Warfare Kings Working to Keep Fear Alive

[Bonestorm]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38182.html

BOWLING GREEN, KY – In response to Trey Grayson’s third attack ad in three days, the Rand Paul campaign issued the following statement:

As Trey Grayson falls further behind and his campaign flounders, he continues to desperately and negatively attack Rand Paul with distortions and outright lies.

There is no candidate who stands for a stronger national defense than Rand Paul.

Dr. Paul has clearly stated that the most important function of the federal government is national defense. Rand supports robust funding for our military. Under Dr. Paul’s vision, the percentage of our federal budget spent on national defense would increase.

The only person mentioned in that article that is either a candidate or a member of Congress with a shred of integrity on the issue is Rep. Broun of Georgia. Flake is a joke as is Pence. In the end you've got one guy.

Like I said, I'm thrilled to have tea baggers on board, but the candidates they support generally aren't proposing cuts to the Pentagon budget.

 

[Timshel]

that military spending has helped keep us safe...further...military spending as a percent of our gdp is not that high...figures i found have it at around 5%

An economic meltdown is going to harm our defensive abilities way more than than a few cuts in spending.

Has policing the globe actually kept us safe or just created enemies?

 

[NOVA]

What "points"? "Uh, I think it should be cut, but I'm not sure"...great argument.

We can slash the military budget. Outdated systems, continued protection for areas of the world (like Europe) that simply don't need it, bloated bureaucracy. As for the 2 wars, end 'em.

There. Solved.

Don't you ever get that "you must spread rep around" message from Damo? Or do you neg rep everyone?

The NUMBER 1 DUTY of the Government is to protect the sovereignty of the nation and its territorial integrity, for its citizens.

That duty requires a viable military, whatever the cost.....

It is not the foremost duty of government to provide jobs, healthcare, clothes, entertainment, transportation, cell phones, internet sevice, or good weather for its citizens......it is the business of the citizens to provide these things and others like them for themselves.....

 

[Big Gubmint]

All this irresponsible talk about cutting Big Gubmint is dangerous as well as disingenuous.

See what happens when a few opportunistic politicians take the "cut spending" crowd at their word?

http://maxkeiser.com/2010/09/29/videos-protests-riots-across-europe-against-austerity-measures/

You don't really want to cut Big Gubmint because Big Gubmint is the source of your income, now and in the future.

 

[Onceler]

The NUMBER 1 DUTY of the Government is to protect the sovereignty of the nation and its territorial integrity, for its citizens.

That duty requires a viable military, whatever the cost.....

It is not the foremost duty of government to provide jobs, healthcare, clothes, entertainment, transportation, cell phones, internet sevice, or good weather for its citizens......it is the business of the citizens to provide these things and others like them for themselves.....

That is a horrifically flawed argument; using that logic, you could justify any amount for the military budget. Any program, any expenditure....anything.

What do you think our debt is doing to the state of our national security? The Soviet Union collapsed from within due mainly to economics...how is our trajectory as far as that is concerned?

 

[Big Gubmint]

If you think it can't happen here....

http://www.infowars.com/top-ratings-agency-warns-austerity-riots-could-hit-america/

 

[Timshel]

The only person mentioned in that article that is either a candidate or a member of Congress with a shred of integrity on the issue is Rep. Broun of Georgia. Flake is a joke as is Pence. In the end you've got one guy.

Like I said, I'm thrilled to have tea baggers on board, but the candidates they support generally aren't proposing cuts to the Pentagon budget.

Classic confirmation bias. Ignore all cases that don't fit your preconceived notion. It is clear to me that lefties have a blind spot on the Tea Party. Either that or they are just lying with their "nothing to see here" responses.

I certainly would like to see stronger stances, but the Tea Party movement has implied they are different than establishment Republicans on this issue. The neocons are trying to reassert themselves. They probably will win out and the whole damn thing will just become more big government Republicanism.

But I have some hope just like I had hope that the movement that swept Dems into power would follow through civil liberties and peace.

BTW, you need to read Paul more carefully. Military spending can be cut but in concert with other cuts, the percentage of our budget going to military could increase.

 

[Bonestorm]

Classic confirmation bias. Ignore all cases that don't fit your preconceived notion. It is clear to me that lefties have a blind spot on the Tea Party. Either that or they are just lying with their "nothing to see here" responses.

I certainly would like to see stronger stances, but the Tea Party movement has implied they are different than establishment Republicans on this issue. The neocons are trying to reassert themselves. They probably will win out and the whole damn thing will just become more big government Republicanism.

But I have some hope just like I had hope that the movement that swept Dems into power would follow through civil liberties and peace.

BTW, you need to read Paul more carefully. Military spending can be cut but in concert with other cuts, the percentage of our budget going to military could increase.

I'm not ignoring anything. I'm asking for some evidence of tea party candidates supporting military cuts. I'd be pleased as punch if there were more of them, but I can't find too many. Neither can you it seems.

And Rand Paul ain't his daddy.


Edit: Lastly, the Tea Party folks are the same Republicans they have always been.

 

[Timshel]

I'm not ignoring anything. I'm asking for some evidence of tea party candidates supporting military cuts. I'd be pleased as punch if there were more of them, but I can't find too many. Neither can you it seems.

And Rand Paul ain't his daddy.


Edit: Lastly, the Tea Party folks are the same Republicans they have always been.

Like I said, you are suffering from a blind spot. They are not the same Republicans. You apparently can't see the differences just like many Republicans don't get that there is a real difference between some on the left. I have little doubt that they will backslide just like the MoveOn Democrats and knuckle under to the party establishment, but it is silly to pretend that Republicans are all of one mind.

Rand Paul is still his father's son. How he campaigns makes me somewhat uneasy but I think I will reserve judgment until i have some idea on how he governs. Winning a senate seat is a much different ballgame than what his dad faces. His dad has a small area to work and has many years of incumbency to his advantage. Ron has built a loyal following that his son cannot gain without a track record. Ron has a quite a bit more freedom from political pressures than Rand does.

 

[Bonestorm]

Like I said, you are suffering from a blind spot. They are not the same Republicans. You apparently can't see the differences just like many Republicans don't get that their is a real difference between some on the left. I have little doubt that they will backslide just like the MoveOn Democrats and knuckle under to the party establishment, but it is silly to pretend that Republicans are all of one mind.

I'm not suffering from anything. I simply do not view Republicans as monolithic. The tea partiers are the same Republicans they were since Clinton was in office and want to pretend that they were napping or something from 2000-2008.

Rand Paul is still his father's son. How he campaigns makes me somewhat uneasy but I think I will reserve judgment until i have some idea on how he governs. Winning a senate seat is a much different ballgame than what his dad faces. His dad has a small area to work and has many of years of incumbency to his advantage. Ron has built a loyal following that his son cannot gain without a track record. Ron has a quite a bit more freedom from political pressures than Rand does.

Rand Paul may be his father's son but until he endorses the proposal his father put out with Barney Frank on military spending you can spare me the "Rand Paul will cut military spending" nonsense. Rand is cozying up to the establishment guys that his dad has fought against for years and years and, while it remains to be seen how he votes, it's clear who he is cozying up to.

 

[Timshel]

What do you think our debt is doing to the state of our national security? The Soviet Union collapsed from within due mainly to economics...how is our trajectory as far as that is concerned?

Exactly. When the meltdown comes our defensive abilities will suffer and as other nations suffer, hostility against us will increase.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Exactly. When the meltdown comes our defensive abilities will suffer and as other nations suffer, hostility against us will increase.

Yeah. So we should probably keep our defense expenditures where they are, instead of instituting the libertarian slash and burn attitude toward even core functions of government, like national defense, trade policy, and immigration policy.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/10/military_spending

ARE they worried? When the presidents of DC's two most powerful conservative think tanks team up with America's most prominent cheerleader for war to jointly author a Wall Street Journal op-ed defending the United States' unfathomably colossal military budget, one suspects a bit of anxiety.

The folks of the tea-party movement are clearly upset at what they see as out-of-control spending, and frequently express a desire to slash the size of government. A quick glance at the federal budget is enough to see that military spending is far and away the largest expense after Medicare and Social Security. That fact combined with the observation that America's titanic military budget is larger than the military budgets of China, Britain, France, Russia, Germany, Japan, Saudia Arabia, Italy, South Korea, Brazil, Canada, and Australia combined is more than enough to suggest to common sense that there's room here to cut a bit of fat.

That's why I don't take these "Small Government" types seriously. If you are serious about cutting the size of our government that is the very first place you have to start. If you're not willing to go there you're just blowing smoke and can't be taken seriously.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

That's why I don't take these "Small Government" types seriously. If you are serious about cutting the size of our government that is the very first place you have to start. If you're not willing to go there you're just blowing smoke and can't be taken seriously.

While I agree there is a lot that can be cut from defense... in no way is it "the very first place you have to start"... that is simply mindless drivel from the left.

You can START anywhere there is waste. Education, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Defense etc...

Your argument can be turned just as easily to Education.... 'if you're not willing to go there then you're just blowing smoke and can't be taken seriously'

 

[Mott the Hoople]

i think the military budget needs to be cut, but i'm not so sure it needs as much as the liberals above believe...

we are in two "wars" (quote/unquote)...i know, you will claim combat ops are over, total horsepucky if you read the news...obama is expanding ops in afghanistan....and it would unwise to cut military spending right now

that military spending has helped keep us safe...further...military spending as a percent of our gdp is not that high...figures i found have it at around 5%

You're sublimating the obvious. It's kept us safe, Japan safe, South Korea safe, our NATO allies in Western Europe safe, It's kept Israel safe, etc. The cold war is over. There is no clear and present danger that justifies this level of defense spending. Military spending could be cut in half and we would still spend more money then most of the wealthy industrialized nations combined and provide more military resources to protect our nation then is needed. We not only cannot afford the Bush era neo-con military adventurism, we cannot afford to defend these other nations. They need to start paying for their own military needs and not depend on the US as the US simply cannot afford it.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

does anyone have a more authoritative figure on what we spend on our national debt interest? wiki has it at $260 billion per year...if that is true....how about we cut that...

Go ask an economist what would be the result of the US defaulting on its debt.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

This is hopelessly utopian, but I have long felt that a good piece of compromise legislation would be one that slashed the military budget & privatized SS. In one fell swoop, you save the U.S. economy, revolutionize spending and get everyone onboard for it.

Wouldn't happen, because in reality, both parties are afraid on both issues...

After letting Wall Street nearly eviscerate our economy with credit default swaps and other forms of derivatives you'd still be willing to let them gamble away our SS funds? Are you insane?

 

[Timshel]

I'm not suffering from anything. I simply do not view Republicans as monolithic. The tea partiers are the same Republicans they were since Clinton was in office and want to pretend that they were napping or something from 2000-2008.

What? Yes, you do see Republicans as monolithic and that is the argument you continue to make.

Rand Paul may be his father's son but until he endorses the proposal his father put out with Barney Frank on military spending you can spare me the "Rand Paul will cut military spending" nonsense. Rand is cozying up to the establishment guys that his dad has fought against for years and years and, while it remains to be seen how he votes, it's clear who he is cozying up to.

Yeah, so? The neocons and religious reich have been cozying up to libertarians for years only to stab them in the back after getting into office. If Paul is able to effectively turn the tables, using them to get elected and then governing as a libertarian, that's okay with me.

I would love it if our system was not controlled by the duopoly or the major political parties. But the reality of politics is what it is. They run the show. You can pretend you are different all you want in the primary but after that, it is nearly impossible to win without the party.

Paul started cozying up when he got blasted by Maddow. He no longer could afford to be an outspoken maverick with that sort of heat from the left and without the full faith of his father's supporters. If he wins he can repair the damage by governing as he campaigned during the primaries. He can then win over his father's crowd and he hopefully will not need the party establishment so much.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Classic confirmation bias. Ignore all cases that don't fit your preconceived notion. It is clear to me that lefties have a blind spot on the Tea Party. Either that or they are just lying with their "nothing to see here" responses.

I certainly would like to see stronger stances, but the Tea Party movement has implied they are different than establishment Republicans on this issue. The neocons are trying to reassert themselves. They probably will win out and the whole damn thing will just become more big government Republicanism.

But I have some hope just like I had hope that the movement that swept Dems into power would follow through civil liberties and peace.

BTW, you need to read Paul more carefully. Military spending can be cut but in concert with other cuts, the percentage of our budget going to military could increase.

That sounds like projection to me. You've just done what you've accused Nigel of.

 

[Onceler]

After letting Wall Street nearly eviscerate our economy with credit default swaps and other forms of derivatives you'd still be willing to let them gamble away our SS funds? Are you insane?

Like it or not, Wall Street is not separate from the rest of the economy, and it is not at all separate from Main Street. Wall Street is Main Street.

Yeah - I think the idea of privatizing SS is a huge win for everyone.