Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 51

Thread: Was Rand Paul's defense spending bill a good play?

  1. #1

    Was Rand Paul's defense spending bill a good play?

    Mod note- thread title renamed.


    http://time.com/3759378/rand-paul-defense-spending/

    Yes, this was posted in already in the Rand forum, but we all know that freedom of speech isn't allowed there. I would be interested to see RPF's real opinion on this matter.

    Obviously, it doesn't surprise me one bit. Its going to be fun to see all the typical apologists spin this one. I'm sure they will come in here and talk about how its revenue neutral, blah blah blah. But the fact of the matter is, Rand wants to drastically increase the budget of the already bloated military. Why does the military need 190 billion more dollars? Why not just cut the money and NOT give it to the military. How can this guy talk about the national deficit and reducing government with a straight face? Absolutely pathetic.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    When does his budget plan that gets rid of the IRS and balance the budget come out?
    “…let us teach them that all who draw breath are of equal worth, and that those who seek to press heel upon the throat of liberty, will fall to the cry of FREEDOM!!!” – Spartacus, War of the Damned

    BTC: 1AFbCLYU3G1dkbsSJnk3spWeEwpqYVC2Pq

  4. #3
    He is probably pandering to GOP primaries crowd ahead of his announcement in a crowded neoconish GOP field, it has already been established that he is ambitious and willing to pander a bit/play politics to beat opponents at their game.

    My hope and expectation is that after winning he will cut foreign interventions/massive drones blowback/police state programs that translates to cutting spending, there is large untapped support for cutting deficit and debt. Enhanced deficit should be tolerated for short term only.

  5. #4
    Try to read beyond the headlines people...
    Rand's "increase" is actually revenue neutral and isn't really an increase at all:
    "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."
    __________________________________________________ ________________
    "A politician will do almost anything to keep their job, even become a patriot" - Hearst

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Collins View Post
    Try to read beyond the headlines people...
    Rand's "increase" is actually revenue neutral and isn't really an increase at all:
    "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."
    Yes, we know. It's terrific. Fund more war making and bloodshed, and they still have to steal just as much money to do it. Who could oppose it?

  7. #6
    Yea, there's no way I'd ever vote for this guy even if he changed his first name to Ron

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Collins View Post
    Try to read beyond the headlines people...
    Rand's "increase" is actually revenue neutral and isn't really an increase at all:
    "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."

    Why can't he just cut the money without giving it to the already bloated military? Besides, if the money has to be spent, I would much rather it be spent by Housing and Urban Development, Commerce and Education. What does the military need more money for? More wars that Rand will undoubtedly push for/support?

  9. #8
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    28,739
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Quote Originally Posted by enhanced_deficit View Post
    He is probably pandering to GOP primaries crowd ahead of his announcement in a crowded neoconish GOP field, it has already been established that he is ambitious and willing to pander a bit/play politics to beat opponents at their game.

    My hope and expectation is that after winning he will cut foreign interventions/massive drones blowback/police state programs that translates to cutting spending, there is large untapped support for cutting deficit and debt. Enhanced deficit should be tolerated for short term only.
    There is this false narrative that Rand Paul hates the military, when in actuality he just wishes they would spend smarter.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    And the move. Good. Have to make sure this ungrateful dissent is buried from sight.

  12. #10
    F pandering. This isn't pandering. You can't "spend" additional money on anything government related and then cut it. The neocons would go ape$#@! if he promised more money and then cut it after being elected.

    I am a small government little L libertarian Rand continues to show he has no plans to cut any spending.

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Collins View Post
    Try to read beyond the headlines people...
    Rand's "increase" is actually revenue neutral and isn't really an increase at all:
    "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."
    You know, some people care about being less warlike as much, or even more than they care about the budget
    If you wanted some sort of Ideological purity, you'll get none of that from me.

  14. #12
    Should the military budget be increased?
    Is basically to ask, "should more wealth be redistributed?" or, "should more debt be shouldered?"
    Radical in the sense of being in total, root-and-branch opposition to the existing political system and to the State itself. Radical in the sense of having integrated intellectual opposition to the State with a gut hatred of its pervasive and organized system of crime and injustice. Radical in the sense of a deep commitment to the spirit of liberty and anti-statism that integrates reason and emotion, heart and soul. - M. Rothbard

  15. #13
    Only if you can convince me that more than the rest of the world combined each year is still just not enough.

  16. #14
    His bill wasn't going to pass. It didn't pass. This was all about ammunition for the GOP primary. And now he has Rubio and Cruz on record for not being fiscal conservatives.

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    His bill wasn't going to pass. It didn't pass. This was all about ammunition for the GOP primary. And now he has Rubio and Cruz on record for not being fiscal conservatives.
    Rand supporters constantly tell us to look at his votes and the legislation that he introduces. Now he's exempt from criticism from them too, because it's all posturing and maneuvering? What if it did pass?

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Saint Vitus View Post
    Mod note- thread title renamed.


    http://time.com/3759378/rand-paul-defense-spending/

    Yes, this was posted in already in the Rand forum, but we all know that freedom of speech isn't allowed there. I would be interested to see RPF's real opinion on this matter.

    Obviously, it doesn't surprise me one bit. Its going to be fun to see all the typical apologists spin this one. I'm sure they will come in here and talk about how its revenue neutral, blah blah blah. But the fact of the matter is, Rand wants to drastically increase the budget of the already bloated military. Why does the military need 190 billion more dollars? Why not just cut the money and NOT give it to the military. How can this guy talk about the national deficit and reducing government with a straight face? Absolutely pathetic.
    Rand's plan was voted down 4-96. Republicans were against it because....well I'm not sure why. Democrats don't like the spending cuts. So we'll get the increase in defense spending without cuts anywhere else. (Yes enough dems will vote for the Rubio plan for it to pass.)
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Saint Vitus View Post
    Rand supporters constantly tell us to look at his votes and the legislation that he introduces. Now he's exempt from criticism from them too, because it's all posturing and maneuvering? What if it did pass?
    There was no way in hell it was going to pass. Are you serious? My comments on this board show that I am not exactly a "Stand with Rand" forum member. Although I will, at this time, vote for him. But, there is no denying what he did here.

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Rand's plan was voted down 4-96. Republicans were against it because....well I'm not sure why. Democrats don't like the spending cuts. So we'll get the increase in defense spending without cuts anywhere else. (Yes enough dems will vote for the Rubio plan for it to pass.)
    Republicans were against Rand's plan because Democrats were against it. One cannot collude without giving the other something in the bargain.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Saint Vitus View Post
    Rand supporters constantly tell us to look at his votes and the legislation that he introduces. Now he's exempt from criticism from them too, because it's all posturing and maneuvering? What if it did pass?
    If it did pass then and we got the spending cuts elsewhere it wouldn't be as bad as what is likely to pass. (Defense increases with no cuts).
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    Republicans were against Rand's plan because Democrats were against it. One cannot collude without giving the other something in the bargain.
    Yeah. Both side ultimately work to increase spending and steal more money from future generations.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  24. #21
    I did not title this thread. The answer is obviously no. Mods might as well delete it since it has been renamed, changed, and moved. ...Jesus Christ

  25. #22
    The neocons said, 'Hey, let's increase military spending even more.'

    Rand Paul said, 'If you insist on doing this, then here's a way to do it without increasing the debt even more. You guys pretend to be conservative, so you should actually like this plan.'

    The neocons said, 'The corporations want more regulations, the oligarchs want more indoctrination, the Military Industrial Complex wants more money, and you're going to stop calling our bluff and shut the hell up.'

    And the Purists engage in trollish behavior by saying...

    Quote Originally Posted by jbauer View Post
    F pandering. This isn't pandering. You can't "spend" additional money on anything government related and then cut it. The neocons would go ape$#@! if he promised more money and then cut it after being elected.

    I am a small government little L libertarian Rand continues to show he has no plans to cut any spending.
    ...about the only Senator who even shows signs of trying to merely hold the line on spending.

    What if a champion emerged who could expose the Forces of Indebtedness to public ridicule, but no one noticed because the people he did it for worked their asses off to attack the champion and give the actual bad guys cover?
    Last edited by acptulsa; 03-26-2015 at 02:31 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    You only want the freedoms that will undermine the nation and lead to the destruction of liberty.

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Collins View Post
    Try to read beyond the headlines people...
    Rand's "increase" is actually revenue neutral and isn't really an increase at all:
    "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."

    That'll really play well to the independents...

    UGH!
    The more prohibitions you have,
    the less virtuous people will be.
    The more weapons you have,
    the less secure people will be.
    The more subsidies you have,
    the less self-reliant people will be.

    Therefore the Master says:
    I let go of the law,
    and people become honest.
    I let go of economics,
    and people become prosperous.
    I let go of religion,
    and people become serene.
    I let go of all desire for the common good,
    and the good becomes common as grass.

    -Tao Te Ching, Section 57

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by jonhowe View Post
    That'll really play well to the independents...

    UGH!
    I'm an Independent and I don't have a problem with it.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    There was no way in hell it was going to pass.
    His father introduced and supported legislation that had no chance of passing all the time, and if it pissed of any of us, it was only because there was a valid explanation for it that we hadn't heard yet.

    Ron introduced legislation that he honestly believed to be a good idea. He only supported legislation which he honestly believed to be a good idea.

    I miss the days where we had people to support who didn't treat this like it's a game.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    I miss the days where we had people to support who didn't treat this like it's a game.
    Yeah, but they all got gamed.

    Boobus thinks it's a game. Otherwise he wouldn't eat up all that horse race b.s. rhetoric. And Boobus has us outnumbered.

    We can play games better than anyone. Since that's what obviously has to be done to save this country from the Forces of Calvinball, then why the hell shouldn't we beat them at their own game?
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    You only want the freedoms that will undermine the nation and lead to the destruction of liberty.

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    His father introduced and supported legislation that had no chance of passing all the time, and if it pissed of any of us, it was only because there was a valid explanation for it that we hadn't heard yet.

    Ron introduced legislation that he honestly believed to be a good idea. He only supported legislation which he honestly believed to be a good idea.

    I miss the days where we had people to support who didn't treat this like it's a game.
    I miss those days too. But, Ron's not running. And Rand's not Ron.

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    If it did pass then and we got the spending cuts elsewhere it wouldn't be as bad as what is likely to pass. (Defense increases with no cuts).
    The defense increases that will pass won't be nearly as large as the ones Rand is proposing. Additionally, while the military cuts would never have happened later, social programs and welfare state spending would have surely been restored later. So, realistically, had his bill passed, Rand's proposal would have dramatically increased defense spending rather than moderately increasing it, with the welfare state spending being restored at a later time.

    People here can spin all they want to defend Rand, but that's how things work in DC.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul
    Perhaps the most important lesson from Obamacare is that while liberty is lost incrementally, it cannot be regained incrementally. The federal leviathan continues its steady growth; sometimes boldly and sometimes quietly. Obamacare is just the latest example, but make no mistake: the statists are winning. So advocates of liberty must reject incremental approaches and fight boldly for bedrock principles.
    The epitome of libertarian populism

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Feeding the Abscess View Post
    The defense increases that will pass won't be nearly as large as the ones Rand is proposing. Additionally, while the military cuts would never have happened later, social programs and welfare state spending would have surely been restored later. So, realistically, had his bill passed, Rand's proposal would have dramatically increased defense spending rather than moderately increasing it, with the welfare state spending being restored at a later time.

    People here can spin all they want to defend Rand, but that's how things work in DC.
    By your logic it should have been unanimously passed. Why didn't it?

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    By your logic it should have been unanimously passed. Why didn't it?
    Because democrats and most republicans don't want decreased welfare state spending, why would they vote to decrease it at any time?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul
    Perhaps the most important lesson from Obamacare is that while liberty is lost incrementally, it cannot be regained incrementally. The federal leviathan continues its steady growth; sometimes boldly and sometimes quietly. Obamacare is just the latest example, but make no mistake: the statists are winning. So advocates of liberty must reject incremental approaches and fight boldly for bedrock principles.
    The epitome of libertarian populism

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Rand Paul - Defense Spending Bill
    By Brett85 in forum Rand Paul Forum
    Replies: 147
    Last Post: 03-30-2015, 08:31 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-06-2013, 02:56 PM
  3. Replies: 85
    Last Post: 10-13-2012, 02:14 AM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-26-2011, 06:17 PM
  5. Time to protest the defense spending bill.
    By Pepsi in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-18-2009, 08:11 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •