addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-leftarrow-right-10x10arrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscontroller-playcredit-cardcrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobe--smallglobegmailgooglegroupshelp-with-circleimageimagesinstagramFill 1languagelaunch-new-window--smalllight-bulblinklocation-pinlockm-swarmSearchmailmediummessagesminusmobilemoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1ShapeoutlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonprintShapeShapeShapeShapeImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruserwarningyahooyoutube



A former member
Post #: 427
Wednesday, 09 May 2012 05:34

Romney Takes Swipe at Ron Paul’s Budget Blueprint

For a man who seems to have the Republican presidential nomination sewn up, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney’s decision to attack the policies of his only rival who has not dropped out of the race, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), is curious indeed. Paul has proposed slashing $1 trillion from the federal deficit in his first year in office and balancing the budget in three years. He has argued that much of this deficit reduction could be achieved by ending America’s overseas military operations, closing foreign bases, and bringing the troops home. http://www.ronpaul201...­

Romney, however, will have none of it, reports the Washington Times.

“My job is to get America back on track to have a balanced budget,” he told attendees at a suburban Cleveland town hall event Monday. “Now I’m not going to cut $1 trillion in the first year,” he added — a clear jab at Paul’s plan.

“Why not, someone in the crowd apparently asked,” according to the Times.

“The reason,” Romney explained, “is taking a trillion dollars out of a $15 trillion economy would cause our economy to shrink [and] would put a lot of people out of work.”

This, of course, is pure Keynesian economics — the idea that the economy cannot grow without massive government spending. History proves otherwise: The economy stagnated while the government spent more and more during the Great Depression, but it took off when federal spending plummeted after World War II.

For all his vaunted business acumen, Romney has apparently forgotten that the government cannot spend $1 trillion without first taking it from the private sector. Therefore, if the government fails to spend that money, it is not being taken out of the economy; it is merely being left in the hands of its rightful owners. As a result, it gets put to use meeting people’s needs and improving their standard of living. When the government takes it, however, it is used to meet politicians’ desires for reelection by redistributing wealth and rewarding political cronies. One trillion dollars left in the private sector will do infinitely more good than that same cash will do when confiscated by government.

That Romney believes money is better spent by bureaucrats than by businessmen is evident from his own budget blueprint. Romney, says the Times, “has laid out a fiscal plan that aims to cap federal spending at 20 percent of GDP and bring the budget into balance by 2020,” taking four more years than Paul to balance the budget and leaving spending as a higher percentage of GDP (Paul has proposed limiting it to 15.5 percent).

Yet Romney’s plan, unlike Paul’s, is light on specifics; and by starting with very modest objectives, he is likely to achieve next to nothing once the necessary political compromises occur. Moreover, even if he were to get everything he claims to want, the national debt would still grow $2.6 trillion by 2021, according to U.S. Budget Watch. Paul, by contrast, would actually reduce the debt by $2 trillion, the organization calculates. http://www.ronpaul201...­

In addition, while Paul is unafraid to confront the military-industrial complex — “The one thing we have to come to realize is military spending is not equivalent to defense spending,” he said last October — Romney is a full-throated supporter of it. The Times notes that he “opposes cuts to military spending, which currently accounts for about 18 percent of federal outlays.” Romney, the paper continues, “drove the point home” at a Virginia campaign stop last week, where he said “he will add new ships to the U.S. Navy, add new aircraft to the Air Force and add 100,000 active duty personnel.” Thus, Romney not only has declared almost one-fifth of the federal budget off limits but also has proposed expanding it — hardly the mark of a serious budget cutter.

Why, one wonders, has Romney decided to distance himself from Paul’s budget proposals at this time? Is he trying to assure the electorate at large that, unlike his most conservative rival for the GOP nomination, he is a moderate who won’t threaten any of their favorite government programs? Or is he trying to send a message to the Paul camp, to wit: No matter how many convention delegates your man racks up — and Paul has been doing quite well for himself in this regard lately — his ideas will not be considered by either the Republican Party or a Romney administration?

Whatever the reason for Romney’s sudden urge to denounce Paul’s plan, it provides further evidence that the GOP is once again preparing to offer voters no real alternative to the Democratic candidate for President. It was, after all, Obama’s then-budget director, Jacob Lew, who declared in February that “the time for austerity is not today.”
Romney, it appears, is an echo, not a choice.

A former member
Post #: 428

This is How WE Take Back AMERICA!!
A former member
Post #: 429
The "Anyone but Obama" Mentality and Why It Is Destroying our Political Process!
Submitted by principle_first on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 09:33
Ron Paul 2012
I do not support a second term for Barack Obama. With that said, I want to comment on this "anyone but Obama" mentality that seems to be a popular campaign slogan for the Republican party. I have a lot of beef with this. It is not because I don't agree that Obama is steering this country in the wrong direction. It is because I don't believe that any Republican would be better than him. This kind of logic says - at least to me - that the Republican party is the answer. I have no faith in any party and this logic only strengthens the two party system which I despise greatly. "Anyone but Obama" is an ambiguous statement that has no meaning to me. I don't want just anyone. I want a president with principles and who respects our individual liberties.

People need to question their allegiances to their parties. The Democrat/Republican seesaw that has been our political process for over a century is a problem that has been destroying this country from the inside out. I'm no scholar when it comes to history but you might benefit from reading George Washington's farewell address. He speaks about the growing influence of political parties in detail. He argues that political parties must be restrained in a popularly elected government because of their tendency to distract the government from their duties, create unfounded jealousies among groups and regions, raise false alarms amongst the people, promote riots and insurrection, and provide foreign nations and interests access to the government where they can impose their will upon the country (Wikipedia "George Washington's Farewell Address"). This is coming from the first president of the United States. Wake up people! Something has got to change! We can no longer 'hope' for it or it will never come!
A former member
Post #: 430
In 2004, Republicans railed against someone who was perceived as an out-of-touch Massachusetts elitist. Enough independents agreed with this sentiment to defeat John Kerry and re-elect a still unpopular George W. Bush. Already, Democrats are railing against the establishment GOP frontrunner as an out-of-touch Massachusetts elitist. Still, Republicans are simply banking on Obama’s unpopularity.

But like 2004, will this be  enough for Republicans to win?

The latest Rasmussen poll shows Ron Paul tied with President Obama, with both men scoring 42% of the general electorate vote. But what does this mean? Simple: Paul represents something far and away different from both the Democratic and Republican establishments and the American people know it. Better yet, they like it.

But does the GOP get this? Like 2004, Americans are simply not satisfied with the two establishment candidates. What is it about Ron Paul that attracts people from across every imaginable ideological, religious, racial and political background? What is it about a message of  individual freedom, peace and prosperity that continues to excite so many Americans?

This isn’t the first time Ron Paul has measured up well against the President in a poll. Instead of ignoring him, Republicans better start figuring out why only Ron Paul continues to generate the kind of excitement both  parties just can’t seem to muster.
A former member
Post #: 431
This is the Most Extensive
Collection of Freedom Videos
Ever Compiled:

John Perna
My email is:   
JPerna at
which, if not censored, will show as: 
Are you looking for a book about defending liberty?
Many rare and out of print books are still available.
Look here:
Then look here:­
If you get a message that says "address is not valid"
then copy and paste the address into the address bar.
Please Watch these videos: 
Invisible Empire - full version NWO video An absolutely amazing expose' of the power brokers of the world: No criminal tyrant left behind.
 Police State 4 The Rise of FEMA
Camp FEMA: American Lockdown - FULL MOVIE 

The Obama Deception HQ Full length version­    
The American Dream - a very important video­    (NOT CLICKABLE)
Freedom or Slavery? 
Understand your choice and your duty.
One Video that says it ALL - the VERY BEST
Ron Paul: The Only One We Can Trust­
A Day In The Park - coming soon­   

Ron Paul 2012 - Can you Hear us Now?­   
9/11: A Conspiracy Theory­
A former member
Post #: 432
user 9090133
Kenner, LA
Post #: 3,046
A former member
Post #: 2
He is NOT out of the race for the president. The campaign is simply not going to spend money on primary voters and beauty contests. The campaign email he sent out specifically notes that they will continue to campaign to win state conventions and RNC delegates.

Unsurprising after two straight weeks of wins: Maine, Nevada, Oklahoma, Arizona...7 more this Saturday :)
A former member
Post #: 433
Thats right Jason we are in it to win it and there is no fiscal conservatism wasting resources on black box voting outcomes. When the people are allowed to physically see the voting on paper it shows the TRUE will of the voter! We are taking back America!! Viva r3VOLution!
A former member
Post #: 163
That's the way I understood it in the T.P. (Toilet Paper) Today, Ron Paul STILL in the Race but NOT spending anymore money cause he just doesn't have the MILLIONS and MILLIONS to go on. At this point in the campaign, I don't see any reason why anyone would spend much money if any. The people that are NOT paying attention will 'probably' NOT WAKE UP before Election anyway.
Powered by mvnForum

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy