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.

I'll bet you good money right

I'll bet you good money right now that Rand will never even come close to winning the GOP nomination. If you think that the Hannitys and Becks of the world would tolerate him for a mili-second with power, you'll be sadly disappointed. He's too "unreliable" for their respective and not nearly reliable enough to generate enthusiasm to get enough foot soldiers from the Ron Paulites.

SteveMT's picture

President of what?

That is the question, bro.

If Ron Paul did not have a perfect voting record, I would not be here. If he had had a 95% perfect voting record, I submit that none of us would be here. This website would be called The Daily Paul/DeMint/Lee/Paul

"A perfect voting record" is subjective.

What you agree with as a good vote, I or someone else may disagree with. What you really mean to say us that you're not going to vote for anyone unless he/she matches your subjective notion if perfection.

I hate when ppl say that! Now

I hate when ppl say that! Now nobodies perfect as a person, but as a politician you better be!!!! You took an oath to follow our constitution. Not sometimes, but all the time! Ron Paul was perfection, now Rand idk about. I mean his record speaks for it's self.

juan maldonado

Okay, how does voting for a national defense

bill violate the Constitution?

SteveMT's picture

Not subjective, but objective.

The basis of this objectivity is the Constitution. Ron Paul held every vote up to the measure of the Constitution. If it did not pass the test, he voted no. That is how Ron Paul got the name Dr. No, and that is how he rightly calls himself "The Champion of the Constitution."

If you are saying that we'll never hear Rand say those words, I grimly agree with you.

What Constitution are you reading?

National defense spending IS authorized in the Constitution!!!

SteveMT's picture

900 bases in a 130 countries is not National Defense.

It's National Offense. The passage of this bill continues to fund a nationalistic empire of continued occupation and exploitation.

National defense is

National defense is authorized by the Constitution, which is why Rand voted for this bill.

SteveMT's picture

National Defense or is this bill National Offense?

Knowing what you know about everything the U.S. has done since WWII, is this a National Defense bill or is it offensive instead? 900 bases in a 130 countries: isn't that offensive and not defensive?

Rand isn't going to vote against

a national defense bill just because some of it goes to fund troops in Germany. Ron Paul planned to keep funding Medicare and SS as president even though he believes both to be unconstitutional. If 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.

Right On...

...that pretty much sums it all up. People are accusing us Rand supporters as being cult like because we still support him after he supported this bill when they go so far as to deny things Ron Paul supported.

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



I'm gonna repost this.

That is right on. How quickly people forget what sort of things they let slide with Ron. They hold these two to completely different standards.

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

What is your goal?

The decisions you guys want Rand to make would ensure he does't become president. They wouldn't have any affect on legislation (97-1 instead of 98-0 means the bill still passes). So you basically want Rand to make you happy but not get anything done. Some of you still think voter fraud is what prevented Ron from winning. Even without the voter fraud, Ron wasn't going to win. However,Ron didn't spearhead this movement just so Rand could be the exact same kind of politician and get the exact same results. A Paul as President is much more effective than a Paul as Senator or Representitive. Like it or not, national defense is in the Constitution, and anyone who votes "against funding for the troops" as they'll phrase it, is not going to win anything. Rand has a chance to be the guy with the authority to bring the troops home immediately and reduce the need for so much defense spending. If he makes a symbolic fiscal vote against this spending now, he will never have a chance to be the guy who can single handedly reduce that spending later.
If you can't stomach playing this game, then you are wasting your time here. You need to be preparing for a violent revolution. I doubt this game (voting for freedom) is going to work, but I'd rather try it, than resort to violence immediately. In my opinion, Rand Paul making this sort of vote is part of this political game, and part of a last ditch effort to solve this problem through the democratic system, before this results in a violent revolution.

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

What is your goal?

Ask yourself. Would you be here today if it wasn't for Ron Pauls honesty and voting record? I sure wouldn't. If I saw a 97-1 vote on this bill it would tell me that maybe Rand is an honest man. All I have to judge Rand is his record. Did you grow up with Rand? Go to school with him? Were you his best man at his wedding? Are you the Godfather of his children? Just how are you judging him that makes you think he's such a "good" guy? All I have is the pudding and the proof is in it. Could I be wrong? Sure I could but I'm just looking at the facts.

Maybe you and I should have supported Romney? He probably supported the Patriot Act, NDAA, FISA, the execusion of Americans, a runaway Federal Reserve, Illegal Wars, NAFTA, The Military Industrial Complex, The United Nations, Obamney Care, and everything else because he wanted to get elected just so he do a full circle and look out for our interests and do great for the cause of Liberty?????


Would I be here?

Would I be here if Ron said as president that he'd continue to fund social security and medicare even though it's unconstitutional? Yes. Would I agree with Ron that political will needs to be ammassed to change such things? Yes. Would Rand Paul as president be a huge step in ammassing the political will to bring the troops home and shrink the government? Yes. So I don't know what your issue is. Ron himself said he'd still fund unconstitutional things simply because we need to take the steps to change things. We can't simply be purists to the point that we can't form the coalitions of influence required to make those changes.

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

Rand is Ron Paul's son, you

Rand is Ron Paul's son, you f***** idiot! There's nothing more to add, you must be semi-retarded to question his child integrity.
I'm sad to see some Ron Paul supporters have "Obama material" brains.

That's because some Rin Paul supporters

are actually Obamabots who like Paul on foreign policy and civil liberties but, are brain dead on economics. You don't believe me, try hanging out at Dr. Paul's FB page sometime.

The one thing that attracted me to Ron Paul was...

...his seriousness on fiscal responsibility. Yes, there are some things I disagree with Rand Paul on, but on the issue of fiscal responsibility he is almost identical to his dad.

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



I just can't believe that so

I just can't believe that so many people are angry at Rand for voting in favor of defense. How can Rand possibly win over people who don't even believe that national defense is a primary responsibility fo the federal government?

He didn't vote for "defense"

He didn't vote for defense. He voted for The Military Industrial Complex.
He voted to extend the Illegal wars
He voted for more Nation Building
He voted for Policing the world
He voted for bowing to Israel
He voted to bankrupt our country

Same shit, different guy.....

No, Rand voted to end the

No, Rand voted to end the wars. It's been noted multiple times that this bill contains an amendment calling for withdrawing from Afghanistan.

and moving to syria? give me

and moving to syria? give me a break

1) The Syria amendment that

1) The Syria amendment that was passed simply forces the President to outline a plan for instituting a "no fly zone." The actual langauge contained in that amendment states that the amendment does not authorize any kind of military action against Syria.

2) Rand voted against that specific amendment and even gave a speech on the Senate floor opposing war with Syria. But all of you ridiculous Rand haters didn't give Rand ANY credit for doing that. None.

He voted to do an

He voted to do an unconstitutional act to a sovereign country. There's more in the bill that is unconstitutional too. Just read it. And, please, stop commenting on here like it is your job or something. People are mad at the same old same old from politicians like Rand. Get over it.

We live in America. America has a Constitution. If you don't like it, lump it.

The facts show that...

...Rand Paul voted against going to war but votes to fund the troops if they are already there. Big difference...

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



Read the damn bill. sheesh

Read the damn bill. sheesh

Rand Paul has realy

harmed the country by posing as one thing and doing somthing else. He is lost.


Paul 16!

Paul 16!

and yes like Walter Block, I mean Ron Paul 2016.

Michael Nystrom's fists can punch through FUD.

tasmlab's picture

Reminds me of Pinnochio

When all of the boys go to the place where the longer they stay and play, the more and more they turn into asses, growing donkey ears and tails and such. Then they sell you into slavery after you fully turn into a donkey.

Maybe when you go to Washington you turn more and more into the establishment until you turn into a complete ass and then are sold into slavery of the MIC.

Where's the guy who was chewed out because he was critical of the Civil Rights Act?

Currently consuming: Morehouse's "Better off free", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football