This transcript is automatically generated
Because now joining us fresh from the debate former speaker of the house Newt Gingrich -- mister Gingrich.
What you think.
I thought it was a lively debate -- I thought it was hopefully -- American people.
And I thought that number the members of -- who are running.
Actually raise good ideas and their proposals so I hope that this is the -- debate we can have more of actually focused on ideas and issues and solutions.
-- till it seem like a much smarter debate than than usual we have studio audience here gentlemen would like to ask you a question -- -- Mr.
Gingrich -- a quick question for you we've got a largely a libertarian and conservative audience here predominately libertarian.
You wouldn't have to go too far to trying to convince us that.
Economic central planning is bad but why are we engage in foreign policy central planning why is it advisable for us to have six or seven ongoing military actions.
In four countries that.
Even can't even be sent to -- -- sensibly if it.
-- good question.
While you're reading is a great question pressure on -- say that.
Bureaucratic socialism doesn't work anymore than traditional socialism.
Obama's tried to impose a system where you get to keep your business in theory that they get to run through the bureaucracy sending -- foreign policy -- -- replace.
Virtually all of our foreign aid.
With tax credits designed to get businesses to be investing in companies countries because I think you wanna get away from our bureaucracy giving there bureaucracy money.
I also that we have to rethink our entire policy in the Middle East.
I am very concerned.
About the of the wars were engaged in and the fact that in ten years' time we haven't learned any lessons.
This is a much harder region to change it's not going to be change my boots on the ground.
And I think we're -- to have a very new and very different approach to what we're doing in the region.
-- I don't know that that really answered the gentleman's question and you say the boots on the ground are not gonna do it but you say it would be.
Guiding our military if these select committee and deficit reduction fails to agree and he's automatic cuts are maybe it's less than 10%.
You ought to design your national security and Homeland Security.
Around what threatens you -- what do you need to meet.
Those threats whether that's more or less I can't tell you.
I'm for applying lean six -- the entire Defense Department and the intelligence community and the State Department.
I helped found the military reform caucus in 1981.
Tomahawk but I'm a cheap talk.
This question asked that was not was not about the size of military budget.
The question He asked as though about the whole process of multiple wars going on simultaneously in the Middle East with the United States involved.
And I agree with this premise which is we're currently engaged in an eight.
Expansion of our involvement with no strategy no coherence and I'm not at all -- -- using the military in that way will be in any way helpful.
But if you feel that way near a cheap talk how is it gutting the military to cut sixty billion dollars out of 700 billion rather not.
While the first all the number over five years is supposed to -- 500 billion dollars.
And in the absence of fundamental reform my only point is.
We have we have been eating off of the Reagan build up in an aircraft and ships and and other equipment now for twenty years.
And we're about to find ourselves falling behind the Chinese and a whole range of technologies.
And that does not mean -- must spend money on that also means you want to fundamentally reform the system.
To make it much leaner much more Agile and much more moving at the pace of modern innovation.
If we're gonna be -- Why have ethanol subsidies.
-- very much in favor of of replacing ethanol subsidies with a program that creates flex fuel cars and flex fuel tanks -- remember.
Right now the position it is.
You as a customer don't have a choice if -- if you -- a car that could use either ethanol or natural gas -- regular oil.
And you and ability to -- -- gas -- -- that at all three options.
Then -- let the market decide.
But it's silly to say the market's gonna decide if in fact you can't find a gas station to provide you any choices and you have a car that doesn't provide -- an interest.
-- -- has flex fuel cars.
And and Brazil in fact is relatively energy sufficient.
That you would mandate that all cars be flex fuel.
Costs about a hundred dollars.
And and don't the only point is how are you going to ever get around to everybody having a choice.
I'm and my my concern is you know the key a few -- the customer -- they like to have a right to choose.
When oil gets above about a hundred dollars a gallon I -- a hundred dollars a barrel.
Ethanol is cheaper but if you have a car that can't remember you have a gas station that doesn't have -- ability to provided you have no choices as consumers.
So I think have a pro choice position requires some kind of infrastructure the lets you make a decision.
I disagree with you what I'm very happy that our audiences you're moving closer Ron Paul -- some issues thank you speaker Gingrich hop -- And do -- here and I take you to my libertarian panel met welteke nearly -- -- -- -- Now.