# Liberty Movement > Defenders of Liberty > Justin Amash Forum >  Amash votes for cutting war funding

## sonofshamwow

https://www.facebook.com/repjustinam...87659821273739

From his FB page:
"Here's the roll call for Amendment 141 to H R 1, which reduces defense/military spending to 2008 levels. I voted yes. It failed 76-344.

Bring our men and women home from the countless overseas engagements. Our military strength has always derived from our economic strength, and our exploding debt jeopardizes our security. A bankrupt country cannot defend its people."

Roll call: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll128.xml

RP didn't vote.

----------


## Jeremy

> RP didn't vote.


Traitor!

----------


## low preference guy

> Jeremy  
> Administrator


Great.

----------


## brenden.b

I'm trying to figure out what all of the hysteria on the other discussion was all about. I found no post on Justin's page where he was voting against military spending cuts or bringing the troops home. This is especially confusing when I read something like this on his page:

"Here's the roll call for Amendment 141 to H R 1, which reduces defense/military spending to 2008 levels. I voted yes. It failed 76-344.

Bring our men and women home from the countless overseas engagements. Our military strength has always derived from our economic strength, and our exploding debt jeopardizes our security. A bankrupt co...untry cannot defend its people."


Seriously, what the hell is all the hysteria about? Links? Or was it just a "gotcha" reaction, because everyone is looking for a reason to not trust Justin Amash because his name is not Ron Paul?

----------


## Sola_Fide

What??**

I need some clarification on this...  im confused....

----------


## Agorism

I've always been skeptical of this character.

A professional pol.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

This is why many of us were upset and worried with regards to his vote to keep troop levels static:

"With respect to the military amendments, my concerns were different. They appeared to be properly drafted. There was certainly a lot of congressional debate on those issues before I entered Congress. Any objections were particular to me and my lack of knowledge on the subject. The procedures were fine, but I wasn't certain I fully agreed with the objectives (how much to cut, how quickly to withdraw troops, etc.) In such cases, I am more comfortable voting "no" than "present." "




> I'm trying to figure out what all of the hysteria on the other discussion was all about. I found no post on Justin's page where he was voting against military spending cuts or bringing the troops home. This is especially confusing when I read something like this on his page:


To dispel this one, here's another statement:

"There was also a vote to cut European troop levels from 100,000 to 35,000, which I opposed. I support cutting European troop levels (perhaps even to less than 35,000) but not without a debate and input from commanders."

----------


## brenden.b

> I've always been skeptical of this character.
> 
> A professional pol.


He votes in favor of spending cuts and against the Patriot Act, and this is your response? I'm not saying you need to bow to him, but give him some respect. He is one of us.

----------


## CurranH

> Seriously, what the hell is all the hysteria about? Links? Or was it just a "gotcha" reaction, because everyone is looking for a reason to not trust Justin Amash because his name is not Ron Paul?


You hit the nail on the head.  This is reminiscent of all the Rand Paul skeptics.  It's absurd.

----------


## awake

*February 21, 2011* Lew Rockwell

* Republicans as Bad as Ever* 

                      Posted by Anthony Gregory on February 21, 2011 06:24 PM      

                                      On war, the most important issue. In the tenth year of a  ridiculous, illegal, and completely counterproductive war of aggression,  Justin Amash, a Michigan freshman Congressman with some libertarian  leanings whom I was told to keep an eye on, joined  the 97% of his party in the House voting against a completely  reasonable and moderate plan to withdraw troops from Afghanistan.
 As an aside, this alone would have saved $100 billion a year. Another epic fail from the Tea Party.

----------


## sonofshamwow

It's sad and pathetic that some of you are so blind that you would try to tear down one of the most liberty-minded, pro-constitution government officials this country has seen in decades.  It's really disgraceful.

----------


## sonofshamwow

And, of course, I don't hear anybody on here proclaiming Ron Paul a traitor for supporting corporate welfare: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll050.xml

Of course, Amash voted against this anti-liberty measure.  https://www.facebook.com/repjustinam...04655449613596

From Amash's FB page:
"Here's the roll call for Amendment 153 to H R 1, which transfers $80 million from the Census, a constitutionally authorized function, to unconstitutional corporate welfare programs. I voted no. It passed 305-127.

Central-planning schemes are immoral and economically damaging."

----------


## awake

I kinda like the high standards people expect of their "liberty candidates".

----------


## brenden.b

> I kinda like the high standards people expect of their "liberty candidates".


I understand having a high standard, but that doesn't mean we have to throw them under the bus, label them a Neo-Con, and throw them to the curb because of one vote that was reasonably explained.

----------


## MRoCkEd

More on Amash's vote on that amendment:

http://www.facebook.com/#!/repjustin...95152627175603




> Here's the roll call for Amend. 232, which defunds Afghanistan ops. It was not a policy bill to end the war. I would support that. Instead, it cut funding to a level that Rep. Nadler (D-NY-08) claimed would allow for safe withdrawal. His word cannot be the final analysis for a new Rep, and it wouldn't have been if I didn't have 600 other amendments to review. I voted no. "Present" is for genuine procedural concerns.

----------


## Son of Detroit

> More on Amash's vote on that amendment:
> 
> http://www.facebook.com/#!/repjustin...95152627175603


Statist!  Neo-Con!  Traitor!

Vote him out of office!

----------


## TheDriver

Amash has no balls! Where's his spending cuts (amendments)?

----------


## TheDriver

> I kinda like the high standards people expect of their "liberty candidates".


Well, once the election is over, the votes and proposals are what defines the individual. I can understand some ducking during an election, but the election is over. It's time to lead!

----------


## CurranH

Also notable:

"Thanks, Lori, for your family's sacrifices. You are making my point. I support ending the war, but I want a fair opportunity to analyze how best to bring our men and women home quickly AND safely. Maybe Rep. Nadler's right. Maybe he's wrong. Under the circumstances of this vote, I could not make that determination."

----------


## CurranH

I couldn't agree with this more:

"Thank you for your explanation, as always, Rep. Amash. Those who are calling you out right now are clearly being far too hysterical without even considering exactly WHAT you're voting on. I hate when the liberty movement eats its own. We need to move away from that if we intend to be successful. Thank you for so diligently explaining yourself, and working hard, despite criticism from all sides. You're really doing a great job."

----------


## TheDriver



----------


## Brett85

> I understand having a high standard, but that doesn't mean we have to throw them under the bus, label them a Neo-Con, and throw them to the curb because of one vote that was reasonably explained.


Some people here think that anybody who doesn't want to abolish the entire federal government is a neo-con.

----------


## Brett85

Why exactly should Justin vote for a bill that provides 10 billion worth of war funding?  We shouldn't spend another dime on this war, let alone 10 billion.

----------


## MRoCkEd

> Why exactly should Justin vote for a bill that provides 10 billion worth of war funding?  We shouldn't spend another dime on this war, let alone 10 billion.


That's how much it would supposedly cost to withdraw.

----------


## TheDriver

On this vote and the Pat act, he sided with John Boehner (and the Republican establishment), not Ron Paul. Spin it however you like, but the facts are the facts. What else will he side with Boehner on? All I heard from people was: "he's the next Ron Paul" during the election. And judging by these two votes, that seems to be untrue. Let me know when he does something worth talking about, and I'll give him praise, but when he's wrong, he's wrong, but don't cry when some of us hold his feet to the fire.

----------


## Son of Detroit

Justin Amash voted against the Patriot Act.

Don't spread false information.

----------


## CurranH

> On this vote and the Pat act, he sided with John Boehner (and the Republican establishment), not Ron Paul. Spin it however you like, but the facts are the facts. What else will he side with Boehner on? All I heard from people was: "he's the next Ron Paul" during the election. And judging by these two votes, that seems to be untrue. Let me know when he does something worth talking about, and I'll give him praise, but when he's wrong, he's wrong, but don't cry when some of us hold his feet to the fire.


You're wrong, TheDriver.  Get it right.

----------


## TheDriver

> You're wrong, TheDriver.  Get it right.



He voted for it before he voted against it, or did I really get my wires crossed (?), because seems like I remember everyone bitching about him on it.  If so, my apologizes, I've had a rough week....

----------


## TheDriver

Allright, I see, he voted with the party on some procedure vote, then voted against it.  The War is more important to me at this point, as no one seems to be standing up against it, and the Pat act will never be repealed.   Anyway, we're watching.  I still don't see amendments from him on spending cuts... links?

----------


## Imperial

> Amash has no balls! Where's his spending cuts (amendments)?


He is a freshman with little influence. The GOP has 600 other amendments to deal with, so I don't think he would get much play for something like that.

----------


## Brett85

> Allright, I see, he voted with the party on some procedure vote, then voted against it.  The War is more important to me at this point, as no one seems to be standing up against it, and the Pat act will never be repealed.   Anyway, we're watching.  I still don't see amendments from him on spending cuts... links?


As long as he votes against the war supplementals isn't that good enough?  This was simply an unconstitutional bill that attempted to dictate troop levels to the President.  The better option is to simply vote against every war supplemenatal that comes up and cut off ALL FUNDING for the war.

----------


## TheDriver

> As long as he votes against the war supplementals isn't that good enough?  *This was simply an unconstitutional bill that attempted to dictate troop levels to the President.*  The better option is to simply vote against every war supplemenatal that comes up and cut off ALL FUNDING for the war.


No it wasn't. It was a simple amendment to bring the funding for the war down to $10 billion.  If Obama wants to fight this war, let him take the money from ObamaCare, since it's not costing anything.

----------


## brenden.b

Further comments from Justin regarding the vote. Would an avowed statist, neo-con, as some of you are trying label Justin, make a statement like this, or similar comments he has already made? From his Facebook:

"Here's the roll call for Amend. 232, which defunds Afghanistan ops. It was not a policy bill to end the war. I would support that. Instead, it cut funding to a level that Rep. Nadler (D-NY-08) claimed would allow for safe withdrawal. His word cannot be the final analysis for a new Rep, and it wouldn't have been if I didn't have 600 other amendments to review. I voted no. "Present" is for genuine procedural concerns."

The man is genuine and intelligent. What more do you want? You purists need to realize that Ron wasn't pure when he first started out. Give Justin time.

----------


## specsaregood

> Would an avowed statist, neo-con, as some of you are trying label Justin


I must have missed it, where did anybody here call him a statist or neo-con?  The only people I see using the n-word are those defending him.

----------


## malkusm

> Allright, I see, he voted with the party on some procedure vote, then voted against it.  The War is more important to me at this point, as no one seems to be standing up against it, and the Pat act will never be repealed.   Anyway, we're watching.  I still don't see amendments from him on spending cuts... links?


Driver - Amash voted "Yes" to bring the Patriot Act resolution to the House floor for a vote. *He did not vote "Yes" on extending the Patriot Act provisions themselves - only on the procedural vote to bring it to the House floor.* He explained this clearly on his Facebook page at the time, and reiterated that when the vote came up, *he would once again vote "No", as he had done the first time.*

He also voted "No" to the Nadler cutback of Afghan War funding, as he said that he had no time to read the Amendment (it was on the docket for approximately two days and was not concise). He has a history in the Michigan legislature of voting "No" to any bill that he has not had time to read, which was what happened here. The resolution that he voted "Yes" on today demonstrates that he would like to bring the troops home as quickly as can be safely done, which he also clearly stated in his explanation.

----------


## TheDriver

> Driver - Amash voted "Yes" to bring the Patriot Act resolution to the House floor for a vote. *He did not vote "Yes" on extending the Patriot Act provisions themselves - only on the procedural vote to bring it to the House floor.* He explained this clearly on his Facebook page at the time, and reiterated that when the vote came up, *he would once again vote "No", as he had done the first time.*
> 
> He also voted "No" to the Nadler cutback of Afghan War funding, as he said that he had no time to read the Amendment (it was on the docket for approximately two days and was not concise). He has a history in the Michigan legislature of voting "No" to any bill that he has not had time to read, which was what happened here. The resolution that he voted "Yes" on today demonstrates that he would like to bring the troops home as quickly as can be safely done, which he also clearly stated in his explanation.


I posted that I was misinformed, due to the inflammatory comments about the procedural vote, and apologized. Sorry about that one, as I got my wires crossed.

However, on the Nadler amendment, it would have taken him maybe 2 minutes to read the bill, so I'm not buying that excuse.  If he doesn't think we can withdraw from Afghanistan for $10 billion dollars, then surely he understands Obama can direct other funds to finish the job. Not to mention, Congress could issue more money in minutes, if that turned out to be the case, so I'm not buying his stance on this.   I don't agree with Ron Paul all the time, so I don't expect to agree with Amash all the time either, however I think he should have supported this. 

And I've never called him a neo-con.

----------


## malkusm

> The man is genuine and intelligent. What more do you want? You purists need to realize that Ron wasn't pure when he first started out. Give Justin time.


Amash is pure - he just views the legislative process differently. Ron Paul will vote his conscience if he understands the basic premise of a bill. Amash will vote "No" unless he knows all of the particulars of a bill. They also view targeted tax cuts and targeted subsidy/funding cuts differently. This doesn't mean that Amash isn't "pure", just that they view the legislative process in different ways.

Still, it's quite sad to see so many here who are nitpicking a freshman representative who, in his first month in office, has: (1) co-sponsored Ron's "Audit the Fed" legislation; (2) voted against extending Patriot Act provisions twice; (3) voted to cut funding for the war efforts in Afghanistan. Don't we have better things to do?

----------


## brenden.b

> I must have missed it, where did anybody here call him a statist or neo-con?  The only people I see using the n-word are those defending him.


The other thread, attacking Justin for voting against "ending the war".

----------


## specsaregood

> The other thread, attacking Justin for voting against "ending the war".


Exactly 1 post, and the person didn't even call him one, but said he might be one.  The other references were people defending him.
Let's not go around accusing each other of saying the n-word unnecessarily.

----------


## brenden.b

> Exactly 1 post, and the person didn't even call him one, but said he might be one.  The other references were people defending him.
> Let's not go around accusing each other of saying the n-word unnecessarily.


Fair enough. What I am trying to say is that it seems like everyone is just waiting for Justin to disappoint them, and anytime they see something that looks like "Neo-conservativism" or "RINO" activity, they are jumping at it and saying "I knew it!", as if they never expected him to remain principled. To his credit, he has the closest voting record to Ron, and has actually voted less with the Republican establishment than Ron. I'm not saying that we need to give him a free pass on everything, what I am saying, as I said before, is that we need to stop freaking out and acting like idiots everytime one of our friends doesn't vote exactly like Ron.

----------


## malkusm

Here is part of the transcript from the House floor when the Nadler amendment was being debated:




> Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. 
> 
>    Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to debate the issue of the war in Afghanistan. The fact is we're there, our soldiers are getting hurt every day, and too many of them are dying. So we're not going to debate that particular part of the war. What we're going to debate is this amendment. I've said in the last 3 days, a number of times, we're not going to do anything in this defense appropriations bill in the savings that would have an adverse effect on the war fighter. This amendment would affect the war fighter, especially those in Afghanistan. 
> 
>    This $10 billion that the gentleman would leave in the fund to finance the operations in Afghanistan, that's already been spent. In the first quarter of this fiscal year, the Afghanistan operation cost $16 billion, and he would only leave 10, which means we're already in deficit of $6 billion during the first quarter of the year. What kind of confusion would there be in Afghanistan immediately? What would our troops be thinking? Where would they have to go? What would they have to do? What would the rules of engagement be? You can't do this to our soldiers, our war fighters who are in Afghanistan. Don't look at this amendment because of the political tone relative to feeling that we should be in Afghanistan or we shouldn't be in Afghanistan. The fact is we're there. Our soldiers are fighting. They're getting hurt. They're dying. The fact is we can't let them hang out there without proper funding. 
> 
>    Now if you want to bring the troops home from Afghanistan, the truth is $10 billion won't even accomplish that. It will take more to bring everybody out of Afghanistan that we have deployed there, with the equipment, with the infrastructure, with the headquarters, would cost them much more than the $10 billion the gentleman would leave just to redeploy them back to the United States of America.


I want to end the engagement in Afghanistan as well, but Rep. Young brings up a good point - $10 billion is an arbitrary number, and since $16 billion has already been spent this year in Afghanistan, the affect of the amendment is ambiguous. In effect, we wouldn't be able to spend another dime on Afghanistan if interpreted literally, including funds that might be used to bring the troops home. So, while the goal is noble, the language of the bill is entirely insufficient to achieve those goals. Amash voted no because, as he put it, he doesn't know what the amount is that would allow us to bring the troops home safely. After reading that we've already spent more than that in the fiscal year already, I would tend to agree with that assessment.

----------


## brenden.b

> Here is part of the transcript from the House floor when the Nadler amendment was being debated:
> 
> 
> 
> I want to end the engagement in Afghanistan as well, but Rep. Young brings up a good point - $10 billion is an arbitrary number, and since $16 billion has already been spent this year in Afghanistan, the affect of the amendment is ambiguous. In effect, we wouldn't be able to spend another dime on Afghanistan if interpreted literally, including funds that might be used to bring the troops home. So, while the goal is noble, the language of the bill is entirely insufficient to achieve those goals. Amash voted no because, as he put it, he doesn't know what the amount is that would allow us to bring the troops home safely. After reading that we've already spent more than that in the fiscal year already, I would tend to agree with that assessment.


Thank you for posting that part of the transcript and you are dead on with your assessment.

----------


## TheDriver

> and since $16 billion has already been spent this year in Afghanistan


Right, the neocons can use that excuse for the next 50 years; I'm just not buying it.

----------


## TheDriver

No one knows the exact to the dollar amount, because even if the military knew, they wouldn't release it, because they have no intention of leaving.

I can't believe some of you are buying this B.S.--disappointing.

----------


## malkusm

> No one knows the exact to the dollar amount, because even if the military knew, they wouldn't release it, because they have no intention of leaving.
> 
> I can't believe some of you are buying this B.S.--disappointing.


Ok, and since nobody knows, who is to say that $10 billion is an appropriate number?

Is the title of this thread "Amash votes for cutting war funding" or not? Is it inconceivable that the guy found Amendment 141 to be more clearly defined than Amendment 232? Is it so hard to believe that the guy is anti-war but believes that an amendment for that purpose might not have the intended effect?

Again, I'm not sure what all the skepticism is about. He was one of 6 House GOP members to vote for the cutback to 2008 levels.

----------


## TheDriver

> Ok, and since nobody knows, who is to say that $10 billion is an appropriate number?


We have thousands of warships near the Middle East, seems like a great time to load up and come home. If $10 billion isn't enough, it's a damn good start. So Amash or Paul or who ever can ask for more, if needed. It's not rocket science.

----------


## TheDriver

P.S. I'm pissed off at every single member of Congress that didn't support this! But this is the only place I see it being discussed.

----------


## malkusm

I certainly understand what you're saying, but I think it's inappropriate to call his explanations "B.S."

----------


## angelatc

> I've always been skeptical of this character.
> 
> A professional pol.


You're the guy that believes "Think Progress" should qualify for the Pulitzer Prize though.  Your radar is different than ours.

A professional pol? He actually owns a company, and decided to run for state office. When that went well, he ran for federal office.  That makes him a professional politician.  <bangs head>

----------


## angelatc

> Further comments from Justin regarding the vote. Would an avowed statist, neo-con, as some of you are trying label Justin, make a statement like this, or similar comments he has already made? From his Facebook:
> 
> "Here's the roll call for Amend. 232, which defunds Afghanistan ops. It was not a policy bill to end the war. I would support that."


That's a huge statement, and I do believe it's the first time he's said it.   Don't be surprised to see this come up in the next round of primaries.

----------


## TheDriver

> I certainly understand what you're saying, but I think it's inappropriate to call his explanations "B.S."


You're probably right, strike the record to change my B.S. comment to weak.

I just wonder if this bill didn't get a lot of support, because it was put forth by a dem. I'm not pointing my finger at Amash, but in general.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

malkus:

In Amash's own words, he never claimed to have not read the Nadler bill he voted against. He cited lack of debate (there was debate, as evidenced by your post) and lack of input from military generals in decreasing troop levels overseas, both in Afghanistan and Europe. He's changed his explanation to something that is more to our liking, which is good. I think our expressed concerns had something to do with it.

The fact that he's changed his tune, however, will have me leaning towards keeping a closer eye on him than I would have otherwise.

I'll post the direct interactions between Justin and myself on this issue if necessary.

Also, I just went through the other thread, and I didn't see anyone calling him a "neo-con" or "statist". The only ones using those terms were the Amash defenders.

----------


## CurranH

Feeding the Abscess, you're being irrational and divisive.  This sort of unwarranted skepticism is going to prevent the liberty movement from gaining traction.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

Na, we should be harder on our own than those who don't believe in our philosophy.

----------


## brenden.b

> That's a huge statement, and I do believe it's the first time he's said it.   Don't be surprised to see this come up in the next round of primaries.


As well as his "Present" vote on the Planned Parenthood de-funding, even though he had a solid legislative, logical reason for doing so. He certainly isn't do what is politically expedient.

----------


## trey4sports

so... what? 

He voted for a bill to cut military funding and hes being criticized?

----------


## Romantarchist

I support you, Justin! The people on this forum who are outright rejecting him are acting like little children. Far too hard to please. I'm not as procedurally concerned as Justin but his reasons for his votes are well justified. Justin is no neo-con;  P.S. I'm a "high standards" person myself, so there.

----------

