rule as essential to that. (There is a reason they refer to Israel as the ‘lesser Satan’ and to the US as the ‘greater Satan’.) We have a choice here, we can fight them there or here. Call me ‘old fashioned’ but I’d rather fight them in the streets of Tehran than the streets of Omaha.