PDA

View Full Version : Senate Passes $631 Billion Military Spending Bill 98-0




twomp
12-05-2012, 04:06 AM
The Senate has unanimously passed their version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a $631 billion military spending bill, with 98 votes in favor. The unanimity of the vote, according to analysts, was because of a “lack of controversial issues.”

The things that weren’t controversial enough to muster even a single no vote included a new round of sanctions against Iran, a permanent ban on ever transferring detainees from Guantanamo Bay, and continued funding for the occupation of Afghanistan.

Oh, and lest we forget, the Senate version also included the Feinstein Amendment, which nominally was supposed to ban open-ended military detention of American citizens captured on American soil, but was so awkwardly worded and filled with loopholes that proponents of the detention voted for it because they believe it will make it even easier for the military to capture Americans under the new law.

The bill is slightly different from a House version already passed, which is $634 billion. Officials say the two are close enough that it will be easy to solve in committee, however.

http://news.antiwar.com/2012/12/04/senate-passes-631-billion-military-spending-bill-98-0/

John F Kennedy III
12-05-2012, 04:39 AM
Who were the 2 that didn't vote?

Zippyjuan
12-05-2012, 01:59 PM
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=2&vote=00221


Not Voting - 2



Kirk (R-IL)


Rockefeller (D-WV)

acptulsa
12-05-2012, 02:03 PM
Oh, and lest we forget, the Senate version also included the Feinstein Amendment, which nominally was supposed to ban open-ended military detention of American citizens captured on American soil, but was so awkwardly worded and filled with loopholes that proponents of the detention voted for it because they believe it will make it even easier for the military to capture Americans under the new law.

Isn't it heartwarming to see bipartisanship in action?

vita3
12-05-2012, 02:10 PM
$631 Billion is good enough for you Rand?

Acala
12-05-2012, 02:32 PM
So Rand Paul voted for this bloated abomination?

Zippyjuan
12-05-2012, 02:56 PM
Yep.

Paul (R-KY), Yea

idiom
12-05-2012, 03:04 PM
I so miss the lone votes of dissent.

Matt Collins
12-05-2012, 03:06 PM
AntiWar.com isn't exactly known to be a bastion of accuracy in their information.

Senator Mike Lee has already explained why he thinks that amendment was ok.

sailingaway
12-05-2012, 03:10 PM
AntiWar.com isn't exactly known to be a bastion of accuracy in their information.

Senator Mike Lee has already explained why he thinks that amendment was ok.

Mike Lee is inaccurate. I still don't know if the amendment was ok but Lee was wrong, or his staffer was. the 2012 NDAA did NOT have an exception carving out citizens from the ENTIRE NDAA as the bracketed quote in Lee's write up indicated, that carve out was only to indefinite detention under Section 1022 NOT 1021. Since West made the exact same error last year, I'm thinking someone looked at the bill for the 'tea party', did it wrong, and the memo or whatever was used by a lot of 'tea party' types. Inaccurately.

I haven't seen the final of the Feinstein amendment to work through if all is well for myself, but Lee's write up was wrong.

vita3
12-05-2012, 03:12 PM
Say YES to $631 Billion to Defense & BS about Fiscal Cliffs.

Matt Collins
12-05-2012, 03:37 PM
Mike Lee is inaccurate. I still don't know if the amendment was ok but Lee was wrong, or his staffer was. the 2012 NDAA did NOT have an exception carving out citizens from the ENTIRE NDAA as the bracketed quote in Lee's write up indicated, that carve out was only to indefinite detention under Section 1022 NOT 1021. Since West made the exact same error last year, I'm thinking someone looked at the bill for the 'tea party', did it wrong, and the memo or whatever was used by a lot of 'tea party' types. Inaccurately.

I haven't seen the final of the Feinstein amendment to work through if all is well for myself, but Lee's write up was wrong."You can ask 10 different Constitutional scholars the same question and get 10 different answers" - JMDrake

twomp
12-05-2012, 03:42 PM
"You can ask 10 different Constitutional scholars the same question and get 10 different answers" - JMDrake

Yet if you ask Matt Collins, he will try to discredit antiwar.com with statements like:


AntiWar.com isn't exactly known to be a bastion of accuracy in their information.

If Matt Collins doesn't agree, he doesn't provide facts, he goes the slimy route and discredits the information.

sailingaway
12-05-2012, 03:44 PM
"You can ask 10 different Constitutional scholars the same question and get 10 different answers" - JMDrake

I can analyse it myself to my own satisfaction.

and did at least analyze what Lee put out, here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?396966-Indefinite-detention-amendment-to-be-voted-on-soon-update-PASSED-67-29&p=4755876&viewfull=1#post4755876

but I have to get the amendment and look at it as it passed to really conclude what the result of passing it was, overall. Someone should let Lee know his analysis is based on faulty construction, though. That faulty construction seems to be being passed around between Congressmen.

Matt Collins
12-05-2012, 03:46 PM
Yet if you ask Matt Collins, he will try to discredit antiwar.com with statements like:



If Matt Collins doesn't agree, he doesn't provide facts, he goes the slimy route and discredits the information.Unlike some people around here, I know what I know, but I also know what I don't know too. I'm not going to comment on something I don't have a full grasp of, it would be responsible of me to do so. That's something many in the liberty movement need to learn.

twomp
12-05-2012, 03:54 PM
Unlike some people around here, I know what I know, but I also know what I don't know too. I'm not going to comment on something I don't have a full grasp of, it would be responsible of me to do so. That's something many in the liberty movement need to learn.

This sure sounds like you commenting on something you don't know much about:


AntiWar.com isn't exactly known to be a bastion of accuracy in their information.

Senator Mike Lee has already explained why he thinks that amendment was ok.

And please don't tell us what we NEED to learn... You weren't ordained ambassador to the liberty movement.

presence
12-05-2012, 04:05 PM
Unlike some people around here, I know what I know, but I also know what I don't know too. I'm not going to comment on something I don't have a full grasp of, it would be responsible of me to do so. That's something many in the liberty movement need to learn.


This is my grasp:

Russia and China Combined:

215 Billion

631/215 = Almost 3X Russia and China's Budget Combined


Global Military Spending

1.5 Trillion

631B/1.5 = 42% of global spending


Canada and Mexico? 23B and 5B = 28B combined

631/28 = 22.5X the budget of Mexico and Canada COMBINED


The only countries with higher military spending as a % GDP

North Korea, Chad, and the Middle Eastern Countries: Jordan, Lebanon, Yemen, Israel, Eritrea, Irag, UAE, and Saudi Arabia



I feel plenty responsible reporting.

Acala
12-05-2012, 04:07 PM
AntiWar.com isn't exactly known to be a bastion of accuracy in their information.

Senator Mike Lee has already explained why he thinks that amendment was ok.

I don't give a rat's ass if the amendment WAS okay. $630 billion dollars for the DOD is NOT okay.

Brett85
12-05-2012, 05:18 PM
So Rand Paul voted for this bloated abomination?

Had he voted against this bill, he would've been voting in favor of indefinite detention for American citizens and to stay in Afghanistan indefinitely.

presence
12-05-2012, 05:37 PM
Had he voted against this bill, he would've been voting in favor of indefinite detention for American citizens and to stay in Afghanistan indefinitely.

I'm not following your logic. Cite? Quote?

Brett85
12-05-2012, 05:50 PM
I'm not following your logic. Cite? Quote?

The bill contained the Lee-Feinstein amendment which protects the 6th amendment for Americans, and it contains an amendment calling for a transition out of Afghanistan. Had Rand voted against this bill, he would in effect be voting against passing a bill that contains two important amendments that he fought for.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=2&vote=00213
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=2&vote=00210

Anti Federalist
12-05-2012, 06:12 PM
The bill contained the Lee-Feinstein amendment which protects the 6th amendment for Americans, and it contains an amendment calling for a transition out of Afghanistan. Had Rand voted against this bill, he would in effect be voting against passing a bill that contains two important amendments that he fought for.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=2&vote=00213
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=2&vote=00210

Valid point, +rep for mentioning that before I ranted off half cocked.

Aratus
12-05-2012, 06:16 PM
the 2 senators who did not vote had prior commitments? is this THE BILL our sitting potus asked gentleman mitt to help him get a consensus on?

TheTexan
12-05-2012, 06:20 PM
Had he voted against this bill, he would've been voting in favor of indefinite detention for American citizens and to stay in Afghanistan indefinitely.

Uh. No. By that logic, he should vote for a bill that slaughters 400 thousand newborn infants, because it also contains his amendment.

Brett85
12-05-2012, 06:36 PM
Uh. No. By that logic, he should vote for a bill that slaughters 400 thousand newborn infants, because it also contains his amendment.

Rand has said before that while he supports ending the war in Afghanistan, he doesn't support immediately cutting off all funding for the war. So it shouldn't be that surprising that he voted for this. It doesn't mean that he supports the wars that we're currently involved in. It just means that he doesn't want to be accused of de-funding our troops in the field. He wants to be seen as someone who supports a more responsible, humble foreign policy, but also someone who supports our military.

supermario21
12-05-2012, 06:44 PM
I would also assume that in the Senate, you would harm your reputation when you fight very hard for a couple amendments to get included, filibustering the bill yourself for awhile, getting the amendments passed, and then voting against the bill. When it's going to pass regardless, sometimes it's strategically to your advantage to just vote for it. I highly doubt as an executive, we'd be worrying about Rand detaining citizens and waging needless war.

KrokHead
12-05-2012, 06:56 PM
This is my grasp:

Russia and China Combined:

215 Billion

631/215 = Almost 3X Russia and China's Budget Combined


Global Military Spending

1.5 Trillion

631B/1.5 = 42% of global spending


Canada and Mexico? 23B and 5B = 28B combined

631/28 = 22.5X the budget of Mexico and Canada COMBINED


The only countries with higher military spending as a % GDP

North Korea, Chad, and the Middle Eastern Countries: Jordan, Lebanon, Yemen, Israel, Eritrea, Irag, UAE, and Saudi Arabia



I feel plenty responsible reporting.

In fiscal year 1986 to 87
Local, state, and federal governments
Spent a combined total of 16.6 billion dollars
On law enforcement

Federal law enforcement expenditures
Ranked last in absolute dollars
And accounted for only 6% of all federal spending

By way of comparison
The federal government spent 25 millon more
On space exploration and 43 times more on national defense
And national relations then on law enforcement

presence
12-05-2012, 07:13 PM
The bill contained the Lee-Feinstein amendment which protects the 6th amendment for Americans, and it contains an amendment calling for a transition out of Afghanistan. Had Rand voted against this bill, he would in effect be voting against passing a bill that contains two important amendments that he fought for.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=2&vote=00213
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=2&vote=00210

Thanks,


SA 3018. Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. LEE, Mr. COONS, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. PAUL, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, and Mr. KIRK) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by her to the bill S. 3254, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2013 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table.
At the end of subtitle D of title X, add the following:
SEC. 1032. PROHIBITION ON THE INDEFINITE DETENTION OF CITIZENS AND LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENTS.
Section 4001 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
``(b)(1) An authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States apprehended in the United States, unless an Act of Congress expressly authorizes such detention.
``(2) Paragraph (1) applies to an authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority enacted before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2013.
``(3) Paragraph (1) shall not be construed to authorize the detention of a citizen of the United States, a lawful permanent resident of the United States, or any other person who is apprehended in the United States.''.




SA 3096. Mr. MERKLEY (for himself, Mr. PAUL, and Mr. MANCHIN) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed


[Page: S7086] GPO's PDF (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/citation.result.CREC.action?congressionalRecord.vo lume=158&congressionalRecord.pagePrefix=S&congressionalRecord.pageNumber=7086&publication=CREC) by him to the bill S. 3254, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2013 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the end of subtitle B of title XII, add the following:
SEC. 1221. COMPLETION OF ACCELERATED TRANSITION OF UNITED STATES COMBAT AND MILITARY AND SECURITY OPERATIONS TO THE GOVERNMENT OF AFGHANISTAN.
(a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that the President shall, in coordination with the Government of Afghanistan, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) member countries, and other allies in Afghanistan, seek to--
(1) undertake all appropriate activities to accomplish the President's stated goal of transitioning the lead responsibility for security to the Government of Afghanistan by mid-summer 2013;
(2) as part of accomplishing this transition of the lead responsibility for security to the Government of Afghanistan, draw down United States troops to the minimum level required to meet this goal;
(3) as previously announced by the President, continue to draw down United States troop levels at a steady pace through the end of 2014; and
(4) end all regular combat operations by United States troops by not later than December 31, 2014, and take all possible steps to end such operations at the earliest date consistent with a safe and orderly draw down of United States troops in Afghanistan.
(b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or prohibit any authority of the President--
(1) to modify the military strategy, tactics, and operations of United States Armed Forces as such Armed Forces redeploy from Afghanistan;
(2) to authorize United States forces in Afghanistan to defend themselves whenever they may be threatened;
(3) to attack Al Qaeda forces wherever such forces are located;
(4) to provide financial support and equipment to the Government of Afghanistan for the training and supply of Afghanistan military and security forces; or
(5) to gather, provide, and share intelligence with United States allies operating in Afghanistan and Pakistan.



I still think he should have abstained or nay voted. He had to of known it was going to pass anyway.

But Mr. Paul, your cosponsored bill was in that NDAA legislation....

"I understand, and I abstained because I do not agree to spending a 1/5 of 631B on DOD, which was the primary purpose of the NDAA."


...I'm not a politician though.

Feeding the Abscess
12-05-2012, 08:07 PM
I would also assume that in the Senate, you would harm your reputation when you fight very hard for a couple amendments to get included, filibustering the bill yourself for awhile, getting the amendments passed, and then voting against the bill. When it's going to pass regardless, sometimes it's strategically to your advantage to just vote for it. I highly doubt as an executive, we'd be worrying about Rand detaining citizens and waging needless war.

So, the usual refrain of "don't criticize Rand for his rhetoric, criticize his voting record" is now "well, you know, maybe you should look at his last name. Do you really think he'd do that stuff?"

nobody's_hero
12-05-2012, 08:19 PM
Had he voted against this bill, he would've been voting in favor of indefinite detention for American citizens and to stay in Afghanistan indefinitely.

I seem to remember Bob Barr saying the reason he supported the Patriot Act was so he could support a 'sunset clause'.

I also seem to remember that the Patriot Act still exists.

We need to be very careful about going along for some ill-gotten and ultimately useless caveat, however noble the intentions.

supermario21
12-05-2012, 08:24 PM
So, the usual refrain of "don't criticize Rand for his rhetoric, criticize his voting record" is now "well, you know, maybe you should look at his last name. Do you really think he'd do that stuff?"

I'm just saying that Rand fought pretty hard to get that amendment included in the bill. Playing hardball with a bunch of assholes including guys in your own party like McCain and Graham ready to sell out on filibuster reform (mostly because of Rand) is not always a smart strategy. All in the name of what, losing a 97-1 vote? Pick your fights, like foreign aid was a few months ago.

youngbuck
12-05-2012, 08:28 PM
Of course it passed. It's all planned out.

Gen. Michael T. Flynn, told the Post at a recent conference, during which he outlined the changes but did not describe them in detail. “This is a major adjustment for national security.” Flynn predicted an “era of persistent conflict” globally in which the DIA is needed for providing on-the-ground intelligence, possibly for military strikes. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?397475-DIA-Doubles-Spy-Numbers-Abroad-Rivaling-CIA-Numbers)

Brett85
12-05-2012, 08:34 PM
So, the usual refrain of "don't criticize Rand for his rhetoric, criticize his voting record" is now "well, you know, maybe you should look at his last name. Do you really think he'd do that stuff?"

Yes, let's all criticize Rand for not voting "no" in 98-0 votes.

presence
12-05-2012, 08:48 PM
The man who stands out has the podium to say why. 631B gives him plenty of room to explain himself.

qh4dotcom
12-05-2012, 08:52 PM
Had he voted against this bill, he would've been voting in favor of indefinite detention for American citizens and to stay in Afghanistan indefinitely.

His father votes against bad bills even though he inserts earmarks on them...just because he fought to get an amendment inserted on a bad bill does not mean he should vote yes on it.

presence
12-05-2012, 09:04 PM
just because he fought to get an amendment inserted on a bad bill does not mean he should vote yes on it.

^^

Brett85
12-05-2012, 09:42 PM
His father votes against bad bills even though he inserts earmarks on them...just because he fought to get an amendment inserted on a bad bill does not mean he should vote yes on it.

Why is this a bad bill?

muh_roads
12-05-2012, 10:01 PM
If they gave me 631 Billion I'd employ every unemployed person in the country.

What a fucking waste of money.

presence
12-05-2012, 10:02 PM
Why is this a bad bill?

You generally agree with a DOD budget of 631B?

qh4dotcom
12-05-2012, 10:02 PM
Why is this a bad bill?

You call yourself a "traditional conservative" and you support a $631 billion military spending bill?

The country is 100+ trillion in debt (counting unfunded liabilities) and can't afford it. You want the next generation to be responsible for paying it? The debt ceiling will have to be raised also...you support an increase in the national debt limit? This bills also funds the invasion of foreign countries...you Ok with that?

You think Ron Paul would vote yes for this garbage?


If they gave me 631 Billion I'd employ every unemployed person in the country.

What a fucking waste of money.

Philosophy_of_Politics
12-05-2012, 10:02 PM
We really need to figure out what Rand's strategy is, and we need to know his intentions. We need to resolve this, or this movement is divided for good.

TheTexan
12-05-2012, 10:06 PM
I like Rand. I really do. But this bill is an example of how the Rand strategy simply isn't working. He's basically forced into voting for $631 billion just to retain his "credibility", and what have we gotten in return for this compromise? Zilch.

As much as I would like for Rand to be successful in 2016, he won't be. He won't be palatable for mainstream republicans until he has compromised everything away to the point where we no longer recognize him.

I generally try to hold my tongue on this issue so that you guys can give it an honest attempt, but the only thing I ask in return is if in 2016 Rand fails just as Ron did, we re-think our strategy rather than go further into compromise.

presence
12-05-2012, 10:10 PM
Sen. Rand Paul voted yes for the $650 billion 2013 NDAA
http://www.examiner.com/article/sen-rand-paul-voted-yes-for-the-650-billion-2013-ndaa
(2 hours ago)


The controversial bill authorizes funding for the 2013 military.

Somewhere, in the midst of the $650 billion funding bill, mixed in with $88.5 billion for ongoing wars and $60 billion for the Navy’s F-18 fighter program, remains the indefinite detention clause that had many so upset in 2012. An amendment to the 2013 NDAA included the right to trial for “citizens and permanent legal residents”, despite the fact that the Constitution demands all accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) angered many of his father’s supporters by voting for the 2013 NDAA. Doug Stafford, Paul’s chief of staff, stated that Sen. Paul believes that “the full panoply of due process rights should apply to all persons, not just American citizens.” Sen. Paul, however, still voted for the passage of the NDAA.

The NDAA has passed 51 years in a row. The 2013 version of the monolithic bill includes not just funding for the military operations of the country, but also harsher sanctions for Iran. The military will be purchasing Strykers, Chinooks, Black Hawks, and many other machines of war in 2013, all approved by Sen. Rand Paul.


http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/item/13829-senate-unanimously-passes-2013-ndaa-power-to-arrest-americans-remains

Not a single senator objected to the passage once again of a law that purports to permit the president, supported by nothing more substantial than his own belief that the suspect poses a threat to national security, to deploy the U.S. military to arrest an American living in America.

As The New American reported (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/congress/item/13789-feinstein-lee-ndaa-amendment-passes-but-is-it-enough), an amendment to the 2013 version of the defense spending bill passed by the Senate clarified the right to trial of “citizens and permanent legal residents” detained under the relevant sections of the revamped measure.


The amendment, known as the Feinstein-Lee Amendment, was cosponsored by Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), and Rand Paul (R-Ky.). In an interview Tuesday with The New American, spokesmen for Lee and Paul admitted that the amendment did not go far enough in the defense of due process

I applaud Rand for getting his riders stuck in there. I give him a fat F for voting yes on a bill he knows he doesn't fully support.

Brett85
12-05-2012, 10:12 PM
You call yourself a "traditional conservative" and you support a $631 billion military spending bill?

The country is 100+ trillion in debt (counting unfunded liabilities) and can't afford it. You want the next generation to be responsible for paying it? The debt ceiling will have to be raised also...you support an increase in the national debt limit? This bills also funds the invasion of foreign countries...you Ok with that?

You think Ron Paul would vote yes for this garbage?

I support cutting the Pentagon's budget by ending the war in Afghanistan and closing down foreign military bases overseas. However, I don't have a problem with this particular bill since it contains an amendment calling for an end to the war in Afghanistan. The total amount spent in this bill may be 631 billion, but the amendment calling for a withdrawal from Afghanistan means that next year's NDAA bill will only be about 540 billion.

Brett85
12-05-2012, 10:14 PM
The bill also doesn't fund the invasion of foreign countries. That's an outright lie. It simply requires the President to issue a report regarding a no fly zone in Syria. Rand also voted against this amendment and even gave a speech denouncing it.

AuH20
12-05-2012, 10:14 PM
97-1 is a vote for suckers. Keep it up Rand. You have my support. No one said this would be easy.

Brett85
12-05-2012, 10:17 PM
How much money does everyone think we should spend on these defense authorization bills? What is the appropriate amount to spend on defense every year?

AuH20
12-05-2012, 10:18 PM
How much money does everyone think we should spend on these defense authorization bills? What is the appropriate amount to spend on defense every year?

Pre 2001 levels are sufficient. I believe 350-400 billion.

qh4dotcom
12-05-2012, 10:21 PM
How much money does everyone think we should spend on these defense authorization bills? What is the appropriate amount to spend on defense every year?

The minimum amount necessary for the govt to comply with its constitutional functions and not a penny more....not a penny for any unconstitutional garbage on it.

540 billion is obviously waaaaaaay too much...during most of this country's history, the country hasn't had a 540 billion military budget.

qh4dotcom
12-05-2012, 10:22 PM
Pre 2001 levels are sufficient. I believe 350-400 billion.

That's still waaaaaay too much...like I said earlier, the minimum amount necessary for the govt to comply with its constitutional functions and not a penny more....not a penny for any unconstitutional garbage on it.

AuH20
12-05-2012, 10:22 PM
The minimum amount necessary for the govt to comply with its constitutional functions and not a penny more....not a penny for any unconstitutional garbage on it.

540 billion is obviously waaaaaaay too much...during most of this country's history, the country hasn't had a 540 billion military budget.

But the dollar values are skewed due to the money supply. 1 million doesn't buy you the same equipment it did 50 years ago.

presence
12-05-2012, 10:23 PM
How much money does everyone think we should spend on these defense authorization bills?

No more than Russia and China Combined to get my vote:

215B

I argue we can defend this nation for 50B

NATO/Israel would squash Iran tomorrow if they weren't scared of the greater repercussions. Iran only spends 7B to do that and doesn't even have nukes.

Is this the National Defence Authorization Act or the National Aggression Authorization Act?

Lets be honest, at 631B, its the National Mil-Industrial-Complex Support Act.

There are 1500 $50,000 Chevy Volts in the NDAA2013 in order to ‘green up’ the military.

(http://hotair.com/archives/2012/09/11/of-course-the-pentagon-is-buying-chevy-volts/)6 MILLION (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/coburn-report-dod-budget-millions-spent-storytelling-science-breast-cancer-research) for “better understanding the thoughts and feelings of others.”


Invoking the mantra of the now-retired Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, Langstaff declared that the greatest threat to national security was the federal debt, not any foreign foe.
http://defense.aol.com/2012/12/03/defense-execs-say-deeper-dod-budget-cuts-higher-taxes-ok/

Brett85
12-05-2012, 10:27 PM
That's still waaaaaay too much...like I said earlier, the minimum amount necessary for the govt to comply with its constitutional functions and not a penny more....not a penny for any unconstitutional garbage on it.

Yes, but national defense is a Constitutional function. The federal government could spend 4 trillion a year on defense and that would be Constitutional, although I obviously wouldn't support that. But my point is that it's hard to know how much we should spend on defense. I don't know how we come to the conclusion on how much we need to spend on defense every year to maintain an adequate defense.

Brett85
12-05-2012, 10:29 PM
Pre 2001 levels are sufficient. I believe 350-400 billion.

That sounds reasonable, but we obviously can't cut 300 billion in defense spending over night. I believe that Rand is in favor of more gradual cuts to defense spending.

qh4dotcom
12-05-2012, 10:32 PM
Yes, but national defense is a Constitutional function. The federal government could spend 4 trillion a year on defense and that would be Constitutional, although I obviously wouldn't support that. But my point is that it's hard to know how much we should spend on defense. I don't know how we come to the conclusion on how much we need to spend on defense every year to maintain an adequate defense.

See another RPF's member post below


No more than Russia and China Combined to get my vote:

215B

I argue we can defend this nation for 50B

AuH20
12-05-2012, 10:32 PM
It's time to cut Western Europe loose. The little socialists need to understand that defense isn't free and NATO isn't a charity program funded on the back of the American taxpayer.

qh4dotcom
12-05-2012, 10:33 PM
That sounds reasonable, but we obviously can't cut 300 billion in defense spending over night. I believe that Rand is in favor of more gradual cuts to defense spending.

Sure you can...it would be a no-brainer for Ron Paul to vote yes on that

tsai3904
12-05-2012, 10:35 PM
How much money does everyone think we should spend on these defense authorization bills? What is the appropriate amount to spend on defense every year?

Ron's "Plan to Restore America" had $501 billion for 2013 then increases about 1.5% each year thereafter.

twomp
12-05-2012, 10:37 PM
For example, Section 1203 authorizes the secretaries of Defense and State:

(1) To enhance the ability of the Yemen Ministry of Interior Counter Terrorism Forces to conduct counterterrorism operations against al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and its affiliates.

(2) To enhance the capacity of the national military forces, security agencies serving a similar defense function, other counterterrorism forces, and border security forces of Djibouti, Ethiopia, and Kenya to conduct counterterrorism operations against al Qaeda, al Qaeda affiliates, and al Shabaab.

(3) To enhance the capacity of national military forces participating in the African Union Mission in Somalia to conduct counterterrorism operations against al Qaeda, al Qaeda affiliates, and al Shabaab.

Funding limits of $75,000,000 in each area are set in the bill. How will this money be spent? For “provision of equipment, supplies, training, and minor military construction.” Looks like expansion of the drone war just got a huge kickstart.

From the same article that presence linked:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/item/13829-senate-unanimously-passes-2013-ndaa-power-to-arrest-americans-remains

Brett85
12-05-2012, 10:40 PM
Sure you can...it would be a no-brainer for Ron Paul to vote yes on that

Yes, which is why Ron was constantly labeled as "weak on defense" by all of his opponents in the GOP primary. Rand wants to avoid that. Rand wants to be seen as someone who supports a more responsible and humble foreign policy, but also supports having a strong national defense here at home.

presence
12-05-2012, 10:58 PM
Rand wants to be seen as someone who supports a more responsible and humble foreign policy, but also supports having a strong national defense here at home.

which is why he voted YES to:


enhance the ability of the Yemen Ministry of Interior Counter Terrorism Forces

Brett85
12-05-2012, 11:15 PM
which is why he voted YES to:

Link?

presence
12-05-2012, 11:51 PM
Link?

it was just cited:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?397571-Senate-Passes-631-Billion-Military-Spending-Bill-98-0&p=4762618&viewfull=1#post4762618

Feeding the Abscess
12-06-2012, 12:05 AM
But the dollar values are skewed due to the money supply. 1 million doesn't buy you the same equipment it did 50 years ago.

1900 defense spending in 2005 dollars was $7 billion.

No more than $100 billion is necessary to cover defense and veterans support programs. And over time, that $100 billion can be drastically cut, as we won't be blowing limbs or minds off of our soldiers anymore.

Also, keep in mind that the defense budget is roughly half of the total national security spending that can be accounted for. National security spending - total national security spending - should be no more than $50 billion by 2020.

juleswin
12-06-2012, 12:29 AM
Everyday Rand Paul continues to look less like Ron and more like a typical traditional republican. This is not good

Matt Collins
12-06-2012, 12:35 AM
Everyday Rand Paul continues to look less like Ron and more like a typical traditional republican. This is not goodOnly to those who can't tell the difference between rhetoric / posturing and policy

TheTexan
12-06-2012, 12:43 AM
Only to those who can't tell the difference between rhetoric / posturing and policy

Does not the need to increasingly posture and modify rhetoric towards the mainstream indicate that something may not be working as well as one hoped?

oyarde
12-06-2012, 12:43 AM
Quite Frankly , Constitutional spending would not be a problem if there were no UnConstitutional spending.Tax revenue taken in, easily covers what congress is allowed to tax and spend for and the oath that they take to up hold that. I think it is too much money, but in the end , it is all the rest I hate even more.....

Matt Collins
12-06-2012, 12:45 AM
Does not the need to increasingly posture and modify rhetoric towards the mainstream indicate that something may not be working as well as one hoped?Unfortunately it's necessecary to win in American politics. Even Ron did it in many of his Congressional elections.

juleswin
12-06-2012, 12:53 AM
Only to those who can't tell the difference between rhetoric / posturing and policy

Oh yea, I guess he is playing a 3D cheese game and us simpletons cant understand the complexity of it. When is he ever going to stand up and vote his conscience? Vote for Iran sanctions and now this? I try so hard to like Rand but everyday there's something new that needs explaining by the experts. It has reached a point where I am petrified to open a thread about Rand.

Keep doing down that path and before you know it, you will lose most of your dad's supporters

twomp
12-06-2012, 01:09 AM
I so miss the lone votes of dissent.

So do I. There are some here who would consider it "foolish" or for "suckers". But I see them as courageous and principled. Ron Paul we miss you ALREADY!!!

TheTexan
12-06-2012, 02:55 AM
Unfortunately it's necessecary to win in American politics. Even Ron did it in many of his Congressional elections.

Is winning a bill like this... really winning?

alucard13mmfmj
12-06-2012, 03:20 AM
Yes, which is why Ron was constantly labeled as "weak on defense" by all of his opponents in the GOP primary. Rand wants to avoid that. Rand wants to be seen as someone who supports a more responsible and humble foreign policy, but also supports having a strong national defense here at home.

"I Like Ron Paul. I agree with everything he says, EXCEPT foreign policy."

Although, I am pretty sure the media and rand's opponents will use other things to attack rand with.

PierzStyx
12-06-2012, 07:44 AM
Thanks,






I still think he should have abstained or nay voted. He had to of known it was going to pass anyway.

But Mr. Paul, your cosponsored bill was in that NDAA legislation....

"I understand, and I abstained because I do not agree to spending a 1/5 of 631B on DOD, which was the primary purpose of the NDAA."


...I'm not a politician though.

Like his Dad did repeatedly on pork bills.

Brett85
12-06-2012, 08:18 AM
it was just cited:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?397571-Senate-Passes-631-Billion-Military-Spending-Bill-98-0&p=4762618&viewfull=1#post4762618

Rand voted for a bill with those things in it, because he supports the goal of the overall bill, which is to fund our military, veterans, and provide for the basic defense apparatus for our country. It is entirely dishonest to claim that Rand agrees with every single aspect of this bill.

presence
12-06-2012, 08:35 AM
. It is entirely dishonest to claim that Rand agrees with every single aspect of this bill.

An honest representative that doesn't agree with the WHOLE bill as presented would VOTE NO, regardless of what riders he agrees with.


I'll buy your children for $1,000,000.

http://images.sneakhype.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/usd-1_million_dollars-1000000_USD-930x639-620x426.jpeg

A million bucks is good money... whattya say?

Brett85
12-06-2012, 08:40 AM
An honest representative that doesn't agree with the WHOLE bill as presented would VOTE NO, regardless of what riders he agrees with.

That's just where Rand and Ron disagree. Rand isn't going to vote against a bill simply because it has a few minor provisions that he disagrees with, particularly when the vote would still only be 97-1. It would accomplish absolutely nothing for Rand to vote against this bill. This is the kind of bill that is obviously not perfect, but it isn't bad enough to justify being the only "no" vote and get branded by the neo-cons as being "weak on defense." He watched his dad in his multiple campaigns and understands all of the garbage he took from other Republicans about "being weak on defense." He's learned that he can't follow exactly in his dad's path if he wants to ever have any chance to be President.

ifthenwouldi
12-06-2012, 08:50 AM
I too miss the lone votes of dissent. In fact, it's the primary reason I was drawn to Ron Paul. I'm certain I'm not alone.

Either way, I feel that the amount of attention Rand gets around here is unhealthy. IMHO, political attention needs to be focused on supporting and electing a sustainable liberty caucus beginning in 2014, not the 2016 presidency.

presence
12-06-2012, 08:51 AM
$$ a few minor provisions $$

In stacks of these:

http://images.sneakhype.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/usd-10000_dollars-10000_USD-620x265.jpeg

http://tommydavis.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/what-does-one-trillion-dollars-look-like3.jpg

http://images.sneakhype.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/usd-1_trillion_dollars-1000000000000_USD-v2-07-620x866.jpeg


Honestly a bit of an exaggeration... we're only talking 631B... about 2/3T


Another visual?

$100 Bill:
6.6294 cm wide by 15.5956 cm long.
=103.389470640
x 631,000,000,000
/ 100
=652387559738.4 cm^2
=65.23 km^2
=25 mi^2

Manhattan?
22 mi^2

22/25 = .88

(1-.88)631B = 75B



In other words, $631B is enough to wallpaper all of Manhattan with $100 bills



and still have 75 Billion in your pocket... well really... about 2B fits on a tractor trailer truck.

Brett85
12-06-2012, 08:54 AM
I too miss the lone votes of dissent.

http://rt.com/usa/news/rand-paul-senate-iran-756/

HOLLYWOOD
12-06-2012, 08:59 AM
Rand voted for a bill with those things in it, because he supports the goal of the overall bill, which is to fund our military, veterans, and provide for the basic defense apparatus for our country. It is entirely dishonest to claim that Rand agrees with every single aspect of this bill.That $631 Billion does not fund Veterans... that is a separate Department and the FY2013 Veterans Affairs budget is over $140 Billion, a double digit increase over the previous year. Add that to the DOD budget

Let me point out one thing clearly to all. The Defense Budget is only looked upon as the sole financing for defense, it is not. DHS/NSC/WH which funneled Billions to the War in Libya and Syria are not counted as defense/DOD budgeting. The development/test/sustainability of Nuclear Weapons technologies, Nuclear propulsion technologies, etc, are funded under the Department of Energy and that's $10's of billions each year. That's $10's of Billions each per year, most likely classified, supplemental, and whatever scheme DC can conjure-up to spread the expenses across department accounts. Washington DC is clever enough today, to spread the expenditures across the board of the annual and future budgets(borrowing down the road), so the people truly don't realize just how much is spent of defense/global conquest. US State Department is another... Billions to Israel in a slew of schemes each year, from billions in USAID for the Israeli military, to public and private weapons development projects, onto classified "Trade" deals... That's not at all counted as DOD defense appropraitions



There are plenty of "OTHER" US federal agencies and departments that fund "Defense and it's reciprocals"

Acala
12-06-2012, 09:05 AM
Sorry, but I cannot see ANY justification for voting to spend over $600 billion on non-critical programs when we have a budget deficit of over a trillion dollars annually. None.

Brett85
12-06-2012, 09:09 AM
Sorry, but I cannot see ANY justification for voting to spend over $600 billion on non-critical programs when we have a budget deficit of over a trillion dollars annually. None.

So national defense is "non criticial?" What exactly are examples of "critical programs?" Medicare and Social Security?

TheTexan
12-06-2012, 09:10 AM
So national defense is "non criticial?" What exactly are examples of "critical programs?" Medicare and Social Security?

National offense you mean

Brett85
12-06-2012, 09:11 AM
National offense you mean

The bill contains an amendment to withdraw from Afghanistan, so in effect Rand would've been voting in favor of "national offense" had he voted against this bill.

nobody's_hero
12-06-2012, 09:20 AM
Unfortunately it's necessecary to win in American politics. Even Ron did it in many of his Congressional elections.

Okay, matt, I gotta be honest. I liked you better when you were snubbing handshakes with establishment congressmen. Matt 2.0 acts a little bit weak-kneed.

http://nashvillepost.com/taxonomy/term/20464

Paper-slams-me-for-not-apologizing-for-refusing-hand-shake-from-Rep-Wamp! (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?221829-Paper-slams-me-for-not-apologizing-for-refusing-hand-shake-from-Rep-Wamp!)

I miss the r3volution of 2008. Some days I feel like we've been domesticated (for lack of a better word?).

presence
12-06-2012, 09:28 AM
So national defense is "non criticial?"

50B National Defense is critical. 650B mega-budget-militant-empire-expansion is not.


WASHINGTON, Sept. 22, 2011 – Debt is the biggest threat to U.S. national security, Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said during remarks to business executives today.

Terrorists? Nope.

Afghanistan? Nope.

Iran? Nope.

Syria? Not a problem.

Al Q? Russia? China? North fricking crazy Korea

no no no and no

Terrorism in Yemens Interior? Mullen didn't mention it.

DEBTBIGGEST

jclay2
12-06-2012, 09:44 AM
Just one more reason for me to believe Rand is really nothing like his father. There have been way to many of these votes. I don't want someone to please the establishment to move forward. I want someone to throw a monkey wrench into the engine and take us off the path to a hyperinflationary collapse.

I completely agree with presence. Debt is the #1 threat to US national security.

Acala
12-06-2012, 09:45 AM
So national defense is "non criticial?" What exactly are examples of "critical programs?" Medicare and Social Security?

Oh please. That bill has nothing to do with defending the borders of this country and EVERYTING to do with maintaining the global empire and enriching government contractors. When ALL the bases outside our borders are closed and ALL the troops and ships have come home and ALL the weapons we don't need have been mothballed or sold, and ALL the excess troops have been discharged, THEN bring me the bill and we can talk. It will be a tiny fraction of $600 billion.

This is OT, but Medicare and SS need to be phased out. People that are truly dependent on those program need to be taken care of and everyone else released.

Brett85
12-06-2012, 09:47 AM
50B National Defense is critical.

I suppose we could have a 50B National Defense if we abolished the entire military.

Brett85
12-06-2012, 09:50 AM
Oh please. That bill has nothing to do with defending the borders of this country and EVERYTING to do with maintaining the global empire and enriching government contractors. When ALL the bases outside our borders are closed and ALL the troops and ships have come home and ALL the weapons we don't need have been mothballed or sold, and ALL the excess troops have been discharged, THEN bring me the bill and we can talk. It will be a tiny fraction of $600 billion.

This is OT, but Medicare and SS need to be phased out. People that are truly dependent on those program need to be taken care of and everyone else released.

Do you really think that Rand supports spending 630 billion a year of the Pentagon? Of course not. But he also doesn't support spending $0 a year on "defense," which is what he would've been voting for had he voted against this bill. Rand has always made it clear that he does support cutting the Pentagon's budget, but he wants to do it responsibly and gradually, rather than simply voting for an annual defense budget of $0.

nobody's_hero
12-06-2012, 09:50 AM
I suppose we could have a 50B National Defense if we abolished the entire military.

Throw in 50,000,000 modern-day minutemen armed with spooky assault weapons and you've got yourself a deal. :)

Acala
12-06-2012, 10:03 AM
Do you really think that Rand supports spending 630 billion a year of the Pentagon? Of course not. But he also doesn't support spending $0 a year on "defense," which is what he would've been voting for had he voted against this bill. Rand has always made it clear that he does support cutting the Pentagon's budget, but he wants to do it responsibly and gradually, rather than simply voting for an annual defense budget of $0.

This is simply false. Voting no on a totally ridiculous budget that WE CANNOT AFFORD is not equivalent to voting for $0. It is saying "If you want my vote, you need to fix this". And voting yes on that bill is NOT cutting the Pentagon budget. It is supporting business as usual for the world empire.

presence
12-06-2012, 10:13 AM
I suppose we could have a 50B National Defense if we abolished the entire military.

Has France or the UK disbanded their military? They each spend about 60B.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_equipment_of_the_British_Army
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_equipment_of_the_French_Army

Matt Collins
12-06-2012, 10:52 AM
Oh yea, I guess he is playing a 3D cheese game and us simpletons cant understand the complexity of it. See post 77 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?397571-Senate-Passes-631-Billion-Military-Spending-Bill-98-0&p=4762895&viewfull=1#post4762895)

Matt Collins
12-06-2012, 10:54 AM
I miss the r3volution of 2008. Some days I feel like we've been domesticated It's called maturity. Some in the liberty movement are getting some, others are not.

nobody's_hero
12-06-2012, 10:58 AM
It's called maturity. Some in the liberty movement are getting some, others are not.

Lest you forget: This country was set free by acts of "immaturity".

http://cdn.inquisitr.com/wp-content/2012/11/Boston-Tea-party-2.jpg

qh4dotcom
12-06-2012, 11:08 AM
I suppose we could have a 50B National Defense if we abolished the entire military.

Costa Rica did that back in 1948...they sure saved themselves a lot of money doing that...and they have had 64 years of peace.

Acala
12-06-2012, 11:15 AM
See post 77 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?397571-Senate-Passes-631-Billion-Military-Spending-Bill-98-0&p=4762895&viewfull=1#post4762895)


So you are saying that a bill that spends $631 billion we don't have on military adventures abroad that make us less secure contains just "a few minor provisions that [Rand] disagrees with"?

Brett85
12-06-2012, 11:30 AM
So you are saying that a bill that spends $631 billion we don't have on military adventures abroad that make us less secure contains just "a few minor provisions that [Rand] disagrees with"?

This bill does not authorize any new wars, and it calls for a withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan. That has been pointed out numerous times.

TheTexan
12-06-2012, 11:32 AM
The bill contains an amendment to withdraw from Afghanistan, so in effect Rand would've been voting in favor of "national offense" had he voted against this bill.

There you go with logical fallacies again

TheTexan
12-06-2012, 11:42 AM
This bill does not authorize any new wars

At this point, simply giving the President the funding for such a massive overseas military force is considered "authorization"

It's fucking irresponsible, to give Presidents who have no regard for the constitution, so much money for military

kcchiefs6465
12-06-2012, 11:48 AM
So national defense is "non criticial?" What exactly are examples of "critical programs?" Medicare and Social Security?
Seriously? It is not in our "defense" to meddle in the affairs of over a half dozen countries simultaneously. It is not in our defense to fund puppet governments of oppressed peasants. It is not in our defense to weaken an already debased currency for frivolous purchases of weaponry that said Armed Forces say they don't need nor want. Sanctions do not make us safe. Cyber wars do not make us safe. Spending 60 percent of the world's total "defense" while simultaneously selling 60 percent of the world's total of armaments does not make sense. Arming those we will inevitably be fighting does not make sense. Do you not realize that untold billions from this bill will be literally 'lost.' Seriously, no bullshit. They can't even account for all the money we throw at them. The Air Force, for example, has been fudging their books for years. Any time money is not accounted for that should have been accounted for they simply change the cost. For example, $333,000 changes to $1,333,000. You can't even audit those mofos their books are so cooked! Microcircuits with a production cost of 11 cents each bought for $5,788.76 a piece. Coffeepots that can withstand 40 Gs of acceleration for $7,622. (What man is going to be making coffee when their insides have exploded long ago?) Toilet seats for $640. Hell, McDonnell Douglas sold bolt nuts to the Navy for $2,043 a piece! Where is the sanity? Rand Paul knows this bill is 85% waste. Why isn't he using his position to scream loud and far to everyone who doesn't? And to respond to your arguement of 'you can't just cut them overnight,' I'd say, "the fuck you can't." Those assholes have been losing money for decades. (Literally losing. Not losing money as in they build shit that causes destruction to charge us to rebuild. But losing as in, "Derp, where'd it go?") Fuck them and their neoconservative horse they rode in on. For all I care G.E. can take a little time off from building E.M.P. bombs and other wickedry to do something productive. Have them pave roads or something. Fuck.

Brett85
12-06-2012, 11:54 AM
At this point, simply giving the President the funding for such a massive overseas military force is considered "authorization"

It's fucking irresponsible, to give Presidents who have no regard for the constitution, so much money for military

Yes, it would be great for Rand to be seen by GOP primary voters as someone who "hates the military" and wants to disarm them on the battlefield. I'm sure that Rand will have a great chance of winning the GOP nomination in 2016 if he's seen as someone who wants to gut the military and doesn't believe in national defense. :rolleyes:

Acala
12-06-2012, 11:56 AM
This bill does not authorize any new wars, and it calls for a withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan. That has been pointed out numerous times.

Oh, it doesn't authorize any NEW wars? Well, that's a relief. :rolleyes: I guess the wars we have are okee dokee then?

Not for me. We need to STOP what our military is doing, not approve its continuation. We should not spend one more cent on overseas adventurism and global domination. The Senate should be defunding the military to reign it in.

I am not okay with continuing to fund a brutal, corrupt world empire that we cannot afford and that was never contemplated by the Constitution.

Acala
12-06-2012, 11:57 AM
Yes, it would be great for Rand to be seen by GOP primary voters as someone who "hates the military" and wants to disarm them on the battlefield. I'm sure that Rand will have a great chance of winning the GOP nomination in 2016 if he's seen as someone who wants to gut the military and doesn't believe in national defense. :rolleyes:

I guess if winning is what matters, he should just hire some spin doctors to tell him how to vote. Or maybe he has.

Brett85
12-06-2012, 11:58 AM
This is simply false. Voting no on a totally ridiculous budget that WE CANNOT AFFORD is not equivalent to voting for $0. It is saying "If you want my vote, you need to fix this". And voting yes on that bill is NOT cutting the Pentagon budget. It is supporting business as usual for the world empire.

If a defense authorization bill didn't pass this year, then yes that would be equivalent to spending $0 on national defense this year. Rand doesn't want to vote against all funding for national defense just because he doesn't agree with every single aspect of this bill. It should be noted that he voted the right way in all of the amendments to this bill with the exception of sanctions on Iran. He voted to get out of Afghanistan and was one of only six Senators to vote against McCain's Libya amendment. But I guess he doesn't even get any credit for that from the perfectionists here.

Brett85
12-06-2012, 11:59 AM
Oh, it doesn't authorize any NEW wars? Well, that's a relief. :rolleyes: I guess the wars we have are okee dokee then?

No, of course not. Rand strongly opposes the wars that we're currently involved in, which is why he voted for an amendment to get our troops out of Afghanistan, and he voted for the overall bill that contained an amendment to get our troops out of Afghanistan.

TheTexan
12-06-2012, 12:00 PM
Yes, it would be great for Rand to be seen by GOP primary voters as someone who "hates the military" and wants to disarm them on the battlefield. I'm sure that Rand will have a great chance of winning the GOP nomination in 2016 if he's seen as someone who wants to gut the military and doesn't believe in national defense. :rolleyes:

Shrug. It was you Rand guys that kept telling us to judge him by how he votes and not what he says.

This isn't some minor thing I can easily overlook for the "greater Rand good." 600 billion for unconstitutional illegal wars is serious business, and if Rand is having to go to such lengths to vote for murder on a massive scale, just to "maintain appearances," then I'm really not sure exactly what the fuck you guys expect out of Rand anymore, please tell me.

Acala
12-06-2012, 12:02 PM
If a defense authorization bill didn't pass this year, then yes that would be equivalent to spending $0 national defense this year. Rand doesn't want to vote against all funding for national defense just because he doesn't agree with every single aspect of this bill. It should be noted that he voted the right way in all of the amendments to this bill with the exception of sanctions on Iran. He voted to get out of Afghanistan and was one of only six Senators to vote against McCain's Libya amendment. But I guess he doesn't even get any credit for that from the perfectionists here.

Your reasoning is flawed. Voting no on a bill that is too big does not mean that you would not support a bill that was smaller.

But I consider sticking to principle to be more important than being elected.

Brett85
12-06-2012, 12:04 PM
Shrug. It was you Rand guys that kept telling us to judge him by how he votes and not what he says.

This isn't some minor thing I can easily overlook for the "greater Rand good." 600 billion for unconstitutional illegal wars is serious business, and if Rand is having to go to such lengths to vote for murder on a massive scale, just to "maintain appearances," then I'm really not sure exactly what the fuck you guys expect out of Rand anymore, please tell me.

You should judge him for his voting record. Does Rand not get any credit at all for voting against the Patriot Act, voting against indefinite detention, and voting to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan? This bill does not authorize "600 billion for unconstitutional illegal wars." It authorizes 91 billion for the war in Afghanistan, and contains an amendment calling for the withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan. So if this bill is signed by President Obama in it's current form, then the funding for the war in Afghanistan next year will likely be $0.

Acala
12-06-2012, 12:04 PM
No, of course not. Rand strongly opposes the wars that we're currently involved in, which is why he voted for an amendment to get our troops out of Afghanistan, and he voted for the overall bill that contained an amendment to get our troops out of Afghanistan.

Voting a massive appropriation for the military is not showing opposition. It is showing approval in the way that matters most - with money WE DON'T HAVE!!!!

kcchiefs6465
12-06-2012, 12:04 PM
Yes, it would be great for Rand to be seen by GOP primary voters as someone who "hates the military" and wants to disarm them on the battlefield. I'm sure that Rand will have a great chance of winning the GOP nomination in 2016 if he's seen as someone who wants to gut the military and doesn't believe in national defense. :rolleyes:
Is it not an option that he educate said GOP voters? Maybe say- on what this 630B actually is spent on? Maybe say- who are the profiteers and who are the puppets? It is his and our job, ya know? (At least I thought)

tsai3904
12-06-2012, 12:08 PM
This isn't some minor thing I can easily overlook for the "greater Rand good." 600 billion for unconstitutional illegal wars is serious business, and if Rand is having to go to such lengths to vote for murder on a massive scale, just to "maintain appearances," then I'm really not sure exactly what the fuck you guys expect out of Rand anymore, please tell me.

How would you feel if this authorization bill was for $500 billion?

tsai3904
12-06-2012, 12:08 PM
//

Brett85
12-06-2012, 12:09 PM
Voting a massive appropriation for the military is not showing opposition. It is showing approval in the way that matters most - with money WE DON'T HAVE!!!!

He opposed the bill from the very beginning, and even filibustered it until the Feinstein-Lee amendment passed. Why would he vote against a bill that contains an amendment that bans indefinite detention? Wouldn't Rand want to get a bill to pass that contains an amendment which bans indefinite detention? If this bill would not have passed, indefinite detention would still be allowed in America. Think a little bit people!

Acala
12-06-2012, 12:18 PM
You should judge him for his voting record. Does Rand not get any credit at all for voting against the Patriot Act, voting against indefinite detention, and voting to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan? This bill does not authorize "600 billion for unconstitutional illegal wars." It authorizes 91 billion for the war in Afghanistan, and contains an amendment calling for the withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan. So if this bill is signed by President Obama in it's current form, then the funding for the war in Afghanistan next year will likely be $0.

I contributed to Rand's campaign as an act of faith that he would adhere to principle like his father. I can see I was mistaken. I won't make the same mistake again.

Acala
12-06-2012, 12:19 PM
. Why would he vote against a bill that contains an amendment that bans indefinite detention?

Because it funds an unconstitutional, brutal, corrupt world empire? Just a minor problem I know . . .

Brett85
12-06-2012, 12:22 PM
Because it funds an unconstitutional, brutal, corrupt world empire? Just a minor problem I know . . .

The bill ends the war in Afghanistan, and Rand has never been in favor of closing down all of our foreign military bases over night, so he wouldn't vote against this bill for that reason.

kcchiefs6465
12-06-2012, 12:23 PM
You should judge him for his voting record. Does Rand not get any credit at all for voting against the Patriot Act, voting against indefinite detention, and voting to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan? This bill does not authorize "600 billion for unconstitutional illegal wars." It authorizes 91 billion for the war in Afghanistan, and contains an amendment calling for the withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan. So if this bill is signed by President Obama in it's current form, then the funding for the war in Afghanistan next year will likely be $0.
Ha. I like how you added the 'likely.' One, we are not leaving Afghanistan in 2014. Two, with everyone going along to keep from being called anti-military what makes you think funding will not be in next year's NDAA. And three, even if it's not in next year's NDAA it will still be funded? The C.I.A. budget isn't listed yet somehow they still have funds. Here's some interesting facts- Defense Budget in 1996 was 265B. The C.I.A. was said to be 28B. That means in 1996 the C.I.A. budget was 10.566% as much as the Defense budget. At 631B let's keep the same rate of 10.566% (though I personally believe it is a higher percentage since 2001) That would mean roughly around 66.671B is given to the C.I.A. yearly. That's an awful lot of fuckery.

Brett85
12-06-2012, 12:24 PM
I contributed to Rand's campaign as an act of faith that he would adhere to principle like his father. I can see I was mistaken. I won't make the same mistake again.

So I guess voting against the Patriot Act and indefinite detention isn't "adhering to principle?" It's basically just all or nothing with people like you. If you only agree with 98% of Rand's votes, that isn't good enough. It has to be 100% or he isn't getting your support. That's just completely irrational.

Acala
12-06-2012, 12:25 PM
The bill ends the war in Afghanistan, and Rand has never been in favor of closing down all of our foreign military bases over night, so he wouldn't vote against this bill for that reason.

The bill continues to fund the war in Afghanistan as well as the rest of our global empire. It is wrong. Ron would have voted against it.

Brett85
12-06-2012, 12:27 PM
The bill continues to fund the war in Afghanistan as well as the rest of our global empire. It is wrong. Ron would have voted against it.

It funds the war in Afghanistan temporarily, while we transition out of the country while handing over more control to the Afghan government. Rand has always been in favor of transitioning out of the country at a quick pace, but not cutting off all funding for the war immediately. That does not mean that he supports the war in Afghanistan.

Acala
12-06-2012, 12:28 PM
So I guess voting against the Patriot Act and indefinite detention isn't "adhering to principle?" It's basically just all or nothing with people like you. If you only agree with 98% of Rand's votes, that isn't good enough. It has to be 100% or he isn't getting your support. That's just completely irrational.

You seem to think this is a minor matter. I consider it to be huge. He should have voted against it and explained why unless he really supports the world empire. Hard to draw any other conclusion.

Acala
12-06-2012, 12:29 PM
It funds the war in Afghanistan temporarily, while we transition out of the country while handing over more control to the Afghan government. Rand has always been in favor of transitioning out of the country at a quick pace, but not cutting off all funding for the war immediately. That does not mean that he supports the war in Afghanistan.

We marched in we can just march out. Or stick around for another year or so and spend billions more we don't have killing innocent people and making more enemies.

Feeding the Abscess
12-06-2012, 12:32 PM
I suppose we could have a 50B National Defense if we abolished the entire military.

1900 defense spending in 2005 dollars was $6.8 billion.

kcchiefs6465
12-06-2012, 12:36 PM
How would you feel if this authorization bill was for $500 billion?
Russia and China combined spend how much yearly? Per capita that is what? Seems to me it should be reasonable to GOP voters that we could spend as much as China and Russia combined spend per capita. Which is far, far under 500B. I'll edit in the math when I feel motivated. Off the top of my head I'd say two hundred billion should suffice.

tsai3904
12-06-2012, 12:40 PM
Russia and China combined spend how much yearly? Per capita that is what? Seems to me it should be reasonable to GOP voters that we could spend as much as China and Russia spends per capita. Which is far, far under 500B. I'll edit in the math when I feel motivated. Off the top of my head I'd say two hundred billion should suffice.

I agree with you but Ron Paul's economic plan offered $501 billion in FY 2013 and increased every year afterwards. How many would be happy with $500 billion in defense spending next year and continually increasing?

TheTexan
12-06-2012, 12:41 PM
This bill does not authorize "600 billion for unconstitutional illegal wars." It authorizes 91 billion for the war in Afghanistan

Incorrect. A very large chunk of that $600 billion will be contributing towards the illegal wars. The equipment, aircraft, personnel, ammunition, bought with that $600 billion, they go where the wars are, and at the moment that's Afghanistan.

And even that $91 billion.. only a fraction of that is specifically allocated for Afghanistan... if it's anything like last year's NDAA, most of it falls under the generic "Overseas Contingency Operations" which is purposefully vague

Feeding the Abscess
12-06-2012, 12:44 PM
He opposed the bill from the very beginning, and even filibustered it until the Feinstein-Lee amendment passed. Why would he vote against a bill that contains an amendment that bans indefinite detention? Wouldn't Rand want to get a bill to pass that contains an amendment which bans indefinite detention? If this bill would not have passed, indefinite detention would still be allowed in America. Think a little bit people!

That Feinstein amendment is a joke. It does to indefinite detention what Rand's "abolish the TSA" bill did to abolishing the TSA - absolutely nothing.

Feeding the Abscess
12-06-2012, 12:46 PM
I agree with you but Ron Paul's economic plan offered $501 billion in FY 2013 and increased every year afterwards. How many would be happy with $500 billion in defense spending next year and continually increasing?

I was a dissenter. I also said it was ridiculous that a Ron Paul plan would call for collecting nearly $4 trillion in revenue. I'm glad Ron didn't get elected on that tripe.

Brett85
12-06-2012, 12:48 PM
You seem to think this is a minor matter. I consider it to be huge. He should have voted against it and explained why unless he really supports the world empire. Hard to draw any other conclusion.

He doesn't support the world empire. He just wants to phase it out over time. You're basically saying that Ron Paul supports Medicare and Social Security because he doesn't want to abolish those programs immediately. He believes in phasing those programs out over time, which is basically Rand's approach to ending the empire.

Acala
12-06-2012, 12:48 PM
I agree with you but Ron Paul's economic plan offered $501 billion in FY 2013 and increased every year afterwards. How many would be happy with $500 billion in defense spending next year and continually increasing?

Where did you see that?

tsai3904
12-06-2012, 12:49 PM
Where did you see that?

It's in his "Plan to Restore America".

Here's the pdf:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/r/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/10/17/National-Politics/Graphics/RestoreAmericaPlan.pdf

Acala
12-06-2012, 12:50 PM
He doesn't support the world empire. He just wants to phase it out over time. You're basically saying that Ron Paul supports Medicare and Social Security because he doesn't want to abolish those programs immediately. He believes in phasing those programs out over time, which is basically Rand's approach to ending the empire.

Americans were lured into depending on SS and medicare. They should not be thrown on the street. Military spending overseas is a totally different matter. We could end it tomorrow and bring them all home.

tsai3904
12-06-2012, 12:51 PM
I was a dissenter. I also said it was ridiculous that a Ron Paul plan would call for collecting nearly $4 trillion in revenue. I'm glad Ron didn't get elected on that tripe.

In regards to the $500 billion though, you have to wonder why he chose that number and not a smaller one. Did he choose that number (only a 15% reduction) to try and get elected or does he truly believe that is the right number?

Acala
12-06-2012, 12:52 PM
It's in his "Plan to Restore America".

Here's the pdf:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/r/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/10/17/National-Politics/Graphics/RestoreAmericaPlan.pdf

I never looked at it before. I disagree with it. Defense could be cut dramatically.

tsai3904
12-06-2012, 12:54 PM
I never looked at it before. I disagree with it. Defense could be cut dramatically.

Yes we all agree. However, Ron's plan would have defense spending never going below $500 billion. Would that have prevented you from supporting him?

TheTexan
12-06-2012, 12:57 PM
In regards to the $500 billion though, you have to wonder why he chose that number and not a smaller one. Did he choose that number (only a 15% reduction) to try and get elected or does he truly believe that is the right number?

He doesn't believe that is the right number. But that was a compromise, as part of a package deal.

That's how compromises are supposed to work. You give up something, and you get something in return, and both parties end up better than they started initially.

When you compromise, but don't get anything in return, or still end up in the negative, that's not a compromise, that's a surrender of principle.

Brett85
12-06-2012, 01:01 PM
Americans were lured into depending on SS and medicare. They should not be thrown on the street. Military spending overseas is a totally different matter. We could end it tomorrow and bring them all home.

The same principle applies to our overseas committments. Yes, we should ultimately bring all of our troops home from overseas. But we have entered into contracts with some of these countries like Germany and Japan and other countries where we have troops. It's not really possible to just break a contract overnight and decide to just bring all of our troops home from these countries. So the contract issue that people speak about with Medicare and Social Security is also an issue with foreign military bases. We've entered into contracts with all of these countries that can't immediately be broken. It's just something that we have to transition out of. Personally, my goal would be to close down all of our foreign military bases and bring all of our troops home within a period of about four or five years.

TheTexan
12-06-2012, 01:01 PM
The same principle applies to our overseas committments. Yes, we should ultimately bring all of our troops home from overseas. But we have entered into contracts with some of these countries like Germany and Japan and other countries where we have troops. It's not really possible to just break a contract overnight and decide to just bring all of our troops home from these countries. So the contract issue that people speak about with Medicare and Social Security is also an issue with foreign military bases. We've entered into contracts with all of these countries that can't immediately be broken. It's just something that we have to transition out of. Personally, my goal would be to close down all of our foreign military bases and bring all of our troops home within a period of about four or five years.

Every contract can be broken. That's why it's called a contract, and not a slavery agreement.

Brett85
12-06-2012, 01:01 PM
He doesn't believe that is the right number. But that was a compromise, as part of a package deal.

That's how compromises are supposed to work. You give up something, and you get something in return, and both parties end up better than they started initially.

When you compromise, but don't get anything in return, or still end up in the negative, that's not a compromise, that's a surrender of principle.

What if Rand made a compromise that he would vote for this bill as long as the Lee-Feinstein amendment passed?

tsai3904
12-06-2012, 01:02 PM
He doesn't believe that is the right number. But that was a compromise, as part of a package deal.

That's how compromises are supposed to work. You give up something, and you get something in return, and both parties end up better than they started initially.

When you compromise, but don't get anything in return, or still end up in the negative, that's not a compromise, that's a surrender of principle.

I can see your point but it's still an assumption. The "compromise" would also lead to a defense budget that wouldn't dip below $500 billion. Is that a win?

Brett85
12-06-2012, 01:03 PM
Every contract can be broken. That's why it's called a contract, and not a slavery agreement.

Then that means that you could end the contract that we have with the people who have paid into Medicare and Social Security. We could just abolish those programs overnight.

presence
12-06-2012, 01:04 PM
There you go with logical fallacies again

Disjunctive Syllogism to be exact.


It isn't both sunny and overcast.
It isn't sunny.
Therefore, it's overcast.




The bill contains an amendment to withdraw from Afghanistan,
so in effect Rand would've been voting in favor of "national offense" had he voted against this bill.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/denyconj.html


this one:


Rand isn't going to vote against a bill simply because it has a few minor provisions that he disagrees with

is called:

Illicit Conversion


All communists are atheists.
Therefore, all atheists are communists.

"All of the riders Rand approves are in the NDAA
Therefore, Rand gives his approval of the NDAA"

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/illiconv.html

TheTexan
12-06-2012, 01:04 PM
Then that means that you could end the contract that we have with the people who have paid into Medicare and Social Security. We could just abolish those programs overnight.

Indeed we could. As part of contract law we'd have to pay damages for breaking the contract, most likely resulting in bankruptcy, but yes, we absolutely could (and I believe should, we're going to go bankrupt anyway, better now than later)

Brett85
12-06-2012, 01:04 PM
Also, I'm not necessarily even saying that I support this bill. I'm not exactly sure how I would've voted on this bill had a been a member of the Senate. However, I'm certainly not going to bash Rand for voting in favor of a bill that bans indefinite detention and calls for a withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Acala
12-06-2012, 01:05 PM
Then that means that you could end the contract that we have with the people who have paid into Medicare and Social Security. We could just abolish those programs overnight.

You could, but it would be unfair to American people. It is our government's job to protect the American people, not Germany or Japan or anyone else.

TheTexan
12-06-2012, 01:05 PM
What if Rand made a compromise that he would vote for this bill as long as the Lee-Feinstein amendment passed?

Was the bill a net positive? Not in my opinion. The bill as a whole is a very large net negative, even with the amendment.

kcchiefs6465
12-06-2012, 01:06 PM
Yes we all agree. However, Ron's plan would have defense spending never going below $500 billion. Would that have prevented you from supporting him?
I believe it was because Ron Paul didn't want his budget to be thrown out as unrealistic or ridiculed immediately after being released. He probably wanted a discussion on his cuts rather than people simply dismissing it as impossible. There was a lot more that could have been cut though. I suppose that in regards to Ron Paul compared to Rand Paul the years of consistency matter. I know where Ron Paul stands and the character he would have brought to the White House. For example, Ron Paul is one of the few politicians/people in the world who I know would not grant himself extra power if given the chance. Rand Paul has done some good but I really don't know if his convictions are strong enough to withstand the temptations from those in power. (Those in power is not referring to politicians, BTW) Honestly the endorsement, on Hannity of all places, irked me. Then the sanctions made me question his convictions. Who knows, by 2016 if he plays his cards right, he could have my vote.

ETA: I also must say that I am getting tired of all this damn going along to get along. Idgaf if you are the only 'nay.' Stand up for something.

Feeding the Abscess
12-06-2012, 01:09 PM
Yes we all agree. However, Ron's plan would have defense spending never going below $500 billion. Would that have prevented you from supporting him?

For what it's worth, Ron's plan didn't cut anything after year 1, and during the campaign he was stressing that the current year is all that matters for budgeting.

But as it was, I didn't vote for Ron. That plan being one of the reasons. Had he run on eliminating the income tax and eliminating more departments, I would have voted for him.

kcchiefs6465
12-06-2012, 01:12 PM
For what it's worth, Ron's plan didn't cut anything after year 1, and during the campaign he was stressing that the current year is all that matters for budgeting.

But as it was, I didn't vote for Ron. That plan being one of the reasons. Had he run on eliminating the income tax and eliminating more departments, I would have voted for him.
I take it you didn't vote?

ETA: Or wrote in yourself? :D

Feeding the Abscess
12-06-2012, 01:13 PM
I take it you didn't vote?

ETA: Or wrote in yourself? :D

I think I went to the gym that night :D

presence
12-06-2012, 01:35 PM
[]I'm certainly not going to bash Rand for voting in favor of a bill that bans indefinite detention and calls for a withdrawal from Afghanistan.


Brush aside its selling children into debt slavery. 600B (in deficit spending) is 2,000/head on what we all collectively owe.


http://www.weeklystandard.com/sites/all/files/images/U.S. Per Person Debt Now 35 Percent Higher Than That Of Greece.preview.jpg


Portugal outlook bleak as slump, jobless rate worsen
(http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/14/portugal-economy-idUSL5E8ME3G320121114)
Debt crisis: quick Spanish recovery 'remote' says OECD
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/9711926/Debt-crisis-quick-Spanish-recovery-remote-says-OECD.html)
France's economy, 2nd largest in Europe, teeters at the edge
(http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=france economy&source=newssearch&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CC0QqQIoADAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nbcnews.com%2Fbusiness%2Fecon omywatch%2Ffrances-economy-2nd-largest-europe-teeters-edge-1C7172740&ei=f_TAUNSxBObg0QGlsoCAAQ&usg=AFQjCNEfzaJClUv8ni9M7MD6B8ySJ0S-ng)
Depression Deepens Greek Middle Class Despair With Crime
(http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-12-06/depression-deepens-greek-middle-class-despair-with-crime-rising)
Italy recession to linger, deficit targets seen missed: EU (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/07/us-italy-economy-forecasts-idUSBRE8A61AK20121107)

sailingaway
12-06-2012, 01:37 PM
I believe it was because Ron Paul didn't want his budget to be thrown out as unrealistic or ridiculed immediately after being released. He probably wanted a discussion on his cuts rather than people simply dismissing it as impossible. There was a lot more that could have been cut though. I suppose that in regards to Ron Paul compared to Rand Paul the years of consistency matter. I know where Ron Paul stands and the character he would have brought to the White House. For example, Ron Paul is one of the few politicians/people in the world who I know would not grant himself extra power if given the chance. Rand Paul has done some good but I really don't know if his convictions are strong enough to withstand the temptations from those in power. (Those in power is not referring to politicians, BTW) Honestly the endorsement, on Hannity of all places, irked me. Then the sanctions made me question his convictions. Who knows, by 2016 if he plays his cards right, he could have my vote.

ETA: I also must say that I am getting tired of all this damn going along to get along. Idgaf if you are the only 'nay.' Stand up for something.

I actually saw Ron's budget as his legacy. He spit in the face of both parties by underlining the PRIORITIES of funding they had selected were all for their special interests not for the people. He gave the people an actual budget they could get behind when the NY times and GOP were pretending the 'choices' were much more limited. HIs goal was to balance the budget in that, and never raise the debt limit (that is where writing off the debt to the Fed came in.) He said even he wasn't able to balance it in one year because there were requirements about fund carry overs etc. Ron's lifetime record leads me to trust that he was doing the very best for us he could, which is different from going along to get along.

When Obama was asking for public outcry over #My2K on twitter, to protest the GOP plan and say where cuts should be made, I was tweeting Ron's budget.

Brett85
12-06-2012, 01:40 PM
Brush aside its selling children into debt slavery. 600B (in deficit spending) is 2,000/head on what we all collectively owe.

Rand introduced a budget that balances in five years, which is the boldest plan proposed by any member of Congress, other than Ron. (And his plan cut defense spending) He's certainly more serious about balancing the budget and paying off the national debt than any other member of the Senate.

mac_hine
12-06-2012, 01:42 PM
///

phill4paul
12-06-2012, 01:49 PM
I wonder if Rand is aware of this?

Online sales tax to be added to defense authorization bill

This may be the last Christmas of online shopping without paying sales tax.

A proposed online sales tax has been offered as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, much to the ire of opponents.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/04/online-sales-tax-to-be-added-to-defense-authorization-bill/#ixzz2EIp4rUSS


Writes Lew Rockwell,

The enemy intend to add online sales taxes to the empire's global domination budget. Of course, Ron Paul never voted for the death and destruction bill, and he always opposed this attack on online commerce at the behest of greedy state pols and their brick and mortar bribers.

Well said Lew, well said.

Are you sure?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?397699-An-internet-sales-tax-amendment-was-not-added-to-the-2013-NDAA-before-it-passed

tsai3904
12-06-2012, 01:50 PM
I wonder if Rand is aware of this?

Online sales tax to be added to defense authorization bill

It wasn't included in the final bill.

mac_hine
12-06-2012, 01:52 PM
Thanks for the update. Ill delete my post.

presence
12-06-2012, 01:54 PM
It wasn't included in the final bill.

How about those 1500 $50k Chevy Volts to help "green" the military?

Matt Collins
12-06-2012, 04:19 PM
But as it was, I didn't vote for Ron. That plan being one of the reasons. Had he run on eliminating the income tax and eliminating more departments, I would have voted for him.Then what are you doing productively to help the cause of liberty?? :rolleyes:

HOLLYWOOD
12-06-2012, 04:25 PM
That Feinstein amendment is a joke. It does to indefinite detention what Rand's "abolish the TSA" bill did to abolishing the TSA - absolutely nothing.


How about those 1500 $50k Chevy Volts to help "green" the military?Yeah... I haven't seen anyone here post the Defense Acts data passed nor their cost rating by the CBO. Yes, I know the CBO is just the politically correct spineless jellyfish sycophants until government pension time. You can look at the dozens of tiles and subtitles and the thousands of sections.

Even with all the Fiscal Cliff BS by the actors inside the DC beltway and their public relation firms (Corporate Media) distractions let's look at the garbage of these DOD bills. But First, the US government's Overseas Contingency Operations are WAY OFF from what is finally enacted(what is spent during the entire fiscal year). When Washington DC uses the totalL for the year spent to flaunt a reduction the following year's DOD budget, it's barked to the American Media outlets to parrot to the sheeple. But what they are doing in Congress, is reducing the spending overseas (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc)and then INCREASING the domestic calculations of spending on other new projects. The DOD/CONGRESS are buying more and expanding more. It's like they're money laundering overseas contingency expenditures for increases in domestic expenditures in the bills, but it's an increase after you add it all up at the end of the fiscal year. Then there's the REAL bullshit of cooking the books... Pass the NDAA for $631 BILLION, but the budget really adds up to $637 BILLION in expenditures... Nice accounting work, eh? Which of course will be a supplemental bill tagged onto some renaming of a Post Office or Monument bill.

FY2012 DOD Budget by CBO: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/122xx/doc12202/hr1540.pdf

Compared to the 2011 level of appropriations enacted for DoD’s base budget, the $553 billion that would be authorized for FY2012 represents an increase of $24 billion (+5 percent).

For DOE and other programs, the $18 billion that would be authorized for 2012 represents a $2 billion (+9 percent) increase over the level appropriated for 2011.

The $119 billion that would be authorized for 2012 overseas contingency operations—primarily for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan—represents a decrease of about $40 billion (-25 percent) compared to the $159 billion appropriated for 2011.



FY2013 DOD Budget by CBO: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/hr4310.pdf


H.R. 4310 would authorize appropriations totaling $637 billion for fiscal year 2013 for the military functions of the Department of Defense (DoD), for certain activities of the Department of Energy (DOE), and for other purposes. That total includes an estimated $89 billion for the cost of overseas contingency operations, primarily in Afghanistan.

DoD’s base budget also relects CBO’s estimate of the additional amount needed—$672 million—to fully fund certain accrual payments required under current law but not fully reflected in the amounts specifically authorized by the bill.

kcchiefs6465
12-06-2012, 05:17 PM
How about those 1500 $50k Chevy Volts to help "green" the military?
Maybe I am wrong but didn't we already buy those Chevy Volts once? I seem to recall we paid once to bailout a car that was ridiculously overpriced. I honestly can't remember the exact details so if someone who does can let me know I'd appreciate it. I really, really hope we did not buy the same overpriced piece of shit electrocar twice. My faith in America will be at an all time low should that be the case.

tsai3904
12-06-2012, 05:25 PM
Then there's the REAL bullshit of cooking the books... Pass the NDAA for $631 BILLION, but the budget really adds up to $637 BILLION in expenditures... Nice accounting work, eh?

The CBO's report stating $637 billion is for the House passed bill. I think the $631 figure is for the Senate passed bill.

Brett85
12-06-2012, 05:31 PM
Then what are you doing productively to help the cause of liberty?? :rolleyes:

He's sitting behind a keyboard all day and bashing the one guy who is actually doing something to help the cause of liberty. That's what they all do.

HOLLYWOOD
12-06-2012, 05:41 PM
The CBO's report stating $637 billion is for the House passed bill. I think the $631 figure is for the Senate passed bill.

I was talking about the House Bill and then the Senate submit their spending estimates, but that is from what (SASC) submitted, let's see what the select few do proceeding with conference negotiations, which are being held behind closed doors. Let's see what the final total resultant is, when Obama stamps his seal on it.


SUMMARY


H.R. 4310 would authorize appropriations totaling $637 billion for fiscal year 2013

kcchiefs6465
12-06-2012, 05:42 PM
He's sitting behind a keyboard all day and bashing the one guy who is actually doing something to help the cause of liberty. That's what they all do.
There are four more years for Rand to prove to me as well as every other "basher" that he does not waiver in his convictions if he wants my vote for POTUS. It is premature to talk about anything other than upcoming bills and his Senate voting record. I don't agree with the 631B. I don't agree with Iran sanctions. Quit acting like everyone who has reservations is some type of internet warrior that has not done anything to advance this cause.

NIU Students for Liberty
12-06-2012, 05:42 PM
He's sitting behind a keyboard all day and bashing the one guy who is actually doing something to help the cause of liberty. That's what they all do.

Voting for $631 billion to fund the military industrial complex is anything but helping the cause of liberty.

Brett85
12-06-2012, 05:50 PM
Voting for $631 billion to fund the military industrial complex is anything but helping the cause of liberty.

And I suppose he did nothing for the cause of liberty when he fought against the Patriot Act and indefinite detention.

Brett85
12-06-2012, 05:52 PM
There are four more years for Rand to prove to me as well as every other "basher" that he does not waiver in his convictions if he wants my vote for POTUS. It is premature to talk about anything other than upcoming bills and his Senate voting record. I don't agree with the 631B. I don't agree with Iran sanctions. Quit acting like everyone who has reservations is some type of internet warrior that has not done anything to advance this cause.

It's fine that you disagree with his vote on this and his vote in favor of sanctions. I disagree with his vote in favor of sanctions as well. However, one or two bad votes shouldn't mean that his overall record is bad, and it doesn't mean that he should lose support from people here. Some of the language that people here and on the Daily Paul use towards Rand is more nasty and vicious than the language that is used towards McCain or Graham.

sailingaway
12-06-2012, 05:54 PM
It's fine that you disagree with his vote on this and his vote in favor of sanctions. I disagree with his vote in favor of sanctions as well. However, one or two bad votes shouldn't mean that his overall record is bad, and it doesn't mean that he should lose support from people here. Some of the language that people here and on the Daily Paul use towards Rand is more nasty and vicious than the language that is used towards McCain or Graham.

I agree. Some of it really raises ones eyebrows. On the other hand, people hitting those who AREN'T doing that but merely don't see him as the leader of the overall movement, or differ with him on key votes and reserve judgment, pushes the divide in a way I don't think helps anyone, least of all Rand.

NIU Students for Liberty
12-06-2012, 06:07 PM
And I suppose he did nothing for the cause of liberty when he fought against the Patriot Act and indefinite detention.

Both of which will remain if the military is continually granted this much power.

jct74
12-06-2012, 06:17 PM
The bill contained the Lee-Feinstein amendment which protects the 6th amendment for Americans, and it contains an amendment calling for a transition out of Afghanistan. Had Rand voted against this bill, he would in effect be voting against passing a bill that contains two important amendments that he fought for.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=2&vote=00213
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=2&vote=00210


don't forget about this amendment to the bill also, serving his Kentucky constituency:


Paul Sponsors Census Bill for Service Members

By Kenny Colston, KPR-Frankfort

Services members would be counted differently in future U.S. Censuses under a successful amendment to a major defense bill that's to be debated in the U.S. Congress -- an amendment sponsored by Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky. Currently, family members living on a military base are counted there as residents, but if a soldier is deployed away from the base, he is not counted as a base resident.

The amendment would count the deployed soldier as a member of the base -- a potentially helpful change for Kentucky. Kentucky has two major Army bases, Fort Campbell and Fort Knox.

"Under the Census Bureau’s current method of counting, family members are counted at the base, but only the deployed service member is not," Sen. Paul said. "The passage of my amendment today ensures the appropriate representation and resources are provided to the communities of our service members, who have given so much for our country and should be recognized in the communities they live in," Paul said in a statement.

The amendment won't change tax, residency or voting status for military members -- only how the Census counts them in terms of llocating services.


http://www.weku.fm/post/paul-sponsors-census-bill-service-members

itshappening
12-06-2012, 06:19 PM
It's fine that you disagree with his vote on this and his vote in favor of sanctions. I disagree with his vote in favor of sanctions as well. However, one or two bad votes shouldn't mean that his overall record is bad, and it doesn't mean that he should lose support from people here. Some of the language that people here and on the Daily Paul use towards Rand is more nasty and vicious than the language that is used towards McCain or Graham.

wait until the pictures come through of him praying at the wailing wall.. they will go insane.

kathy88
12-06-2012, 06:23 PM
I so miss the lone votes of dissent.

Senators are pussies.

Brett85
12-06-2012, 08:38 PM
Both of which will remain if the military is continually granted this much power.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Feeding the Abscess
12-06-2012, 08:44 PM
He's sitting behind a keyboard all day and bashing the one guy who is actually doing something to help the cause of liberty. That's what they all do.

You have 2500 more posts than I do. If I'm useless in the fight for liberty because of that, what does that make you?

Feeding the Abscess
12-06-2012, 08:46 PM
Then what are you doing productively to help the cause of liberty?? :rolleyes:

Spreading the message to friends, family, and any amiable people I run into. Or in other words, taking Ron's advice to heart. As I have since I was exposed to it in 2007.

NIU Students for Liberty
12-06-2012, 08:59 PM
That makes no sense whatsoever.

Of course it does. By granting the military $631 billion, all you're doing is allowing the Pentagon and the federal government to continue to abuse their power which includes the use of the Patriot Act and NDAA.

Brett85
12-06-2012, 09:08 PM
Of course it does. By granting the military $631 billion, all you're doing is allowing the Pentagon and the federal government to continue to abuse their power which includes the use of the Patriot Act and NDAA.

The 631 Billion spent in this bill doesn't include funding for the Patriot Act or NDAA. The bill specifically bans indefinite detention.

HOLLYWOOD
12-20-2012, 11:53 AM
The 631 Billion spent in this bill doesn't include funding for the Patriot Act or NDAA. The bill specifically bans indefinite detention.They're debating the final bill today in the house... it's now up to:

$648.7 Billion

Congress is outta control

Kucinich is up opposing the the NDAA bill and ripping into the "party of war". 1:03PM EST

erowe1
12-20-2012, 12:12 PM
..

dean.engelhardt
12-20-2012, 12:33 PM
that proponents of the detention voted for it because they believe it will make it even easier for the military to capture Americans under the new law.

WTF????