Posted on 11/07/2010 2:06:31 PM PST by fabrizio
WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican Sen.-elect Rand Paul says GOP lawmakers must be open to cutting military spending as Congress tries to reduce government spending.
The tea party favorite from Kentucky says compromise with Democrats over where to cut spending must include the military as well as social programs. Paul says all government spending must be “on the table.”
Paul tells ABC’s “This Week” that he supports a constitutional amendment calling for a balanced budget.
Actually, from what I saw of military procurement, it would have to be over a hundred billion, without any sacrifice in quality. IIRC, when I was in military microelectronics, 70% of the cost of the product was paperwork.
We have military -procurement system designed by lawyers.
You are 100% right. Daddy was against aid to Israel. The Paul’s are isolationist.
Conservatives will rue the day that Kentucky voted in this Libertarian in Republican disguise - he’s just a duplicate of his Dad. First rattle out of the box and he shows what he really is. I had hoped otherwise judging by his rhetoric in this campaign, he just lied his way into office.
As to all these posts on this thread coming down for Rand’s call to cut defense, all they are are libertarians and Ron Paul fans, they are as phony as the two Paul’s. They hide what they really are.
I work for a defense contractor and the defense budget could and probably should be cut, even though it might eventually result in the termination of my job. IIRC, the U.S. spends more on military expenditures than the rest of the world combined. I would think that someone in this country is competent enough to ensure our security with less money.
The dipshit is just like his dad. Does not understand how military spending is determined. Unless you do a complete overhaul (read that surrender) of the National Security Strategy and National Military Strategy, reducing the missions assigned to the armed forces to the extreme, there is very little you can cut.
Doesnt surprise me one bit. We can cut parts of the defense without touching weapons, personnel or benefits.
If the US feels threatened by Mexico..let Obama sue them. Cuts should be made in the civillian workforce and among the military contractors but NOT to the troops that serve and fight for this country. We have people living on welfare that live a better lifestyle than our young enlisted men and women. People on welfare that are young and healthy and get foodstamps, medical care and more...yet, we begrudge those that place their lives on the line? if the GOP hits the retired military, the young enlisted personnel with cuts then I will NEVER vote republican again. Too many other areas to cut first and as I said that includes the civillian work force who make more money, do less and have the best benefits on earth.
worth noting: Dr. Paul specifically said he didn’t think salaries for our military members needed to be cut.
It’s quite funny reading these comments, it is obvious that 99% of the negative commenters didn’t actually watch the interview as they are competely off the mark. They just got used and abused by the AP.
Here is the actual interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dN0N6roRGZ8
Talk about hiding. You make your post to “all” and dont name name, but have the gall to say other people are hiding. Maybe if you look at what the military budget is, and what % of federal spending defense is, you would see that without some cuts to it, we can not cut the federal budget.
It doent mean we are going to cut necessities. But it does require that people look at the facts and make rational decisions as opposed to hysterical emotional claims and dismissing people because you dont like the truth they are speaking.
EXACTLY!!
So you favor symbolism over results?
Cutting Federal salaries wont make anything bleed. If we want to bleed the government, we have to hit Medicare/caid, Defense, Debt Interest and Social Security.
Considering we are in two wars now that are fairly pointless because we have an Islamic POTUS and Saudi mole plus open borders.You are right. For the first time in my life I believe now is not the time to expand the US military, mostly for the reasons you mention.We are broke and there appears to be no strategy or plan except our troops cannot shoot back, bomb, use artilleryy etc.
Paul said they need to look at military “entitlements” which are their pensions. I did not read in the transcript where he cited any other specifics.
AMANPOUR: Are you going to cut entitlements?
PAUL: It has to be everything across the board.
AMANPOUR: Entitlements?
PAUL: And you — you have to look at entitlements.
Paul said they need to look at military “entitlements” which are their pensions. I did not read in the transcript where he cited any other specifics.
AMANPOUR: Are you going to cut entitlements?
PAUL: It has to be everything across the board.
AMANPOUR: Entitlements?
PAUL: And you — you have to look at entitlements.
Paul said they need to look at military “entitlements” which are their pensions. I did not read in the transcript where he cited any other specifics.
AMANPOUR: Are you going to cut entitlements?
PAUL: It has to be everything across the board.
AMANPOUR: Entitlements?
PAUL: And you — you have to look at entitlements.
I agree with Rand Paul. There is plenty of fat in the defense budget, just like every other part of the federal government. The goal should be to spend smart, not just spend a lot. JMO.
Bingo. Nation Building is endangering our armed forces mission. How much cash is going towards that, to say nothing of the nation’s biggest threat: financial collapse.
Ah yes, Veteran’s benefits are the largest chunk of defense spending. I think they come right after social security and medicare in terms of the amount of money spent, IIRC.
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.