Jim wrote,
Woo hoo!! Closing in on the finish line!! Less than $2,100 to go!!
Let's git er done!!
If you enjoy reading or posting to FR and haven't donated yet, please consider doing so today!
Posted on 11/07/2010 2:06:31 PM PST by fabrizio
if this is true we have another libertarian who doesn't understand the proper role of government and the fallacy of cutting military expenditures, all the more at this time with the Afghan situation, to balance the budget. Secondly, amendment on balancing budget HOW? By cutting the armed forced down to size in the era of Bin Laden and Ahmadinejad? And one could "balance budgets" by increasing the fiscal pressure, and that is NOT the constitutional way to balance budgets.
I repeat: I could be wrong, and I would like to read the full text of Paul's statements, but I do hope he's not turning into his lunatic father. Compromise with the Dhimmicrats my @§§
Jim wrote,
Woo hoo!! Closing in on the finish line!! Less than $2,100 to go!!
Let's git er done!!
If you enjoy reading or posting to FR and haven't donated yet, please consider doing so today!
Military spending has gone up because of two wars.
Shouldn’t the military be decreased as those wars wind down?
He is right. Nation building is ridiculous.
Considering we are in two wars now that are fairly pointless because we have an Islamic POTUS and Saudi mole plus open borders.
We are broke and there appears to be no strategy or plan except our troops cannot shoot back, bomb, use artilleryy etc.
I get the impression that FR is filled with people who work for defense companies sometimes with that union scum on the factory floor at UTX, Raytheon, Lockheed, Martin Marietta, Boeing, etc. Eff those union goons.
I do not support cutting the actual constitutional parts of the budget. Military spending is not a huge part of the budget, social spending is. I would rather cut govt. employees of the myriad depts, but not defense, our military strength may be all that saves this nation if our economic strength is brought down by socialism.
In this I feel Paul is wrong, and we must not cave to the dems in any way.
NO Rand Paul you @$$! Look elsewhere for funds (givaway entitlements) that can be cut. The military has already been cut and corrupted enough with the O-Bozo PCism and socialist agenda.
You don’t think that some of our military spending is pure pork/waste?
How about let’s stop building a missile shield for Europe - they can afford to pay for it themselves. Or perhaps we can stop trying to fight Columbia’s drug war, considering that most of it is ineffective anyway.
Senator-elect Paul would be wise to remember, or to learn if his education was deficient on the point, that the armed services have express sanction in the Constitution and a vital role to play in keeping this nation’s citizens free and prosperous. For him to place the mission of the armed forces on the same level of legitimacy as liberal’s extra-constitutional social programs is not merely ignorant—it’s damned ludicrous.
Exactly, that’s precisely what I mean. And, when anyone uses the term “compromise” with the Dems after an historic wipeout you know there something REALLY wrong with them.
I notice that he doesn’t have the balls to say exactly what he would cut in the military. Jets? Warships? Nuclear weapons? Troop numbers? Nuclear Submarines? Pay and benefits for troops? Cut spending for disabled veterans? Research and development of weapons? Run from Afghanistan and leave it to the Taliban and al Quaida? Watch China’s military grow exponentially while we shrink our own? If he can say military cuts should be on the table, then he needs to have the balls to say what gets cut, or else he needs to shut up. The people who elected this man should stand up and tell him the first federal cut should be in HIS pay check and HIS benefits.
Department of Education
HHS
Ect.
These are state issues and concerns
Defense IS the proper role of central government and should be the last to be abolished however THAT can be cut too.
Retirement and health care is an individual concern and shouldn't be political at all.
That is why we have charity.
Federal government needs to recede back to their proper role as dictated by the Constitution.
No you guys are wrong.
He said that defense is Constitutional duty of federal govt.
I listened to the whole interview.
I think he wants everything on the table.
Better save somthing for the war with China.
If we cut our troop strength in Europe the Europeans might have to increase their defense spending. We wouldn’t want to overburden them. It’s in the Constitution that we must be the world’s cop. I just can’t find where.
The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.
Republicans, you were warned.
I’ve always assumed that. The military isn’t exempt from wasteful spending and inefficiency. There have to be ways to reduce spending without reducing the actual strength of our military.
but I do know this...
military spending is just as much out of hand as other govt spending and the pensions and medical benefits alone are astronomical...they are paid too soon, and are too large....
having said that, defense is a nations' first priority above all else...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.