Rand Paul - Defense Spending Bill

[Brett85]

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

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

[Brian4Liberty]

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

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

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

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

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...fense-spending

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

[acptulsa]

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

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

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

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

[tsai3904]

[acptulsa]

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

[jbauer]

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

We are so screwed.

[Jeremy]

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

[mit26chell]

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

[Brian4Liberty]

[LatinsforPaul]

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

[jmdrake]

Thanks for the update. 4-96? Good grief!

[acptulsa]

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

This.

What are you saying, my fellow Republican senators? That Americans can't live without HUD giving houses away and the EPA protecting polluters from lawsuits--even though your constituents say we can? Are you saying we owe the governments of the world a living, even though your constituents say we don't? Are you saying the Defense Department can't keep us safe in our beds on only as much money as all the rest of the world combined spends on defense?

Or are you just saying that you want to help the bankers and the Fed they own drown us in a sea of debt, and want your constituents to keep them in new Bentleys through our interest payments?

[r3volution 3.0]

The boost would be offset by a two-year combined $212 billion cut to funding for aid to foreign governments, climate change research and crippling reductions in to the budgets of the Environmental Protection Agency, and the departments of Housing and Urban Development, Commerce and Education.

It's a good trade-off.

Military Spending:
1. Government steals taxpayer's money
2. Government builds bomb
3. Bomb is vaporized on test range
=taxpayer gets nothing for his money

Regulatory Spending:
1. Government steals taxpayer's money
2. Government hires regulator
3. Regulator shuts down taxpayer's business
=taxpayer gets nothing for his money and loses his business

If it's not possible to cut both simultaneously (which would be ideal), shifting spending from regulation to defense is a good alternative.

As for the politics of it:

Message to Republican primary voters: This is what you say you want. Rand Paul tried to give it to you. How do you feel about it? Is it what you want? What does Fox News have to say about it? Anything at all? Are they telling you that you don't want it? How many of the 'Good Republicans' you habitually support will be voting against it? Do you believe sufficiently in the republican form of government to do your duty as voters and pay attention?

He's trolling the whole society. He's daring Republicans to stand for what they claim to stand for.

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

Bingo

He's putting himself in a position where he can attack the war-hawks for reckless spending, but they can't counter by calling him weak on defense.

It's a beautiful thing to behold.

[Sam I am]

He's putting himself in a position where he can attack the war-hawks for reckless spending, but they can't counter by calling him weak on defense.

It's a beautiful thing to behold.

Maybe I'm a bit odd, but when War hawks call candidates weak on defense, it makes me support those candidates more

[LawnWake]

Potentially poltically smart. Overal budget should be our main concern, since this realistic overal spending is what it should come down to eventually. But I am not sure how this will go with swing voters. Sure I'd like him to reduce military spending, but I think this is a fair compromise -- even if I think boosting military spending with such a ridiculously gigantic budget for it in place already is kinda idiotic. I actually think that reducing spending on the military signifcantly would make for a more efficient and streamlined military. But yeah, overal understandable.

This shouldn't surprise people anymore. This is what Rand is all about. I just hope his communication/political advisors have thought this out and are right on the mark when it comes to reaching voters.

[r3volution 3.0]

Maybe I'm a bit odd, but when War hawks call candidates weak on defense, it makes me support those candidates more

Yes, you are odd (like me and most everyone here).

Your average Republican is afraid of the terrists and thinks we need 17 aircraft carriers to chase them round the desert...



Like it or not, that's the electorate we've got. Any politician of ours who wants to get elected has to act accordingly.

[Brett85]

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

Yep. And people still went crazy even over that.

[r3volution 3.0]

4-96, Senate soundly rejects Rand Paul amendment on defense spending with offsets. McConnell backs Paul.

That's interesting; you don't see the majority leader on the wrong side of a 96-4 vote too often.

The four to vote Yea were Rand, McConnell, Vitter, and Enzi.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=1&vote=00097

[Saint Vitus]

It's a good trade-off.

Military Spending:
1. Government steals taxpayer's money
2. Government builds bomb
3. Bomb is vaporized on test range
=taxpayer gets nothing for his money

Regulatory Spending:
1. Government steals taxpayer's money
2. Government hires regulator
3. Regulator shuts down taxpayer's business
=taxpayer gets nothing for his money and loses his business

If it's not possible to cut both simultaneously (which would be ideal), shifting spending from regulation to defense is a good alternative.

As for the politics of it:





Bingo

He's putting himself in a position where he can attack the war-hawks for reckless spending, but they can't counter by calling him weak on defense.

It's a beautiful thing to behold.

Except those bombs are dropped on real live human beings which create resentment and hatred towards us around the world.

[Jeremy]

Yep. And people still went crazy even over that.

Might want to specify that in the thread's title then because a lot of people don't read further

[r3volution 3.0]

Except those bombs are dropped on real live human beings which create resentment and hatred towards us around the world.

What you spend on the military and how you use the military are separate issues.

Just because Rand was (rhetorically) calling for more military spending, doesn't mean he was advocating some new overseas adventure.

[acptulsa]

Might want to specify that in the thread's title then because a lot of people don't read further

This. Trollish behavior is normal behavior except without a few little niceties and moments of thoughtfulness, and a tad more honesty.

What you spend on the military and how you use the military are separate issues.

Just because Rand was (rhetorically) calling for more military spending, doesn't mean he was advocating some new overseas adventure.

He wasn't even proposing more military spending. He didn't bring the subject up. He just did the hard work, then came back and said, okay, if this is what you want, here's how we can do it affordably without making our debt worse.

'I have a scheme for stopping war. It's this--no nation is allowed to enter a war 'till they have paid for the last one.'--Will Rogers

[Natural Citizen]

Military and defense spending are a little separate, aren't they? And, then, from there you can make a list or something. I mean, there is an awful lot to that.

I see two threads on this. One says, something about boosting defense spending and the other says boost military spending. If I read both of those threads, will I come away with a comfortable grasp on the difference?

[acptulsa]

Military and defense spending are a little separate, aren't they?

Since they started using the National Guard in their imperialistic misadventures, no, not much. The Coast Guard is still seldom used in an offensive role, so I guess that would be about the extent to which you can separate the offense and defense of this nation without a crowbar.

[Natural Citizen]

Since they started using the National Guard in their imperialistic misadventures, no, not much. The Coast Guard is still seldom used in an offensive role, so I guess that would be about the extent to which you can separate the offense and defense of this nation without a crowbar.

There was a thread around here about the Coast Guard a couple of years ago. As I recall, it had to do with extending their power.

I'm talking about space, though. I mean, I don't know how much people are paying attention to what is going on there. Maybe they are paying attention andf just aren't discussing it or whatever. I don't know. But there is some major stuff happening. World changing stuff.Freaking civilization changing stuff. Now, it could go both ways, though. Which, i suppose, is why I asked the way that I did.

But, yes, I remember talking about the Coast Guard a ways back. I forget why, though.

[phill4paul]

There is no such thing as defense spending. We haven't fought a war of defense since the Revolution. I cannot believe people on Ron Paul Forums think we need to INCREASE defense spending.

There is not a single person here advocating for an increase. Not one.

[acptulsa]

There is no such thing as defense spending. We haven't fought a war of defense since the Revolution. I cannot believe people on Ron Paul Forums think we need to INCREASE defense spending.

I doubt many if any of us do. I think it's as plain on the nose on your face that Rand Paul doesn't either.

What problem do you have with a Senator standing up and saying, 'If you're determined to increase the military budget, then here's how we do that without increasing the deficit'? And please be specific.

[KingNothing]

This looks like it is revenue neutral.

So it is, at best, a neutral move. I'm probably the biggest Rand fan here, and I don't like this.

[Brian4Liberty]

That's interesting; you don't see the majority leader on the wrong side of a 96-4 vote too often.

The four to vote Yea were Rand, McConnell, Vitter, and Enzi.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=1&vote=00097

Thanks for the update.

[phill4paul]

So it is, at best, a neutral move. I'm probably the biggest Rand fan here, and I don't like this.

That's funny. I'm probably the least Rand fan here and I'm fine with it. I think it was an excellent political maneuver that will benefit him in the primaries.