View Full Version : Veterans: What would Ron Paul do for the troops AFTER bringing them home?

John F Kennedy III
01-02-2012, 05:55 PM
This question comes from my uncle. He is concerned about what would happen to the troops after they come. In many, if not all cases, the government gives them the finger and tells them to fend for themselves. Most end up homeless and we are always seeing commercials where people/organizations are taking care of the troops. How would Ron Paul take care of the troops? Would he guarantee their pensions? He believes they are heroes and should never want for anything for the rest of their lives.

The answer I gave him was that Ron would cut $1 trillion from the budget and would work to install an economy where there would be enough jobs for the veterans to be able to find jobs if they can work and where people and communities would have enough money to where they could be charitable and
help the disabled veterans with everything they need.

I also said I think it would be a state issue to pay veterans disability and such and in that case Ron would do his best to get money to the states so they can do this.

Since I'm always talking about this forum my uncle is always telling me to ask things for him on here. This is the first time I finally decided to do it :p

01-02-2012, 07:28 PM
Well I don't know about all of that, but I figured that he would put a lot of active duty on the borders in addition to bringing them back to their home bases. Regarding veterans, we were all promised our benefits for fulfilling our service. Somehow, that would have to be taken care of. The best thing you can do for a vet is give him/her a job!

01-02-2012, 08:01 PM
Put them on the Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas borders.

John F Kennedy III
01-02-2012, 08:08 PM
Thanks guys. Now he's going on about how none of the candidates will help them as soon as they get home. They shouldn't have to get a job. The government should pay their mortgage and everything else for them.

Fox news is great at breeding socialists. Lol.

01-02-2012, 08:16 PM
Well, they'll be much more employable in the public or private sector if they aren't missing limbs or have a raging case of PTSD. And someone, sitting at home with nothing to do but constantly think about the horrors of war, will probably have an even more aggravated case of PTSD.

I have plenty of relatives who've served in the military, all of them worked in the private sector after their service. Why would that trend change now?

01-02-2012, 08:27 PM
Pay them to defend America?

01-02-2012, 08:29 PM
One kind of federal expenditure Ron Paul has always supported is veterans benefits.

01-02-2012, 08:39 PM
Tell your uncle that instead of defending other countries borders Ron Paul will put them to defend America's borders.

01-02-2012, 08:42 PM
Put them on the border... but he has said he will keep paying them thier paycheck that they got for being stationed in Germany, Japan, ect....

01-02-2012, 08:44 PM
I know Paul mentioned something along the lines of "Instead of having our military members spend their money overseas, boosting the economies of the countries they are stationed in, let's have them spend that money back home, which would instantly boost our own economy."

01-02-2012, 08:47 PM
He's said that he wouldn't fire any military with standing agreements, but let them finish their contracts (or whatever they're called in the military) and they'd also get benefits.

01-02-2012, 09:06 PM
Pretty sure that they wouldn't come home and be let go. The units that would come home would likely re-open bases that may have recently closed here in the States. This is where there would be support to our local US communities instead of other countries overseas both in terms of money spent and jobs. OR one option since the founders really didn't like the idea of a large standing army at home, Ron Paul may work to convert them to National Guardsmen versus Active Duty. The National Guard is a much better fit for states to guard the border than for the country to have Active Duty military guarding it.

01-02-2012, 09:07 PM
Huh? I've never heard Ron Paul say he believes in militarizing the border. There's a video from one of the debates this year where he specifically said he doesn't want more troops on the border, just more border guards but this is all I could find:


As far as the troops coming home, what Aldanga said.

Apollonius of Perga
01-02-2012, 09:24 PM
Regarding OP's original question, check out Cato's comparison (http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/a-guide-presidential-candidates-proposals-cut-spending) of spending plans of the candidates and notice that Ron Paul cuts spending everywhere except only one place where he commits to increased spending, the department of veteran affairs.

01-03-2012, 08:10 AM
I don't think they'd be on the border for to long, would they? Drug cartels and illegal migrants are a possible only threat at the moment, realistically speaking. I don't remember Bin laden's associates trying to get in.

01-03-2012, 08:13 AM
“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. . . . We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.”

–Dwight David Eisenhower, “The Chance for Peace,” speech given to the American Society of Newspaper Editors, Apr. 16, 1953

In a Wall Street Journal editorial on June 8 bemoaning the failure of the Obama stimulus package, Martin Feldstein wrote:

Experience shows that the most cost-effective form of temporary fiscal stimulus is direct government spending. The most obvious way to achieve that in 2009 was to repair and replace the military equipment used in Iraq and Afghanistan that would otherwise have to be done in the future. But the Obama stimulus had nothing for the Defense Department.

You can’t make this stuff up. The most obvious way to stimulate the economy is to replace military equipment? And the Obama stimulus had nothing for the Defense Department? When veterans’ benefits and other past military costs are factored in, the military now devours half the U.S. budget. If military spending is such a cost-effective stimulus, why have the trillions poured into it in the last decade left the economy reeling?

The military is the nation’s largest and most firmly entrenched entitlement program, one that takes half of every tax dollar. Even if “national security” is considered our number one priority (a dubious choice when the real unemployment rate is over 16%), estimates are that the military budget could be cut in half or more and we would still have the most powerful military machine in the world. Our enemies (if any) are now “terrorists,” not countries; and what is needed to contain them (if anything) is local policing, not global warfare. Much of our military hardware is just good for “shock and awe,” not needed for any “real and present danger.”

Military spending is the very essence of “built-in obsolescence”: it turns out products that are designed to blow up. The military is not subject to ordinary market principles but works on a “cost-plus” basis, with producers reimbursed for whatever they have spent plus a guaranteed profit. Gone are the usual competitive restraints that keep capitalist corporations “lean and mean.” Private contractors hired by the government on no-bid contracts can be as wasteful and inefficient as they like and still make a tidy profit. Yet legislators looking to slash wasteful “entitlements” persist in overlooking this obvious elephant in the room.

The reason massive military spending is considered the most “obvious” way to produce a fiscal stimulus is simply that it is the only form of direct government spending that gets a pass from the deficit hawks. The economy is desperate to get money flowing through it, and today only the government is in a position to turn on the spigots; but there is a tourniquet on government spending. That is true for everything but the military, the only program on which the government is allowed to spend seemingly without limit, often even without oversight.

Chalmers Johnson estimated in 2004 that as much as 40% of the Pentagon budget is “black,” meaning hidden from public scrutiny. The black budget is so top secret that Congress itself is not allowed to peer in and haggle over the price. Democratic control of the military has broken down. The military is being used for purposes that even Congress is not allowed to know, much less vote on. The U.S. is no longer a constitutional republic but is a national security state. Foreign policy is determined behind closed doors by powerful private interests that use our military presence abroad to secure their access to cheap labor, markets and resources. At least, we assume that is what is going on. A declared objective of U.S. military policy is “full spectrum dominance.” That could well mean dominance over the American people along with everyone else.


01-03-2012, 04:15 PM
I don't think they'd be on the border for to long, would they? Drug cartels and illegal migrants are a possible only threat at the moment, realistically speaking. I don't remember Bin laden's associates trying to get in.

You are right- the 9/11 hijackers for example entered the country legally- as did something like 40% of all the illegal aliens presently in the US. They enter on work visas, student visas or travel visas and some overstay them. Having a guard every 100 yards or whatever would do nothing about that.

tod evans
01-03-2012, 04:27 PM
My understanding of Dr. Pauls position on our vets is that the military is specifically provided for in the constitution so in accordance with that specification federal programs for vets should be covered.

Like anything else in the federal government the vets program needs to be fixed but I've never heard of it getting the axe.