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.

LOL! If this movement is doomed, it's because of people

that don't know what Neoconservatism is.

Right, Rand is a neo con man!

Right, Rand is a neo con man!


"President" Ron would have allowed you to opt out of medicare/SS if you were 25 and under.

and he was hoping to raise that age over time as he addressed

framework that caused costs to rise.

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

Loserbardians aren't happy unless

their pet politicians vote to completely defund the military and gut national defense. I'm beginning to understand why Conservatives tend to have a cynical attitude about Ron Paul. With supporters like these, Ron Paul didn't have to have any enemies.

Leave the site and go post on

Leave the site and go post on littleGreenFascists :)

Ventura 2012

You, my friend, would fit right in with any liberal blog...

...along with your socialist friend Ventura...

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



GOP party leadership that

GOP party leadership that Rand is trying so desperately to win over makes Jesse Ventura look like Von Mises. Bashing socialism to defend fascism(NDAA) is a bit much.

Ventura 2012


...why do you have his name under every one of your comments?????

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




...I can't believe you actually said such an ignorant statement. Von Mises, the champion of Austrian ECONOMICS compared to a economic liberal who believes in socialized everything????? come on...

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



wow I can't even imagine what

wow I can't even imagine what your SAT verbals were. read my post over and over until you get it.

Ventura 2012

NDAA fascist????

Amendment to increase

Amendment to increase sanctions...

Ventura 2012


You still don't know the difference between overseas military spending and national defense spending? Read up.

SteveMT's picture

"..a cynical attitude about Ron Paul."

All of the MSM talking heads are very cynical about Ron Paul, and most politicians are as well.

Alternatively, how many more laud what Ron Paul has done? How many more want to follow in his foot steps? How many would travel great distances to hear Ron Paul give the same 30 year-old speech? Why?

Cult-like adoration doesn't get things done for liberty

in Washington. If you'll notice, Progressives don't attack Ron that much because he doesn't pose much of a threat. Two million ardent followers aren't a threat to forty million Progressives. Rwanda gets plenty of blasting from the Left because he IS a threat.

Partisan democrats and

Partisan democrats and republicans hate Ron Paul. Real Progressives don't hate him because they agree with a lot of what he says.

Ventura 2012

"Real Progressives" gave us the Fed and income tax.

Neoconservatives are actually the true heirs of "real Progressivism." During the 1960s and 1970s, the Democratic Party began to take many positions on foreign policy and social issues that were at odds with traditional Progressivism, causing an exodus of Wilsonian, Progressives from the Democrat Party into the GOP. Obviously, a huge portion remained and "evolved" with the culture - the Clintonian wing. The Neoconservatives in the Republican Party are the closest thing we've got today to real Progressives just like Libertarians are the closest thing we've got today to classic liberals.

My post was referring to

My post was referring to today, because it was trying to be relevant. Ralph Nader, Cynthia Mckinney, Dennis Kucinich, Cindy Sheehan. Glenn Beck history lesson not necessary. The neo-cons are more Communist than progressive. The old line progressives were actually patriotic and somewhat Hamiltonian.

Ventura 2012

SteveMT's picture

Think again.

What would make delegates wait for hours in the rain and cold to vote for Ron Paul? What would make Ron Paul supporters donate their hard earned dollars to his campaign? A cult-like adoration did get a lot done. A cult-like following as you call it is what it was alright because Ron Paul was able to wake people up. We are still awake, and we don't like what we are seeing.

Well, I'm awake

and I don't think it's good policy to strip funding for our men and women overseas. I'd live to bring them all home, but, until we do, I think they deserve to eat.

I agree Dixie...

...the idea of starving them till they come home isn't gonna fly very well...

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



SteveMT's picture

If this bill had ever failed to pass,....

another bill funding just the essentials would be put forward quickly. I don't want our guys to starve, but I don't want them invading and occupying other countries, like they have repeatedly done before.

I'm sure the bill was bloated with unnecessities.

But, the part most on here are complaining about is the money going to fund overseas occupation. I don't want them in Japan and Germany either. But, they didn't just get there last year and voting against funding their necessities in those countries would not help Rand gain any allies. Sure, it might make some libertarians feel good that we've got a Dr. No in the Senate, but, it would be stupid politics. Those soldiers are just going where they're stationed, we shouldn't take our frustration with the American people out on them.

Nothing personal....but when

Nothing personal....but when I see a person who likes to use "but" so much, I reach for wallet and hold tight. Our movement will never get anywhere if we are constantly looking for excuses to make the hard choices.

Well, we're not exactly getting anywhere

by refusing to make hard choices.

I meant to say excuses for

I meant to say excuses for NOT making the hard choices. Voting with 98 Senators in an easy choice for an opportunist named Rand....by any standard.

The goal is to end unconstitutional pre-emptive war

and stop running up govt. debt, which is probably already too high to ever pay back. The best way to do it is to take away the funding.

Where does the Constitution ban preemptive war?

Furthermore, Ron Paul was planning to continue funding Medicare and Social Security until it became politically impossible to reform those institutions. Why do you not apply the same standard to his din, especially considering Medicare and SS tke up a lot more of the budget than defense and military spending.

Why do you post here

Clearly, you haven't listened to Ron Paul on the SS issue...he's explained his position on it over and over again and your post indicates you've never heard it. National defense is legitimate, however, offensive war obviously doesn't fall under the definition of "national defense." As RP has said a million or so times, wars not declared by congress are unconstitutional. You mention Ron Paul in your post, but I get the impression that you don't even know who he is -- aside from knowing his name.