Rand Paul - Defense Spending Bill

[AuH20]

Most socons are big believes more military spending means you love the troops. Don't support the troops by bringing them home. Support them by helping them get replacement legs.

Who says the money goes to the troops? These people are completely off their rocker.

 

[pulp8721]

Here's an intersting comment I saw on Hot Air, commenting about the time piece:

LMAO. While Paul’s proposed 2011 budget reduced the DoD’s budget by around 23% over four years, it included a reinstatement in 2012 of $120B that would be cut via the Sequester.
Notably, Paul’s budget planned a DoD budget of $641B in 2012, and falling to $548B by 2016. Contrast that with actual budgets since*:
2013: $495B
2014: $496B
2015: $495B
So, Rand’s desire to add $159B is really bringing the DoD budget back up to the range that he proposed in 2011.
* DOD’s fy2015 Budget Request Overview
It’s like Time doesn’t even bother to know what it is talking about and uses a Dem Operatives with Bylines Propaganda Generator to fill out it’s stories.

 

[Jeremy]

UPDATED AT 11.50 A.M.: Doug Stafford, senior advisor to Rand Paul, emails:

It is done in response to others in both chambers who are attempting to add to defense spending—some way more than Senator Paul's amendment—without paying for it. Senator Paul believes national defense should be our priority. He also believes our debt is out of control. This amendment is to lay down a marker that if you believe we need more funding for national defense, you should show how you would pay for it. We can't just keep borrowing more money from China to send to Pakistan. And we can't keep paying for even vital things like national defense on a credit card.

Doug Stafford. Senior Advisor

 

[Havax]

He should really stay away from the climate change thing. He will lose all independent votes.

 

[juleswin]

Another problem with this bill is that there will be a panel with top military brass in it testifying to congress in the near future where they all will be testifying how Rand's bill will end up costing the country more down the road. Again if you believe the Generals, Rand proposal is akin to diabetic cutting his testing supply cost in order to save money on healthcare. Time and time again, they have come out to speak of the many conflicts caused by climate change that the US military have had to fight. Cutting foreign aid and climate change funds will no help fix the problem of increasing foreign conflicts if you happen to believe them.

Mark my words, that panel will soon happen and they will all come out thrashing Rand's bill.

 

[Brett85]

I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. I'm starting to get sick of Rand pulling all these BS stunts that will get him absolutely nowhere.

I disagree. I think it gives him cover when Rubio claims that Rand wants to cut defense spending and is weak on defense. Rand can just point to this and say, "I believe in a strong national defense, but I also believe in balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility. If we're going to increase defense spending, then we should pay for it through cuts to other areas. Marco Rubio thinks it's more important to give money to Pakistan than to invest money on our military and defense infrastructure."

 

[Vanguard101]

Not surprised. The Pauls have always been defense hawks. Neither of them were in favor of defense cuts. Only military cuts

 

[jmdrake]

He should really stay away from the climate change thing. He will lose all independent votes.

I don't think so.

http://www.unh.edu/news/releases/2013/jan/lw24climate.cfm
Climate Change Beliefs of Independent Voters Shift with the Weather, UNH Study Finds

Read more: http://www.unh.edu/news/releases/2013/jan/lw24climate.cfm#ixzz3VVqVsJM1

 

[brandon]

So is this a move to expand his base of primary voters, or a move to appease the military industrial complex so they fund instead of torpedo his campaign?

 

[jllundqu]

*Sigh*

The republican gambit is always to say they're going to increase defense spending and offset it by crippling cuts in the welfare state.

The democratic gambit is always to say they're going to increase welfare spending and offset it by crippling cuts in the warfare state.

Ron Paul's gambit was "End the empire and get rid of unnecessary departments and you can balance the budget and help more people with the savings."

Glad to see Rand is talking at least about cuts in foreign aid. But it's not Ron's "end the empire" proposal.

This

/thread

 

[Brett85]

So is this a move to expand his base of primary voters, or a move to appease the military industrial complex so they fund instead of torpedo his campaign?

It's a move to show how fiscally irresponsible the other Republican candidates are. They all support massive increases in defense spending without offsetting it with cuts to other areas. Someone like Marco Rubio will vote against Rand's amendment, which will put him on record as not wanting to pay for his massive defense spending increases.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

UPDATED AT 11.50 A.M.: Doug Stafford, senior advisor to Rand Paul, emails:

I disagree. I think it gives him cover when Rubio claims that Rand wants to cut defense spending and is weak on defense. Rand can just point to this and say, "I believe in a strong national defense, but I also believe in balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility. If we're going to increase defense spending, then we should pay for it through cuts to other areas. Marco Rubio thinks it's more important to give money to Pakistan than to invest money on our military and defense infrastructure."

It's a move to show how fiscally irresponsible the other Republican candidates are. They all support massive increases in defense spending without offsetting it with cuts to other areas. Someone like Marco Rubio will vote against Rand's amendment, which will put him on record as not wanting to pay for his massive defense spending increases.

Yep. It's a Senate maneuver, and Rand would probably do it no matter if he was running for President or not.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?471476-Rubio-Cotton-want-to-boost-defense-spending

Increase defense? Sure. But we must cut somewhere else...

 

[acptulsa]

Not surprised. The Pauls have always been defense hawks. Neither of them were in favor of defense cuts. Only military cuts

This too. You say you want defense? You say you are too Christian to support offense? Well then, you'll support this, right...?

Very advanced trolling. Dad told you what you need, and you disagreed. I listened, and am trying to give you what you said you want. Are you going to disagree with not only my dad, but your own selves as well?

If you Republicans don't want what you say you want, then how can anyone be on your side?

 

[tsai3904]

 

[acptulsa]

There is no way Rand could have gotten away with this without first proposing a revenue neutral alternative. No way. You can, if you're inclined to trash Rand at every turn, pretend to yourself or others that this was something other than--what shall we call it?--Trolling for Ass Coverage. But I warn you--not everyone can ignore the obvious.

 

[jbauer]

So that's it? Our best two shots at a fiscal conservative want to increase defense spending?

We are so screwed.

 

[Jeremy]

So really Rand wasn't proposing increased spending. The other senators were and Rand just offered an alternative that included an offset of the spending. Is this right?

 

[mit26chell]

I'm okay with this as long as Rand makes sure there are rules that stipulate how it is to be spent. For example, if his increase could be used to blow up more countries . . . then he is wrong. If it is used for defense, not offense, I see no problem.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

 

[LatinsforPaul]

Excellent political maneuvering be Senator Rand Paul. Especially for the Republican debates.