19 votes

Rand Paul Votes in Favor of $631 Billion U.S. 'Defense' Legislation

EPJ: Rand Paul's To Do List before officially running for president:

Visit is Israel (scheduled for January)
Make sure Military-Industrial Compex is funded (Check)

The Senate, by a 98-0 vote, authorized $525.3 billion in baseline military spending, trimming only a small chunk from the administration’s $525.4 billion request. Thebill also authorizes $88.5 billion more for ongoing wars."

Continue reading at: Economic Policy Journal

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

"A Real Conservative"...

...totally is making sense. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves for downvoting someone who is giving facts that you just don't like.

We need to get an early start on 2016: Support Rand PAC 2016



RP voted for constitutional letters of mark and reprisal

to go after the people that were behind the 9/11 attacks (personally, I think 9/11 was an inside job, but that's another topic). He never voted in favor of war against a country, if I remember correctly.

He most certainly did vote in

He most certainly did vote in favor of going into Afghanistan chasing those responsible for 911.


"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

Yes, so Ron voted for an

Yes, so Ron voted for an undeclared war, violating the Constitution. Rand simply votes against getting rid of all funding for the undeclared war that Ron voted for, and he receives nothing but hatred and scorn for that.

Err....um....this bill funds

Err....um....this bill funds undeclared wars throughout the world.

I like Lindsey Graham better than Rand Paul.

At least Lindsey Graham doesn't pretend to be any other than a neocon. Rand is a fake. He pretends to be something that he ain't.

Don't be fooled.

You'd be as well off with McCain and Lindsey as with Rand Who?

And I utterly despise McCain and Lindsey Graham.

Amerikans don't need a bloodline of patriarchal succession.
Why? Because it doesn't work.
Obviously, being principled is not a matter of genetics.
Moses's sons didn't amount to nothin''.

The anointing is on the man, not his family.
Read it and weep.

Rand ain't Royality. He's a common neocon politician,
an opportunist.

Rand, go be fruitful, and multiply. Do it now.

I wouldn't call Rand a

I wouldn't call Rand a neocon. I'd call him an opportunist which, in many ways, is more dangerous, at least to those who love liberty.

He is an opportunist neocon.

He is an opportunist neocon. Nuff said.

Again, I wouldn't go that

Again, I wouldn't go that far....yet. The neocons still very much distrust him.

neocon lite

however in increments, and with his playing along game he is in danger of becoming a full blown neocon.
i wonder if one can ever get out of making the devil's bargain? endorsing and campaigning for a chicken hawk who was also pro police state was a monumental blunder IMO, and it has set him on a very questionable path.

Well said. Even then,

Well said. Even then, however, I don't think like an opportunist like Rand will ever be regarded as reliable even by the neocons....perhaps for the same reason that a general named Arnold was never regarded as reliable by the British.

I thought that some of my

I thought that some of my fellow Ron Paulites were cultish but they are not even close to showing the blind loyalty, and habitual rationalizations, of the Rand Paul cult. This is exhibit A: Rand votes for MASSIVE increase in military spending and the Rand Paul cultists praise him for it!

And this bill did not contain

And this bill did not contain a "massive increase" in military spending. That's absolutely false.

Oh man, you haven't read the

Oh man, you haven't read the bill have you?

Fool or knave? I know the truth about you.

Fool? Nice name calling

Fool? Nice name calling there. Again, Rand was not obligated to vote for a budget-busting military spending increase even if he was able to modify some elements in the bill via amendments or suggestions.

That isn't true. I support

That isn't true. I support Rand, but I've criticized him when I thought he voted the wrong way, like when he voted in favor of sanctions on Iran. Believe it or not, you can support a politician without agreeing with him or her 100% of the time.

Kudos to criticizing Rand but

Kudos to criticizing Rand but your "believe it or not" straw man won't work. I, and many others here, have differed with Ron on some issues (for me it is abortion and immigration) but still supported him with gusto. For Rand, the differences from your alleged "100 percent standard" that we have are far more serious.

It's important not to be allergic to victory in this movement

otherwise we risk drifting into irrelevance.

If we do stuff like actively working against a liberty-minded candidate because of wedge issues like Joseph Kony, abortion, or unanimous Senate votes, then we're risk losing all influence in Washington.

A professional politician is defined by his ability to win elections, nothing more. If Rand doesn't appeal to 55% of Kentuckians, he becomes "Rand Paul, friendly country opthalmologist" and there are no more filibusters on C-SPAN or CNN interviews on reducing our overseas empire and we're back to having no mass platform for Liberty views.

the revolution

is about spreading the message far and wide like ron paul continues to do, and others like rockwell, woods,the judge, ventura and johnson are doing. one day reaching a tipping point. i don't see playing politics in a den of thieves amounting to much. the vast majority of politicians are power hungry liars and part of a system that is broken and wrong. once the american people realize this, probably with the devalued dollar you will see a huge move against tyranny and a shift towards liberty.

Ron purists consider this,

"Ron Paul planned to keep funding Medicare and SS as president even though he believes both to be unconstitutional. Rand's position in wanting to bring our empire home, but, funding our soldiers who depend on Congress for their food until political will can be amassed to actually bring them all home is no more hypocritical than Ron wanting to keep funding SS and Medicsre until political will could be mustered to end those programs."

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

Ron saw SS and medicare as property rights when people were

forced to pay in. Forcing them to pay in was unconstitutional. So he was going to LET THE YOUNG OUT and keep the promises to those forced at government gun point to pay in. That isn't remotely inconsistent. He would be ending the program, and honoring property rights, which are also constitutionally protected.

He was the only one on the Hill with those priorities though, despite them framing entitlement reform as a GOP issue, Obama wants it too.

He just wants to use the money as room to spend on his own special interests instead of for those who paid in.

However, you can say it is illegal to make someone, at gunpoint, pay per month for an eventual car, but at the end when they paid it is still wrong not to give the car.

Integrity means having to say things that people don't want to hear & especially to say things that the regime doesnt want to hear -RonPaul

This is such a ridiculous analogy.

The 2 situations are nothing alike.

Ron didn't want to cut the programs because people rely on them. They have to be eased out - you can't just take money away from people that put their hard-earned cash into the system.

The troops don't NEED to be in countries abroad. And you don't have to be a genius to realize that you don't need more military expenditures in order supply food. That's already in the overall budget.

I don't understand how people come up with these insane comparisons that are completely biased towards their side and yet fail the logic test right off the bat.


Last I checked, the national defense is in the Constitution. Healthcare and retirement are not. So which Paul is on the side of the Constitution in this analogy?

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

If you'd ever listened to RON Paul

You'd understand that what the status quo considers "national defense" is actually aggressive-interventionism.

Every war you currently see in the middle east involving us has only produced more animosity and hatred towards us which means in terms of national security, this so called "national defense" is actually edging us closer to being attacked than anything else.

So, explain to me again how you compare increasing MILITARISM spending to decreasing SS and Healthcare spending? Thrill us all with another one of your "genius" thoughts.


How is forcing me to pay for social security which I will never benefit from not aggression against me? Ron said he would continue that program and medicare until there was the political will to stop it. However the opt-out, even if it passed, would only be available for people under a certain age. I'm in that over 30 bracket who would not get to opt out, and still not get SS because it will be broke. So when Ron admits he would still continue this as a president, that is aggression against me which I can't do anything about. I understand why he said that though, just as I understand why Rand voted the way he did.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

Never involved in any action that that used force against you.

"How is forcing me to pay for social security which I will never benefit from not aggression against me?"

It is an aggression against you and Ron Paul has pointed that out many times.

"Ron said he would continue that program"

No, Ron Paul said he would honor the promises made to people who have had their property taken in order to fund the deceptive program (for whom it is too late to opt out) and see no other option but continue to contribute.

"However the opt-out, even if it passed, would only be available for people under a certain age."

No, his proposal was an opt out for anyone who decided to do so. The only time Ron Paul has ever mentioned an age has been in the form of an example.


"I'm in that over 30 bracket who would not get to opt out"

Do you see? He only suggested an approximate age, in this case it was 50.

How old are you? Would you opt out now? At what age would you realize that due to old age or ill health or lack of saved capital (capital that has been taken by force to 'look after the you in your old age'), has prevented you from doing so for yourself?

"and still not get SS because it will be broke."

This is only true if the currently forced transfers of wealth are directed toward an interventionist foreign policy of empire.

Perhaps the most abhorrent bit of chicanery has been the threat that if a deal is not reached to increase the debt by August 2nd, social security checks may not go out.

In reality, the Chief Actuary of Social Security confirmed last week that current Social Security tax receipts are more than enough to cover current outlays.

The only reason those checks would not go out would be if the administration decided to spend those designated funds elsewhere.

It is very telling that the administration would rather frighten seniors dependent on social security checks than alarm their big banking friends, who have already received $5.3 trillion in bailouts, stimulus and quantitative easing.

This instance of trying to blackmail Congress into tax increases by threatening social security demonstrates how scary it is to be completely dependent on government promises and why many young people today would jump at the chance to opt out of Social Security altogether.

We are headed for rough economic times either way, but the longer we put it off, the greater the pain will be when the system implodes. We need to stop adding more programs and entitlements to the problem.

We need to stop expensive bombing campaigns against people on the other side of the globe and bring our troops home.

We need to stop allowing secretive banking cartels to endlessly enslave us through monetary policy trickery. And we need to drastically rethink government's role in our lives so we can get it out of the way and get back to work.


I don't understand you

1. Ron Paul was the only one proposing to make any drastic changes to SS and Medicare
2. He didn't help create or even support SS, so why would you say that HE is being aggressive with you, especially when taking into account the fact above?

They're not engaged in national defense

The funding is for offense against countries that never attacked or even threatened the USA. The govt. is on the verge of bankruptcy, so voting for more pre-emptive war funding is insane.


And I'm paying for social security even though I'm not going to get any when I retire. What is your point? I don't depend on SS or medicare but President Ron would have me still paying for it. Neither program is good, or efficient. However,just like Ron said, there needs to be the political will to end these things. Rand voting against the defense bill in a symbolic tribute would only ensure he never gets in position to influence the nation in downsizing the government.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

Try to stay on topic

Kind of funny how the Rand apologists have to change the subject when they feel cornered. RP favored allowing anyone to opt out of SS if they wanted to...and allowing those who'd already paid in to stay in, but ultimately phasing it out completely. He also said that the only way to continue to fund SS is to cut back dramatically on the offensive foreign policy since Fed Gov has spent all the SS dollars already paid in...probably mostly on the aggressive foreign policy.

Your faith in this theoretical secret mission that Rand is supposedly on is totally unrealistic. I don't think Rand's vote was "a symbolic tribute," but proof of his true neo-connish leanings. If the plan is to support politicians who give "symbolic tribute" votes, this movement is doomed.