Rand Paul: Spending cuts must include Pentagon

Freshman Sen. Rand Paul, one of the leading voices of the tea party in Washington, said on Sunday that military spending will have to be cut if the country is going to get its debt problems under control.

“I think there is a compromise, but the compromise is not to raise taxes,” Mr. Paul, Kentucky Republican, said. “The compromise is for conservatives to admit that the military will have to be cut.”

“They (the federal government) don’t need more money; they need less,” he said.

e said he would vote to increase the country’s $14.3 trillion debt ceiling only if Congress passes a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution.

www.washingtontimes.com...

Finally some sensible reason from a freshman Senator. But it comes as no surprise, the Paul family actually have a brain! ( not to mention they actually use it)

Originally posted by HabaneroPepper

Freshman Sen. Rand Paul, one of the leading voices of the tea party in Washington, said on Sunday that military spending will have to be cut if the country is going to get its debt problems under control.

We will be forced to cut way back on the military and military-industrial complex if we expect to get our CORRUPTION under control. We should scale back the military 90+%. Their only legitimate mission is to defend our borders.

False flags like 9/11 can only occur on the fertile ground of a military-industrial-intelligence complex with way too much money, power and secrecy.

reply to post by tyson


I would agree with you to an extent. I think cutting back our military 90% would be a tad bit extreme. That would leave us pretty much defenseless. But I do think we should close down our foreign bases. Some 170 something bases across the globe, and for what?

But atleast Rand is suggesting something positive, and worth noting. I just hope the liberals on this site see it as well, as a positive move. They see Tea Party in an article, and they get hell bent.

Originally posted by HabaneroPepper

I would agree with you to an extent. I think cutting back our military 90% would be a tad bit extreme.

I disagree completely. A piechart of worldwide military spending is very revealing. Keep in mind that this absolutely does not show black projects financed by the government's illegal narcotics trafficking and nuclear black marketeering:

www.visualeconomics.com...

reply to post by tyson


I will have to say I disagree. I take it rendering the citizenry defenseless is a good idea? With your logic, I bet stricter gun laws is also something you'd promote?

Originally posted by HabaneroPepper

I will have to say I disagree. I take it rendering the citizenry defenseless is a good idea? With your logic, I bet stricter gun laws is also something you'd promote?

You are free to disagree. In fact, I welcome your point-of-view. That does not change the fact that the US spends more than all the world combined on the military (when including illegal black funding). I do understand that most of us have been blindsided from the constant barrage of propaganda that we are subjected to daily. I unplugged my TV set several years ago because I could no longer tolerate the obvious lies.

Concerning government gun control -- I believe Hitler and Stalin would approve. I also believe the extremists in the US would agree. But that issue has nothing to do with the corruption of the military-industrial complex. Or the corruption of our politicians, or the corruption of Wall Street, or the corrupt-from-the-start Federal Reserve.

This country is under assault on many fronts. And the bad guys are succeeding beyond their wildest dreams.

reply to post by HabaneroPepper


If he even tries to cut the Pentagon's cash flow, he'll find out like a Kennedy.

We know he's not going to.

reply to post by tyson


I dont disagree that the US spends way to much tax payer money on the military complex. I just thought 90% as you originally stated was a tad much.

Originally posted by The Sword

If he even tries to cut the Pentagon's cash flow, he'll find out like a Kennedy.

We know he's not going to.

Obama's parents were CIA assets. His mother was mercenary anthropologist selecting political targets for liquidation. Obama was bought and paid for from birth. JAFO would not be an accurate term but JAF-CIA asset is appropriate.

Garbage. Pure garbage.

Originally posted by HabaneroPepper
reply to post by tyson

 

I would agree with you to an extent. I think cutting back our military 90% would be a tad bit extreme. That would leave us pretty much defenseless. But I do think we should close down our foreign bases. Some 170 something bases across the globe, and for what?

But atleast Rand is suggesting something positive, and worth noting. I just hope the liberals on this site see it as well, as a positive move. They see Tea Party in an article, and they get hell bent.

The U.S. military occupies approximately 15 countries that we're not, nor have we ever been, at war with. We're not even at war with their neighbors. The only reason we are there is to artificially prop up their economies. We need to pull out of those countries immediately. That will save the U.S. a couple hundred billion a year, not to mention those countries can start supplying their own military and support their own economies.

/TOA

reply to post by tyson


Uh-huh.

What else did Uncle Rupert tell you?

They are already cutting back the military, roughly about 25,000 per branch. It sucks for us that are in the military because we don't know who is going home or staying. Don't forget we are an all volunteer military and this is our jobs, cutting back 90% is just obsurd.

Originally posted by rowdyrich
They are already cutting back the military, roughly about 25,000 per branch. It sucks for us that are in the military because we don't know who is going home or staying. Don't forget we are an all volunteer military and this is our jobs, cutting back 90% is just obsurd.

You are applauded, sir. I was unwilling to join when I could (I was a left-wing, military-hating commie pinko hippie in my youth) and I wish now that I would have been in the military at least for the minimum time. But I probably couldn't have in the first place because of health issues. The problems I have with the military now are not with the soldiers, but with how congress uses them.

/TOA

reply to post by The Old American


They willingly step forward and submit to such abuse.

Some even look forward to repeated tours.

Can't..possibly...be...human.

reply to post by The Old American


Thank you sir and nice profile picture by the way, I'm from Texas myself. Stuck here in Japan and missing that place.

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by The Old American

 

They willingly step forward and submit to such abuse.

Some even look forward to repeated tours.

Can't..possibly...be...human.

I too served, proudly. But obviously you have no respect for those who provide you with security. Regardless of wars and there legality or not. You're the type that requires a blanket of security, and when that blanket is threatened, you desire immediate action. But in doing so, if the resolution isn't to your liking, you question the very people that provided that blanket. Why not grab a weapon, stand a post..then come back and talk to us.

Willingly stepping forward to be a part of something good is no such form of abuse. Its called patriotism. Which you know nothing about. Further, the men and women in uniform are not to be blamed for the actions of politics. They are an instrument. Nothing more, and nothing less. It is not their fault, if those elite use them for other means. ( Keyword: USE )

The USE everyone, including those in the service for their own means.

Your lack of logic solidifies that any of your responses on ATS, on any thread, should be deemed irrelevant on the grounds of ignorance.

While I agree that the military security industrial complex must be cut, it must be done by attrition, or it will unmake the worlds economy. There are roughly 10 civillian jobs for every uniformed job, and it is upon this backbone that our nations prosperity rests, for better or worse.

Cut it by 75%, over 15 years, through attrition, and re-task towards the inner solar system. There isn't enough time, or oil (or water, or arable land) left to save our civilization from the ground up. We must save it from the sky down, and quickly.

Why would anyone want to cut spending during a bad economic period. This is the time for the government to spend money, not cut it. Rand Paul and the Pauls obviously don't use their brains as someone here claimed. Im not trying to be mean, just realistic
GDP: Y = C + I + G + (X − M) and government spending is a big part.