Ron Paul: Time to stop spending trillions on war

Texas Rep. Ron Paul in the GOP presidential debate in Tampa, Florida, Sept. 12, 2011.

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul said Monday that America could save trillions of dollars if the country cut funding from wars - "and all the nonsense that we do around the world."

The Texas Representative argued in Monday's Republican presidential debate that, rather than eliminating programs like Social Security and prescription drug benefits for seniors, America could reduce trillions' worth of spending in conflicts abroad .

"I agree that Social Security is broke. We spent all the money and it's on its last legs unless we do something," Paul said, when asked if he thought Social Security was a "Ponzi scheme" - a phrase his GOP contender and fellow Texan Rick Perry has used to describe the entitlement program.

Romney: Perry doesn't deserve credit for Texas job growth
Perry defends law allowing in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants
Bachmann blasts Perry for HPV vaccine mandate
Perry and Romney trade jabs on Social Security

But Paul stopped short of suggesting Social Security should be eliminated, noting instead that "One bill that I had in congress never got passed was to prevent the congress from spending any of that money on the wars and all the nonsense that we do around the world."

Indeed, when asked about repealing a prescription drug benefit plan for seniors, Paul said that despite his initial opposition to the plan, its repeal "sure wouldn't be on my high list" when there were cuts to be found elsewhere.

"We should never have started it; I voted against it," Paul said, of the program. "But that sure wouldn't be on my high list."

"I'd find a lot of cuts a lot of other places," he said. "As a matter of fact, on Social Security, it is already being reformed because the cost of living increases aren't there, so the value is going down. So no, there's places we should cut."

He continued: "I'm not sure I can get anybody to agree with me on this panel, but we spend $1.5 trillion overseas in wars that we don't need to be in and we need to cut there."

Federal Reserve in bullseye at Tea Party debate
Tea Party audience gets into the GOP debate
Debate exchange offers window into larger question about role of health care

[kmk2011]

kind of funny..Americans complain about the money we spend protecting our country yet we spend billions every year on our own personal protection..home security systems..car alarms, locks, guns, pepper spray, etc. lol. Chew on that for a while!

[malcolmkyle]

Due to the tyrannic and mindless actions of prohibitionists, tens of millions of people world-wide (both users and non-users) have been either killed, maimed, incarcerated or had their lives very seriously disrupted. Prohibitionists are solely responsible for an immense increase in violent organized crime, an AIDS Pandemic, the undermining of international development and security and a grave abuse of human rights on a scale barely witnessed in human social history.

Corporate greed and individual bigotry have accelerated us towards a situation where all the usual peaceful and democratic methods needed to reverse the acute damage done by prohibition no longer function as envisaged by the Founding Fathers of our once great and free nation. Such a political impasse coupled with great economic tribulation is precisely that which throughout history has invariably ignited violent revolution.

In order to avert what will surely be a far more violent situation than we are all presently experiencing, there appears to be just one last avenue left to us - Jury Nullification.

Jury Nullification is a constitutional doctrine that allows juries to acquit defendants who are technically guilty, but who don't deserve punishment. All non-violent drug offenders who are not selling to children, be they users, dealers or importers, fall into this category. If you believe that prohibition is a dangerous and counter-productive policy, then you don't have to help to apply it. Under the Constitution, when it comes to acquittals, you, the juror, have the last word!

The idea that jurors should judge the law, as well as the facts, is a proud and vital component of American history.

The most shining example of Jury Nullification occurred during the shameful period in US history when slavery was legal. People who helped slaves escape were committing a federal crime - violation of the Fugitive Slave Act. Jurors would often acquit, even when the defendants admitted their guilt. Legal historians credit these cases with advancing the abolition of slavery.

No amount of money, police powers, weaponry, wishful thinking or pseudo-science will make our streets safer; only an end to prohibition can do that. How much longer are you willing to foolishly risk your own survival by continuing to ignore the obvious, historically confirmed solution? - When called for Jury Service concerning any non-violent prohibition-related offense, it is your moral and civic duty to VOTE TO ACQUIT!

"To function as the founders intended, our republic requires that "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
~ THOMAS JEFFERSON, letter to William Stephens Smith, November 13, 1787.

To avoid such carnage and turmoil on a scale not seen in this land since the 1860s, we may have just one last chance.

If you wish to see 'legal regulation' (prohibition is an insane free-for-all) based on science, public health and sound principles of human rights that will ensure a safe future for your children and grandchildren, PLEASE VOTE TO ACQUIT!

[marisadane]

Wars are the new economy, keep them going and we are doing the devils work. Paul has it right. Too late now, do you think theyre going to cut back on funding them or ending them? Those that rule the world and this country will keep creating more and more wars, the devils are hard at work, too late now.

[noloyalisti]

Even though Paul is a loony tunes, at least he is a consistent looney tunes. He wants to get rid of all government services and includes the military.

The mainstream Republicons love Big Government, Big Debts and government interference, As long as it benefits them and their corporation masters. It's OK for them to do anything they want but no one else can. That is how Republicons roll.

[jetjohn]

Lucy Madison GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT!!!....Social Security is not an ENTITLEMENT PROGRAM!!!!! The U.S. Taxpayers have been paying into Social Security all of our working lives!!!!

[sepa2]

Obama also never talk about the high military spending which amounts to 40% of the budget.

[ejr1953]

When I listen to most of the major presidential candidates talk about The Constitution, I wonder if they've actually read the document. Not so for Ron Paul. Most conservatives are blindly "pro war", in contrast to what you will find if you read Article 1 Section 8 of that document, which clearly defines the role of the military to be one of "defense" (only authorizes a permanent Navy, prevents Congress from funding an Army for more than two years), not the aggressive military we have had all of my 58 years of life.

[lucifersshadow]

Most of them are chickenshits! I can prove that statement. Instead of respecting the enemy, they feared the enemy, were paranoid about the enemy, and as a result of their fear, they are not able to make logical choices regarding how to best deal with the enemy. Osama Bin Ladin opening stated more than once that his objective was to break the economy of the USA by drawing us into prolonged wars, you know, like the giant who struggles to fight off pinpricks until hs is so tired he can no longer move. What proves that they were fear-stricken and did not use their brains is that they never once listened to what the enemy was saying, and instead, rushed in like stupid cowboys into a bar-room brawl. Now we have another stupid cowboy in the White House who needs to be replaced for the nation's sake. Ron Paul has got it right all along, and, we did have a hand in the creation of terrorists.
There were some idiots like Sanitorium who could not grasp what he meant when he said that we caused terrorism ourselves. Well, for all of the ex Bush Nazis, I will explain it in simple language so you can understand. Someone invades the USA, starts killing civilians, invading homes, telling us how to run our government. What do we do? . . . So too with other nations. We had no business attempting nation-building. Invading homes, killing civilians. Then we are so naive as to expect no blow-back? Only the extremely naive or downright ignorant people cannot see this.

[Fraya713]

Ron Paul 2012!!!

Debate Polls
CNN | h ttp://turner.mo2do.net/s/18129/Home

FOX | h ttp://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/06/13/which-candidate-or-would-be-candidate-would-most-like-to-see-debate-obama/

MSNBC | h ttp://ed.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/06/13/6851987-poll-who-won-tonights-gop-debate

[melsulliv]

Sick of media ignoring everyone but the ones they want in.

[RP2K12]

Ron Paul is right!

If we'd quit spending billions bombing and building abroad, we'd have plenty of money for our own citizens.


Democrats, register Republican and vote Ron Paul in the primary. You can vote for whoever you want in the general election, but by voting in the Republican primary we can keep Rick Perry from being the Republican nominee and having Ron Paul on the ballot instead of one of the warmongers.

[melsulliv]

Will do. Might actually vote for Ron over Obama.

[Shaggy Maggie]

YES to that! Ron Paul was booed by that audience (of course) when he cited the reasons given by Osama Bin Laden himself for the 9/11 attacks! He is one of the few with enough courage to say that! The waste alone in Iraq and Afghanistan that has been uncovered is a total disgrace, and we have to have "boots on the ground" in every area we have gained in order to keep it - and will for years and years to come. How much is that going to cost? Our wonderfulo, heroic troops are engaged in the labors of Sysyphis.