Perot: U.S. Vulnerable Because of Obama Spending

Billionaire businessman Ross Perot, who ran for president in 1992 and 1996 on a balanced-budget platform, says his recent endorsement of Mitt Romney was the Romney campaign’s idea. “They came to me,” Perot said at an event last night at Dallas’ Belo Mansion. The EDS founder said he endorsed Romney because, of the two major presidential candidates, the former Massachusetts governor would do the most to rein in out-of-control federal spending.

While the national debt was $4 trillion when he first ran as an independent in ’92, Perot said, it’s nearly four times that now “and we’re adding billions of dollars to the debt every month. It’s damaging the future of our country,” he went on. President “Obama’s policy is just to spend money. He’s made [the debt] so deep now, we’re very vulnerable as a nation. Other nations around the world are smiling, because they see us as weak.”


  • marisa

    Not much has changed in 20 yrs……the gov’t has only gotten worse. Maybe this time around the people will listen to Ross. Obama has dug such a deep hole for the American citizens we will never dig out unless the spending STOPS.

  • Tom Traubert

    which is why Mr. Perot, along with the Tea Party, protested long and loud during the Bush years when the debt was initially accelerating…except that they didn’t. Credibility lost…

  • allison

    Well, let’s not point that out, Tom. And God forbid anyone point out how much of the debt increase came from an unnecessary war (among other things) during said Bush years.

  • Kk

    Mitt = George Bush III let’s call him Trey

  • Borborygmus

    @allison – Let alone the bailout money that was a result of deregulation and the financial hogs lining the trough with zero qual loans.

  • Tom

    Shorter Perot: GOP spending good. Democratic spending bad. Bring back GOP spending.

  • Vseslav Botkin

    If Perot really wants to be relevant to conservatives these days, he’s going to need a little showmanship, a little pizzazz. Threaten to withhold $5,000,000 from sick children unless Obama meets his demands. Call the president a retard or a muslim or an anti-semite. He’s going to need a little bit more than this ineffectual, David Brooks-style op-ed Pablum.

  • Edward

    Spending increases under Republicans, decreases under Democrats.

    It’s a fact that a lot of people just don’t understand.

    The Republicans have ZERO interest in getting the national debt under control – if they did, then they would have voted against Ryan’s budget, which will actually INCREASE the debt.

    They would have voted for Obamacare, which actually DECREASES the national debt.

    The Republicans have done a great job in hoodwinking Americans into thinking that they are the fiscally conservative ones, just like they are now trying to hoodwink women into thinking that they care about their health.

    The Republican Party platform on abortion makes NO exceptions for rape, incest, or the health of the mother. The Republicans currently running for Senate across the country also believe there should be NO exceptions, which means they think women should be put in jail for having an abortion.

    Our own Senator Cornyn AGREES with Senate Candidate Mourdock, and thinks the uproar over his statement that pregnancy as a result of rape is a “gift from God” is silly and overblown.

  • Jf

    And of course, no explanation follows as to why having a large debt will hurt us, because it won’t.

  • DCAD

    Um, we don’t know much about the Romney budget plan, but we do know that it increase the deficit.

    Why can’t Perot just be honest and say that he favors Romney because he wants to pay virtually no taxes and die knowing that his estate wont be taxed?

  • Avid Reader

    The Romney budget plan decreases the deficit and the Obama budget increases it dramatically.

    See, both sides can throw out facts the other side “doesn’t understand”. What’s that? You say you can back up your statements with evidence? For every article you can pull from msnbc/mother jones/nyt/wapo/media matters/etc I could pull one from fox/breitbart/wsj/heritage/etc that says the opposite. Oh, fox/breitbart/wsj/heritage/etc are just the propaganda arm of the right wing? Yes, they absolutely are. Just like msnbc/mother jones/nyt/wapo/media matters/etc are the propaganda arm of the left wing.

  • Kk

    Avid, I want to believe, I want to believe Mitt can cut taxes for everyone, give the military a full 1/3 more money and still erase the budget by eliminating loopholes and deductions. I want to believe, but the deduction eliminations worry me so I will commit to reading the plan, the what I’m sure is a thick, dense slab of paper but I’m in – ill read the details and consider if it’s a plan I can live with. I’m not kidding here, my husband and I split up all the details of the affordable care act and we read it. It was another thing we were very interested in as I had cancer a few years ago at 45, lucky to be alive and in remission but afterwards I join millions of “young” survivors that are now uninsurable without working for a large company that has a group policy. And we had a daughter graduating college at 22 and her job post school offered no insurance. So we read, and we want to read the Romney Ryan big think binder explaining the details of what he will eliminate to see if it entails things we can live with or support. It gobsmacks me that there is NOTHING for us to read, surely we just can’t find it. Other than a mention of 86’ing Public Broadcasting and PLanned Parenthood which is a grain of sand in the deficit Mohave Desert what do we know? Are we stupid, do you know a website we can go to to read these details like for the affordable healthcare has and it’s all there word for word. I’ve tried the candidate sites, I’ve read every word on the whole site, Two paragraphs on the economy? I read the reams of info on obama’s site, pages and pages about his budget and the economy – pages and pages about everything at . But perhaps I’m wrong, this massive overhaul plan of romneys is on the web for me to read and I don’t know where to look. I honestly want to READ the details of his plan, help me out and tell me where to find it and We’ll read every word. I’m not looking for a media report about the plan, I want the details, as dry and dull to read as they are we will read it every word. Hoping you can help!

  • Avid Reader

    Kk, The details that are subsectioned by links on Mitt’s own website are not difficult to find if you we’re actually interested. That said, just like Obama, Kerry, Dole, Clinton, etc; challengers make broad plans that, as you rightly say, have a couple items specifically detailed (usually in response to a particular item championed by the opponent or that stokes the base) but is not fully spelled out. I don’t recall then candidate Obama having the thousands of pages of the ACA handy for perusal. Even having a fully written budget doesn’t seem to mean much when it goes down in the senate 97-0. There are pages and documents laying out the information you are searching for on both candidate’s webpages; if you take their words. I do not believe either one, but the general views of both are easy to discern and should be enough to make a decision on which path for the country you as a voter feel is best.

  • Edward

    @Avid Reader -The difference between the two is when you look at analysis done by groups outside of the right wing/left wing bubbles.

    You can’t find anyone who will say that Romney’s proposals with cut the deficit or are even mathematically possible.

    It’s become increasingly obvious that basic facts are foreign to the groups that have taken over the Republican party. That’s why they don’t believe in science, because the facts that result go against what they believe.

    They still believe in trickle-down economics when it has been proven beyond any doubt not to work.

    I feel sorry for moderate, sane Republicans who have to be frustrated by the current insanity in their party. They elected a group of legislators in 2010 who said they would focus on jobs and the economy, yet the first things they put up to vote were bills on abortion and then voted against even bipartisan bills such as the one to help returning vets become employed.

  • Avid Reader

    There are zero groups outside of the right wing/left wing bubble. All think tanks, centers, foundations if you break through the layers of bs are sponsored by a partisan group or person.

    I can find tons of people/groups who will say that Romney’s proposals will cut the deficit and are mathematically possible.

    It’s become increasingly obvious that the basic facts are foreign to the groups that have taken over the Democratic party. That’s why they don’t believe in budgets, business, or success because the facts that result go against what they believe.

    They still believe in trickle-down government when it has been proven beyond any doubt not to work.

    I feel sorry for moderate, sane Democrats who have to be frustrated by the current ineptitude of the democratic party administration/senate and even congressional members that are no longer in charge after the 2010 routing. They elected a group of legislators in 2010 who were beyond frustrated that the Democrat controlled government decided to ignore the economy for those two whole years when the Dems controlled the Presidency, had a majority in Congress and a majority in the senate (filibuster proof super majority for a good bit of those two years). They passed numerous jobs bills which the senate never even let get to the floor. Seem to recall that the President’s proposed budget was defeated with a unanimous 97-0 vote; there’s some true bi-partisan support.

    Either side can make the exact opposite argument and back it up with facts that go along with their narrative; generic talking points are fun!