Senator Paul rejects Republican doctrine, says cuts in military spending are necessary

[^_^ 5,021]

Senator-elect Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Sunday he believes government spending cuts shouldn't exclude the military.

On ABC’s "This Week," Paul said: “Republicans traditionally say, oh, we'll cut domestic spending, but we won't touch the military. The liberals -- the ones who are good -- will say, oh, we'll cut the military, but we won't cut domestic spending.”

“Bottom line is, you have to look at everything across the board.”

Although Paul would not be drawn on specific cuts, he argued for a bipartisan approach: “I don't see things in terms of political party, so I think this can be something where I can work across the aisle -- but the second thing you need is a compromise on where the spending cuts come from.”

Paul also said it may be necessary to raise the retirement age to rein in federal spending: “You may have to. They're already talking about it. I mean, there's a bipartisan commission up here talking about raising age, graduating the benefits, maybe having means testing. You have to look at all of these things. They need to be on the table.”

The prominent Tea Partier described the movement, saying it is “… about the debt. It's concerned and worried that we're inheriting or passing along this debt to our kids and our grandkids, is the No. 1 thing of the Tea Party.”

He said he would support a constitutional amendment and congressional rules to limit spending and balance the budget. He will not vote to raise the debt ceiling.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/128045-paul-military-cuts-on-the-table

[mawilson 2,133]

Good.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Yes very good. Though we should avoid Cameron style slashing of budgets. It should be methodical and slow over say 2013-2023, allowing the recovery two more years before cuts. After all you can't fix the current budget problem in just a few years.

[Danno 1,228]

He's right.

For example, why are:

300 million Americans

paying for the defense of

500 million Europeans from

150 million Russians?

These same can be said of our defense of South Korea ... from N. Korea

with S. Korea's much larger population and Much bigger economy.

This playing, Global security force ...will soon put our security (not to mention economy) at risk.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I am liking this guy. Now we need about 66 more Senators and 290 Representatives that think the same way.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

THAT's why I am glad the Dems lost! Boener should not be counting his chicks before they are hatched.

[mawilson 2,133]

I am liking this guy. Now we need about 66 more Senators and 290 Representatives that think the same way.

I wouldn't go that far. This guy thinks that the free market is the answer to everything

and the government is the cause of all problems. Healthcare, retirement, energy,

infrastructure, even war - privatize!

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I wouldn't go that far. This guy thinks that the free market is the answer to everything

and the government is the cause of all problems. Healthcare, retirement, energy,

infrastructure, even war - privatize!

Sounds better and better.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If you want your country to be run by a bunch of people who aren't elected and answer to no-one. Sounds a bit plutocratic to me.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

If you want your country to be run by a bunch of people who aren't elected and answer to no-one. Sounds a bit plutocratic to me.

The current situation is worse. We have professional politicians that keep getting elected and don't pay attention to the people they are supposed to represent.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

If you want your country to be run by a bunch of people who aren't elected and answer to no-one. Sounds a bit plutocratic to me.

Democrats? No. I thought I was pretty clear about that.

[Heracles 417]

The current situation is worse. We have professional politicians that keep getting elected and don't pay attention to the people they are supposed to represent.

Career politicians is a problem but at the end of the day, you people elect them in. They certainly do not elect themselves in. Pretty-much in the same way you guys elect lawyers, rather then honest intelligent people that do not make their living interpreting law or convincing some jury that because a cop used a blue rather than black ink pen, the murderer should be freed.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The current situation is worse. We have professional politicians that keep getting elected and don't pay attention to the people they are supposed to represent.

It's not worse. You can vote out the politicians.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

what's funny, is when Ron Paul says this people get all upset/angry..... When Rand says it, it's ok.

either way, he's right.

[Pooky 3,825]

If you want your country to be run by a bunch of people who aren't elected and answer to no-one. Sounds a bit plutocratic to me.

We have that now, with the current administration's "Czars", if you haven't noticed.

They aren't elected, more than two-thirds of them aren't approved by Congress and it's debatable whether they answer to the President or drive the direction of his policy.

And you are worried this might happen if the Senate is packed with others like Rand Paul, while it is already going on right under your nose? Interesting.

Edited November 8, 2010 by Pooky