Ron Pauls solution for everything is "bring the troops home"

Remodeling Maidiac

Diamond Member
Jun 13, 2011
100,746
45,417
2,315
Kansas City
As nice as that would be the wars have only cost us as much as Obamas deficit this year. He has no depth to his platform. Im watching the debate now and that has been his answer to EVERY QUESTION.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #2
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHEkbH0MF-I&feature=player_profilepage]Why Ron Paul can't be president - YouTube[/ame]
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #6
Whatever dude. I'm gunna go start threads that hate on the globalist Perry and Romney because all they keep repeating is how Vaccines are good and Which ones got better hair!

here I go to be part of the "cool" people!
 
As nice as that would be the wars have only cost us as much as Obamas deficit this year. He has no depth to his platform. Im watching the debate now and that has been his answer to EVERY QUESTION.
Dr. Paul isn't only talking about the two stupid nation building misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan....The presence of America's troops has been propping up the welfare states in Germany (along with the rest of central Europe), England, Japan and South Korea for decades.
 
Consolidating overseas bases and bringing most of the troops stationed overseas stateside would be a pretty common sense way to stimulate our own economy. Instead of grunts spending all their money in a foreign country, they would be spending it here. You would cut out a net drain on our economy and reduce the logistical costs of supporting our military all at the same time.
 
Whatever dude. I'm gunna go start threads that hate on the globalist Perry and Romney because all they keep repeating is how Vaccines are good and Which ones got better hair!

here I go to be part of the "cool" people!

Whatever floats your boat.

Personally I think trying to be the forum police isnt as cool as you may think.

Carry on chump
 
Consolidating overseas bases and bringing most of the troops stationed overseas stateside would be a pretty common sense way to stimulate our own economy. Instead of grunts spending all their money in a foreign country, they would be spending it here. You would cut out a net drain on our economy and reduce the logistical costs of supporting our military all at the same time.

Yup. Shrewd changes to our neurotic foreign policy would go a long way toward getting us back on track. We don't need to rule the world.
 
As nice as that would be the wars have only cost us as much as Obamas deficit this year. He has no depth to his platform. Im watching the debate now and that has been his answer to EVERY QUESTION.

He seems to be the only one answering questions period. Dog whistle politics don't solve any problem except how to get the black dude out of office.
 
Consolidating overseas bases and bringing most of the troops stationed overseas stateside would be a pretty common sense way to stimulate our own economy. Instead of grunts spending all their money in a foreign country, they would be spending it here. You would cut out a net drain on our economy and reduce the logistical costs of supporting our military all at the same time.

I disagree. All the troops overseas sent back home are not enough to stimulate the economy on a national level. The population of troops abroad isn't many. As of 31 December 2010, U.S. Armed Forces were stationed at more than 820 installations in at least 135 countries. Some of the largest contingents are the 85,600 military personnel deployed in Iraq, the 103,700 in Afghanistan, the 52,440 in Germany, the 35,688 in Japan (USFJ), the 28,500 in Republic of Korea (USFK), the 9,660 in Italy, and the 9,015 in the United Kingdom respectively. These numbers change frequently due to the regular recall and deployment of units.

Altogether, 77,917 military personnel are located in Europe, 141 in the former Soviet Union, 47,236 in East Asia and the Pacific, 3,362 in North Africa, the Near East, and South Asia, 1,355 in sub-Saharan Africa and 1,941 in the Western Hemisphere excepting the United States itself. In total the total amount of troops abroad would probably fill 4 1/2 NFL stadiums on a sunday afternoon.

Now the real solution in stimulating the economy is stop issuing welfare checks and SSI checks to minorities who are capable of working. Millions are taking advantage of the system and it has become a generational way of life by expecting free govenment handouts to them and it has put a serious burden on the economy. Cut them all off and it will free up taxpayer dollars well earned by hard workers so the workers who earned that money can buy goods and services with it.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, where is RP worng? And that's not his answer to everything, it just happens to be an answer that would help the country on almost every big issue... Like deficits and spending... the economy and so on.
 
Consolidating overseas bases and bringing most of the troops stationed overseas stateside would be a pretty common sense way to stimulate our own economy. Instead of grunts spending all their money in a foreign country, they would be spending it here. You would cut out a net drain on our economy and reduce the logistical costs of supporting our military all at the same time.

Where would they work? Seems to me if you brought them home, your next complaint would be that we don't need so many troops. The police force isn't hiring, so most soldiers wouldn't qualify for anything. In order to change that you'd have to send them to some kind of college or trade school, who'll pay for that? while they are in school they still need to eat. With no job who'll pay for that? If you think I'm pulling this out of my ass, check this out. I was in the first gulf war, when we got home one of the first things people did here was say we didn't need so many troops (because we dominated over there). Bush's response, was to reduce forces by 50%. Unemployment shot right up. Why? Because you can't just tell everyone to go home, so they changed the rules. It became extremely easy to be booted from the military and tons of people were. Who do you think was eager to hire uncle Sam's rejects? They had to jockey for low wage dead end jobs, or go off the grid. Civilians love to talk about what the military should do and yet don't bring much if anything to the table. Before you follow the hippie rant of a bill maher, keep in mind he's shouting from the cheap seats of his ivory castle. While he dances you on a string, he sits back confidently knowing that no matter what happens, he won't end up like you. Kinda makes him sound teapublican huh?

I'm a fountain of info check out my flow.:lol:
 

Forum List

Back
Top