Christiane Amanpour: "Will you cut military?" Rand Paul: "Yes."

[Knightskye]

http://soc.li/IqDMt2C

That link should go to the video. I couldn't find another link directly to the video.

I just wish he said "Department of Education" when she asked what he was going to cut.

[awake]

Toldja - The war party sent their emissary to test allegiance to the warfare state.

[wormyguy]

The correct question is "would you cut defense," because there's no way that defense will be cut.

[susano]

Best Rand interview I've seen yet. I think that's because he's now freed from campaign mode.

[sofia]

i think he was too vague ......

[Fredom101]

If the question was "Would you end the wars and bring all troops home?" do you think he would still answer yes?

[low preference guy]

If the question was "Would you end the wars and bring all troops home?" do you think he would still answer yes?

He would answer that under the Constitution, that's the prerogative of the President, not the Senate.

[tremendoustie]

He would answer that under the Constitution, that's the prerogative of the President, not the Senate.

Wrong. The legislature can and should end funding and de-authorize immediately.

[low preference guy]

Wrong. The legislature can and should end funding and de-authorize immediately.

I don't think they can "de-authorize".

Rand's position is that it's the prerogative of the Congress to declare War, and the Commander in Chief is the one responsible for running it.

Congress would have to defund the entire military budget, considering that the Commander in Chief can move troops from other places. And if they defund it, the Fed can help to pay it.

[nate895]

I don't think they can "de-authorize".

Rand's position is that it's the prerogative of the Congress to declare War, and the Commander in Chief is the one responsible for running it.

They would have to defund the entire military budget, considering that the Commander in Chief can move troops from other places. And if they defund it, the Fed can help to pay it.

The precedent for this case actually goes way back....to the English Civil War. The King started a war (as was his prerogative) with Scotland, and Parliament chose to defund the war. From then on, in common law legal systems that have their roots in England (as our law system does), the legislature always has the power of the purse and can designate where funds go. The legislate can explicitly designate its use, and also designate what it, by law, cannot be used to support.

[tremendoustie]

I don't think they can "de-authorize".


Sure they can. Just repeal the bill that authorized it.



Rand's position is that it's the prerogative of the Congress to declare War, and the Commander in Chief is the one responsible for running it.


It's the perogative of congressmen to do everything within their power to end these destructive, aggressive, fiscally insane occupations.



Congress would have to defund the entire military budget, considering that the Commander in Chief can move troops from other places. And if they defund it, the Fed can help to pay it.

Defund it and repeal authorization. If the president joins with the fed to continue perpetrating the wars against the will of congress, he's going to be on thin ice indeed.

And at that point you can work on repealing the Fed Reserve act, as well as impeachment.

[LibertyEagle]

I don't think they can "de-authorize".

Rand's position is that it's the prerogative of the Congress to declare War, and the Commander in Chief is the one responsible for running it.

Congress would have to defund the entire military budget, considering that the Commander in Chief can move troops from other places. And if they defund it, the Fed can help to pay it.

The House holds the purse strings. They can and should, cut off funds. This is the main reason why our Founders wanted Congressmen to be direct elected and is also why they can be thrown out every 2 years.

[tremendoustie]

Heck, the military itself has to be re-authorized every two years. I'm not aware of a single "founder" that supported the existence of a standing army.

I don't agree with any of them on everything, but I certainly agree with them on that.

[low preference guy]

The precedent for this case actually goes way back....to the English Civil War. The King started a war (as was his prerogative) with Scotland, and Parliament chose to defund the war. From then on, in common law legal systems that have their roots in England (as our law system does), the legislature always has the power of the purse and can designate where funds go. The legislate can explicitly designate its use, and also designate what it, by law, cannot be used to support.

You'll have to tell Rand Paul that.


PAUL: I think that the actual troop levels should be decided by the President and the generals, but not by Congress. I don’t think Congress has the authority both either to ask for more troops or less troups. Congress can declare war and Congress can fund the troops or not fund the troops.

MCCALLUM: Yes, but that’s essentially where it happens, and when you talk about the funding of the troops — excuse me for interrupting — but you would have have to fund them, and those two things are intrinsically connected, are they not?

PAUL: They are, but funds are fungible. And you can not really limit funds. You could say we’re not going to fund troops in Afghanistan, and he could simply take troops from Ft. Bragg. So I don’t think you can specify specifically where defense funds go, and I don’t think the Constitution intended to restrict the President that way.

[tremendoustie]

You'll have to tell Rand Paul that.

If the president can run around perpetrating war, and the congress has no way to stop it, that's a pretty pathetic notion of "checks and balances".

His position is convenient for someone trying to win an election, but it's absolutely false.

[low preference guy]

His position is convenient for someone trying to win an election, but it's absolutely false.

Rand Paul is not running for office.

[low preference guy]

If the president can run around perpetrating war, and the congress has no way to stop it, that's a pretty pathetic notion of "checks and balances".

The bottom line is that he will have to cut all military funding, otherwise the President can just move the funds. Such cut is not going to occur without a national consensus that the entire military budget should be slashed, and we are nowhere near that consensus.

[tremendoustie]

Rand Paul is not running for office.

So the quote was after the election? Then it's convenient for a politician trying to hold office.

If he votes for the defense appropriations bill or military reauthorization he'll have failed his last chance as far as I'm concerned.

[tremendoustie]

The bottom line is that he will have to cut all military funding, otherwise the President can just move the funds. Such cut is not going to occur without a national consensus that the entire military budget should be slashed, and we are nowhere near that consensus.

Cut it to peacetime levels.

And since when is "not going to happen without a national consensus" an excuse for a principled person to do what's immoral and damaging? Does Ron vote for evil because the "national consensus" doesn't exist for good?

Such an excuse is B.S. politician speak for, "My spine is made of jellyfish, just like every one of my colleagues. I have no mind or morals of my own."

[low preference guy]

If he votes for the defense appropriations bill or military reauthorization he'll have failed his last chance as far as I'm concerned.

You're an anarchist, right? I don't think there was ever any chance of Rand Paul not "failing" from your point of view.

[low preference guy]

Cut it to peacetime levels.

And since when is "not going to happen without a national consensus" an excuse for a principled person to do what's immoral and damaging? Does Ron vote for evil because the "national consensus" doesn't exist for good? No, he votes for what's right.

I don't think Ron voted for cutting the entire military budget, which is what will require to defund the war, following Rand's argument that funds are fungible.

[tremendoustie]

You're an anarchist, right? I don't think there was ever any chance of Rand Paul not "failing" from your point of view.

I'm not an anarchist -- though I do oppose aggression -- and Ron Paul doesn't fail, I fully support him.

[tremendoustie]

I don't think Ron voted for cutting the entire military budget, which is what will require to defund the war, following Rand's argument that funds are fungible.

There was no way to vote for cutting the entire military budget -- but he voted against the budget bill that existed.

I'm not requiring that Rand create a bill to completely defend the military. Just that he vote against spending bills.

[low preference guy]

There was no way to vote for cutting the entire military budget -- but he voted against the budget bill that existed.


Ron could've introduced an amendment to do just that.

[Brett85]

So the quote was after the election? Then it's convenient for a politician trying to hold office.

If he votes for the defense appropriations bill or military reauthorization he'll have failed his last chance as far as I'm concerned.

What about a first chance? He hasn't even started voting yet.

[tremendoustie]

Ron could've introduced an amendment to do just that.

I'm not looking for someone to tilt at windmills. I'm just looking for someone to take the right stand on the bills that exist, and to introduce bills to do the right thing, when the political climate exists such that success is possible.

[DeadheadForPaul]

i think he was too vague ......

Yeah, that was deliberate. It's called not showing your hand to the enemy

She was DESPERATELY trying to get him to admit to certain cuts for the MSM echo chamber could undermine his strategy of cutting the budget before he even got in office. If they have less time to do so, he'll be better off

I swear some of you are either determined to hate Rand or you are oblivious to how politics works

[low preference guy]

I'm not looking for someone to tilt at windmills. I'm just looking for someone to take the right stand on the bills that exist, and to introduce bills to do the right thing, when the political climate exists such that success is possible.

But that's not the topic of discussion, I think. I think the topic is whether Rand would defund the wars, and his position is that he can't practically do it because funds are fungible.

[tremendoustie]

What about a first chance? He hasn't even started voting yet.

His other chances were used up by bad rhetoric. If he starts voting the way his father does, I'll be very glad to see it. Some say his rhetoric was just to get elected ... though I'm not a fan of such tactics, I'm willing to give him a chance.

[tremendoustie]

But that's not the topic of discussion, I think. I think the topic is whether Rand would defund the wars, and his position is that he can't practically do it because funds are fungible.

I didn't say I'd given up on him. I said that if he votes for military funding and reauthorization, I'll give up on him.

There is a LOT he can do as a senator to effect the end of the wars. If he doesn't want to spill the beans in an interview, fine. But if he goes along with the program, using the excuse that "it's the president's prerogative", that'd be inexcusable as far as I'm concerned.

[Promontorium]

You have to cut the budget and the warring. During the 90s the military was being dismantled, but was forced into perpetual conflicts around the world. The result was inferior personnel and obsolete technology.

What's it to be? Will the Republicans vote for more money, or will Rand be a minority? Will Obama end the wars, or will he continue to authorize the various police actions around the world, because it isn't just Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan. The military is doing operations in several African nations, South America, and who know where else. Not to mention the global infrastructure of US bases.

I think defunding is necessary, even though it will cost lives and make America vulnerable. If the president ends the century long global policing, then we can have our security AND a much smaller budget.

Baby steps would be nice. Get the soldiers out of Djibouti, Colombia, and whatever other secret wars we have going. Then take a couple more baby steps, close some of the worthless bases around the world.

If we were down to just Afghanistan, and only had a couple key foreign bases, we could see where the budget is then. The filthy glut is just an insult to this nation. We can't pretend there's any moral or fiscal responsibility while America's military has its finger in every pie. If not even that can be achieved, gaurantee all efforts will be wasted. Impermanence and uncertainty has been the norm, no real overarching responsible effort. Cutting the budget, but not cutting the operations and infrastructure will just mandate a few elections later it will grow right back.

[Brett85]

His other chances were used up by bad rhetoric. If he starts voting the way his father does, I'll be very glad to see it. Some say his rhetoric was just to get elected ... though I'm not a fan of such tactics, I'm willing to give him a chance.

A lot of Senators and representatives who may have concerns and problems with the war in Afghanistan still don't want to vote against funding our troops. It's often a politically suicidal position to vote against funding our troops, and Rand shouldn't be thrown overboard if he decides he doesn't want to vote against funding our troops.

[JVParkour]

Great interview. He shut that lady down.

[tremendoustie]

A lot of Senators and representatives who may have concerns and problems with the war in Afghanistan still don't want to vote against funding our troops. It's often a politically suicidal position to vote against funding our troops, and Rand shouldn't be thrown overboard if he decides he doesn't want to vote against funding our troops.

Ron votes against funding.

Sorry, this "voting for evil is ok because the alternative is bad politically" B.S. has got to go. It's the same excuse the Rs and Ds use for their candidates. "Obama wanted to end Guantanamo/the wars/secret prisons/wiretapping/etc, but he just didn't have the political will". "Bush wanted to shrink government, but he just didn't have the support".

It's absolute self delusion, and blind political fandom. If the man will not take a stand for what's right, he might as well not be there.

[nate895]

You'll have to tell Rand Paul that.

Actually, that is correct. It is two different contexts. Paul is talking about troop deployments within the law. The President is the commander-and-chief, he could micromanage the war if he wanted to do so. However, Congress can say what it will and will not fund. It can say that no money from the Treasury can be used to fund overseas military ventures, which is spelled in the Constitution where it says that all disbursements from the Treasury must be by an act of Congress.

[vita3]

Our Secretary of Defense is trying to cut the military spending, for crying out loud.

Good for Rand!

[LibertyEagle]

I didn't say I'd given up on him. I said that if he votes for military funding and reauthorization, I'll give up on him.

There is a LOT he can do as a senator to effect the end of the wars. If he doesn't want to spill the beans in an interview, fine. But if he goes along with the program, using the excuse that "it's the president's prerogative", that'd be inexcusable as far as I'm concerned.

Agreed. But, remember it's the House that holds the purse strings; not the Senate.

[silus]

I really don't understand how Ron and Rand can be so far apart on the earmarks issue. Its really confusing.

[DeadheadForPaul]

I really don't understand how Ron and Rand can be so far apart on the earmarks issue. Its really confusing.

To be honest, I think Rand is right on this one

I was really disappointed to learn about Ron and the earmarks when it came out

[MRoCkEd]

I really don't understand how Ron and Rand can be so far apart on the earmarks issue. Its really confusing.

They both have good points. I'm personally undecided on that issue.

Yes, earmarks are simply designations and do not add to the spending. But they are also a tool used to buy votes, and I believe the spending bills would ultimately be less likely to pass without them.

[nate895]

They both have good points. I'm personally undecided on that issue.

Yes, earmarks are simply designations and do not add to the spending. But they are also a tool used to buy votes, and I believe the spending bills would ultimately be less likely to pass without them.

It take Ron's side for the same reason I take out student loans from the government: As long as the system is the way it is, it is simply self-defense to try to use what programs you can. It is perfectly legitimate for Ron to defend his seat in Congress, from which he is able to stand up to big government and for liberty, by helping constituents get earmarks for his district.