Welcome to PatsFans.com

Rand Paul: GOP must consider military spending cuts

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Patters, Nov 7, 2010.

  1. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,778
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +170 / 4 / -4

    There are a few areas where liberals are more likely than conservatives to agree with libertarians. Pauls stands on transparency and military cuts are among them.

    Rand Paul: GOP must consider military spending cuts | Raw Story

    Government spending is sure to be one of the biggest targets now that Republicans have won back the House, but there have been few details on exactly what programs will see their budgets slashed.

    Senator-elect Rand Paul (R-KY) probably surprised some Republicans Sunday when he said he would be willing to cut military spending.

    "Yes, yes," Paul responded when asked if he would vote for defense cuts. In doing so, he highlighted the libertarian streak among some of the candidates propelled to office by the tea party movement. Like his father, Ron Paul, Rand Paul is considered to be at the libertarian end of the GOP's political spectrum, and libertarians have long been calling for a scaling back of US military ambitions.
  2. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    The problem with military cuts is the same no matter who runs Congress (or the White House). Nobody ever wants the cuts to come from their district.

    We have literally seen examples of the Pentagon saying "we don't need Project such-and-such anymore so we recommend cutting that Project from the budget." But then the Congressmen from whatever states manufacture parts or assembly for Project such-and-such get together and refuse to cut it from the budget, even though the Pentagon said they don't need it.
  3. shirtsleeve

    shirtsleeve Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2005
    Messages:
    2,730
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    The military budget needs to be gone through and trimmed of wasteful spending and pork, and needless projects, as wolfpack said. Absolutely.

    The military accounted for the third largest expenditure of Federal money(the numbers vary by site, so I try to be generic and am using wiki numbers: 2010 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
    behind only social security and medicare/medicaid.

    But dont think for a minute that those two wont be under the same scrutiny too. The social security payouts exceeded ss taxes collected for the first, but not last time, and the general fund raided that piggy bank long ago. Additionally, people are outliving the design of the system, and are far outcollecting any amount paid in plus any reasonable rate of return. Medicare and medicaid are in worse shape than that. This HOR is gonna go through the budget with a fine tooth comb.
  4. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,778
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +170 / 4 / -4

    No they won't. The two record deficits prior to Obama's were by Reagan and Bush II, and the Republicans, even in this forum, almost never objected. The Republicans will have to figure out a way to silence a handful of members, but they will do so to protect the military industrial complex and the billionaires who helped them win this election. When it comes to budget, there are only two groups of honest politicians: liberals who say that taxes must be raised and libertarians who say the budget must be cut. Evernyone else is basically a corporatist and will support business as usual. Besides, cutting tens of billions of dollars of government spending will have an immediate hit on on our economy. When Roosevelt acquiesced to the Republicans in 1937, after they made major gains, by cutting government spending, we went into a serious recession that we only got out of with the advent of WWII.
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2010
  5. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,958
    Likes Received:
    180
    Ratings:
    +408 / 5 / -2

    I'm liking me some Rand Paul I think. First he wants to audit the fed, and now he wants to slash millitary spending. I sure hope he can pull both off.
  6. shirtsleeve

    shirtsleeve Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2005
    Messages:
    2,730
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Well, I will give Patters props for saying those two groups are honest. They might be right wrong or indifferent, but they are honest to their beliefs.

    Now, I have liked me some of that for a while now. His group is going to be there, bringing these things to the floor, along with ss, medicare, medicaid the dept of ed, and a bunch of other beaurocracies. How much they can get the RINO's and NeoCons to go along with is to be seen.
  7. Patsfanin Philly

    Patsfanin Philly Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Messages:
    6,717
    Likes Received:
    14
    Ratings:
    +36 / 0 / -0

    #95 Jersey

    Do what they did with the base closings. Have a commission make the recommendations and make the vote a single up or down vote. It's easier to vote for the reductions if the cuts affect everyone....
  8. tehmackdaddy

    tehmackdaddy Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2010
    Messages:
    129
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Good. I'm sure having 800+ bases/military sites across the world can run up a pretty expensive tab. A tab that we don't "need" in any economy, but especially now.
  9. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,958
    Likes Received:
    180
    Ratings:
    +408 / 5 / -2

    Bingo. I think we need to flash the world the finger, and worry about oursleves militarily, and no one else. We've been subsidizing the west's defense budgets for decades now, by maintaining a world defending force. It's time to maintain a US defending force, and nothing more.
  10. TBradyOwnsYou

    TBradyOwnsYou Rookie

    Joined:
    May 17, 2010
    Messages:
    1,586
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    But having bases around the world is part of defending America. Not only does it give us must faster response time, but it also serves as a deterent for other countries to attack us when they know we've got a division ready to roll just a couple countries away.
    The military budget DOES need to get cut, big time. However, the cuts need to come on things we don't need, like new airplanes or subs. If we get in to a war with a country with an actual air force or navy, we're going to bomb them to the stone age first anyway, no need for an F18235 that can out fly 72 F16s at once, or a submarine that can do cartwheels.
    Personally, with how the last decade has gone, I would cut down regular Army manning a bit and concentrate on getting more SF soldiers as that is where the war will continue to be fought for the next 20 years.
  11. DropKickFlutie

    DropKickFlutie Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Messages:
    1,122
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    Having 950+ military bases around the world, will not prevent blow back from happening, nor will it stop a terrorist from acting independent of the hostile actions of a country.

    We live in a world past the old model of national boundaries.
  12. Nikolai

    Nikolai Football Atheist PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    Messages:
    6,008
    Likes Received:
    243
    Ratings:
    +510 / 1 / -1

    #54 Jersey

    Which takes us back to the reasons why the UN is becoming irrelevant as an organization for political intervention.

    Of course, I hope you're not suggesting that national boundaries have no consequence.
  13. DropKickFlutie

    DropKickFlutie Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Messages:
    1,122
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    These terrorists we are fighting, now and in the future, aren't part of any specific country. So, trying to claim that having 950+ military bases around the world is some sort of deterrent to other countries, is silly.

    Us having military bases in the Middle East, is a major reason why former CIA asset/ally Bin Laden turned on us and became a terrorist.

    Our military aggression around the world, is a major reason why we currently experience blow back and hate from those who want to harm us.


    This debate doesn't really even matter. The terrorists have already won by getting our stupid leaders into 2 huge wars we can't afford. We are stretched far too thin as it is, and we have already past the point of bankruptcy. It's just a waiting game now to see how long the world is going to put up with our worthless currency.
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2010

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>