Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sen.-elect Paul: GOP must consider military cuts
The Daily Caller/AP ^

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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: blameamericafirst; iranianbloodmoney; libertarian; liebertarian; military; paul; paulantimilitary; paulbots; paulestinians; paulistians; paultards; randpaul; ronpaul; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-179 last
To: Godzilla

Don’t get me wrong, the military is a crucial priority in our government spending. But, in order to have it means cutting a bunch of seniors off from all entitlements like.....yesterday.


161 posted on 11/08/2010 5:22:08 AM PST by misterrob (Thug Life....now showing at a White House near you....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: fabrizio

Easiest way to cut the military budget is to stop fighting wars.

Except that in some situations, we don’t get to choose when or if we can fight or not. And this is one of those times.


162 posted on 11/08/2010 6:40:47 AM PST by gogogodzilla (Live free or die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

The tradition system was to treat all enlisted personnel E-3 and below as single, providing no additional benefits for spouse or children. A return to this policy seems a logical step in the future, since manpower costs since the early 1980’s have risen some 80%, to a great extent attributable to junior enlisted spouse and family benefits.

Likewise, private quarters would only be provided to those E-4 and above. And minimum frustration in the ranks is created by phasing in such a program with new enlistments.

The bottom line is that cutbacks are coming, because they must come. The money is no longer there to maintain our current force structure, and cutbacks will be made based on the needs of the service, not its personnel. As was always the case.


163 posted on 11/08/2010 6:46:20 AM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: VRWC For Truth

I’d say that we instinctively understand that, in many cases of limited government, if cut the government’s budget... then we’re going to get less from the government.

But when we start talking about defense, everyone still wants a military that can do all the things it has done in the past... but we are no longer willing to pay for it. If you want to cut defense, then you must reduce their burden to match.


164 posted on 11/08/2010 6:48:14 AM PST by gogogodzilla (Live free or die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: St_Thomas_Aquinas

And outta South Korea, too. What with a global top-10 economy now, methinks that they can afford to defend themselves against the North Koreans.

Plus, they don’t particularly like us in the first place.


165 posted on 11/08/2010 6:52:04 AM PST by gogogodzilla (Live free or die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Raider Sam
Exactly. If the government overspends on frivolity elsewhere, why do we think they wouldn’t in the defense budget?

Maybe because the uniformed members of the Defense Department aren't unionized like the rest of the federal government? And that they control the civilians/contractors (well, outside of the Secretary of Defense, that is)...

166 posted on 11/08/2010 7:00:09 AM PST by gogogodzilla (Live free or die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: earlJam

We don’t have to look at just the 2 wars. We are still in countries around the world from wars decades ago. Why are we still there? If we brought home everyone in Europe and Japan, thats alot of money saved right there! How about North/South Korea? Everyone knows that if the North decides to take out the South, our troops will be toast. So why are they there? We really should not be nation-building either. That is NOT the job of the military. When it comes to Iraq or Afghanistan, we are not going to change 200 years of war to make them see things the way we do. Democracy is not going to work in either of those countries. All these people know is fighting and killing. Only God can stop that, not us.


167 posted on 11/08/2010 7:05:45 AM PST by Lemondropkid31 (God surpasses our dreams when we grab the hand of Christ and walk the path he has chosen for us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rob777

To be honest, the main reason we have our bases in Western Europe is so that we can more rapidly deploy troops to the Middle East, should it be necessary. After all, it’s a lot closer than deploying/supplying them from the States.


168 posted on 11/08/2010 7:06:46 AM PST by gogogodzilla (Live free or die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Or for that matter, the Department of Homeland Security.

The last time I checked, the job of defending the homeland fell to the Defense Department. So what’s up with having a second, bloated, unionized government agency trying to do the job that the military has held for the last 200+ years?!?


169 posted on 11/08/2010 7:11:36 AM PST by gogogodzilla (Live free or die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
Likewise, private quarters would only be provided to those E-4 and above. And minimum frustration in the ranks is created by phasing in such a program with new enlistments.

You actually think that our military is actually living better than this?!? BAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

During my last tour in Korea(2007-8), I arrived at Yongsan Army Garrison and found that the Garrison Commander had just dictated that all E-9's and below were required to move into barracks. And that those with families would have to relocate them back to the states.

Needless to say, even us E-6's (at the time) were sharing barracks rooms. In fact, outside of my time in the states... and this current tour in Korea, I've never had the chance to live outside of the barracks. And that's coming from a 14-year Master Sergeant.

And that's how the friggin' *Air Force*, supposedly the best service for accommodations, lived.

So what's this 'private quarters' for E-4's and up? To do that, we'd have to *INCREASE* the defense budget.

Personally, though... I'd have to say that outside of combat zones, the military should not be in the business of providing housing to any of it's members. The Defense budget already includes the total amount of BAH/OHA that is necessary for every serviceman. However, by forcing it's members into barracks, the services can then divert the difference into other projects while then going back to Congress for barracks/family housing funding.

So by eliminating the military housing business, you don't have to pay for housing construction and maintenance... and you also see the proper utilization of BAH/OHA moneys authorized by Congress in the defense budget.

And you'll see the troops have better accommodations at the same time.

170 posted on 11/08/2010 7:28:10 AM PST by gogogodzilla (Live free or die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: misterrob
Don’t get me wrong, the military is a crucial priority in our government spending. But, in order to have it means cutting a bunch of seniors off from all entitlements like.....yesterday.

Well, a broken clock is right twice a day. The problem is not our military spending. Our problem is ENTITLEMENTS that have ballooned out of control. Our problem is EPA and Dept of Ed, and Dept of Energy and their uncontrolled growth.

When you get to cutting, it has to be prioritized. If it means cutting senior 'entitlements' to keep the country safe for the rest of us - well you do the math.

171 posted on 11/08/2010 8:05:32 AM PST by Godzilla (3-7-77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Godzilla

SCOTUS ruled back in the 1960s that SS was actually a tax and that it had the power to alter, amend or outright eliminate the benefit. I have paid in over $250K into the system the past 20 plus years. I should easily have over $500K in a retirement account of my own that I could see go to $2 million in another 20 years without having to add another dine to it.

but noooooooooooooooooooooo


172 posted on 11/08/2010 8:23:55 AM PST by misterrob (Thug Life....now showing at a White House near you....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: misterrob

I’m probably in the same situation. Get our money back by no longer funding sex studies of the red throated zip picker and other congressional waste. We get our money’s worth out of our military - I know, I’ve been there. And military spending is now dwarfed by the ‘entitlement’ spending throughout the rest of government. We’ve cut the military to the bones twice in my lifetime - and nothing good has ever come from it - no savings, no benefit - just more waste in other sectors of gov’t.


173 posted on 11/08/2010 8:28:35 AM PST by Godzilla (3-7-77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: fabrizio
The GOP should simply do across-the-board cuts in spending, regardless of the department or program. 5%, 10%, 20% - whatever figure they go with - will have to be the approach. They cannot sit around quibbling over one department being cut drastically vs. others not being touched. In the end, nothing would be accomplished. It will be harder for Dems to make the case that the GOP is being "unfair" in their approach to cutting spending when the percentage of cuts is equal. If the military faces cuts, so be it. I'm sure they can find some deadwood in any department, including the DOD.
174 posted on 11/08/2010 8:48:58 AM PST by Major Matt Mason (I know more about Christine O'Donnell than I do about Barack Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fabrizio

The rotten apple doesn’t fall far from the rotten tree.

What amazes me is that a state like Kentucky, which contains a large military base and therefore many military families, voted this libertarian poser into the Senate.


175 posted on 11/08/2010 3:18:12 PM PST by La Enchiladita (It's Morning in America!! And darkest night in California....:(:()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SandRat

It should hardly be any surprise that carpetbagger Rand Paul is pushing the libertarian agenda of his truther Pop, Ron.

I also expect Senator Paul to caucus with the Dems on amnesty for illegals. Count on it.

Hey, Kentucky had plenty of time to figure this fool out beforehand.


176 posted on 11/08/2010 3:21:03 PM PST by La Enchiladita (It's Morning in America!! And darkest night in California....:(:()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: behzinlea
... 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.

That is exactly right, and in fact pretty much the only expenditure of public funds allowed for in the Constitution. Isn't it ironic that libertarians like the Pauls who spout "constitutionalism," seem to know nothing about our founding document.

177 posted on 11/08/2010 3:23:53 PM PST by La Enchiladita (It's Morning in America!! And darkest night in California....:(:()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: La Enchiladita

Libertarian is just another name for progressive DUPE.


178 posted on 11/08/2010 3:26:06 PM PST by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country! What else needs said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: gogogodzilla

Yeah, because people like Wesley Clarke and Joe Sestak would never fudge, because they are military men. Look at the political leanings of General and Admirals and you will find some staunch socialists.


179 posted on 11/08/2010 4:14:08 PM PST by Raider Sam (They're on our left, right, front, and back. They aint gettin away this time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-179 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson