Paul Out Maneuvers and Exposes the Hypocrisy of So-Called "Deficit Hawks."

[SicEmBaylor]

http://rare.us/story/why-rand-pauls-...-so-important/

This really was a brilliant move...

The short of it is this: The defense hawks offered an amendment to boost defense spending. Paul countered with his own amendment that boosted spending by the same requested amount but coupled with budget cuts to offset the increase. Cruz and Rubio claim to be deficit hawks, but they voted against Paul's amendment that would have offset their spending with budget cuts. Instead, they voted for the amendment that increased defense spending without the offsets.

Paul proves a point while chambering another round for the eventual Republican debates.

#StandWithRand #Rand2016

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

from the article you linked:

"Republicans will never convince Democrats to go for entitlement reform–the main culprit in our massive debt–if they absolutely refuse to look at Pentagon spending."

National Defense is a function of the federal govt. Entitlements aren't. But, the proposed specific types of cuts that Rand Paul proposed weren't listed in the article you linked. Perhaps they are listed in articles that were linked from the one you listed. In any case, if Paul gets the nomination, I think most who want to shrink the govt. will vote for him.

[SicEmBaylor]

from the article you linked:

"Republicans will never convince Democrats to go for entitlement reform–the main culprit in our massive debt–if they absolutely refuse to look at Pentagon spending."

National Defense is a function of the federal govt. Entitlements aren't. But, the proposed specific types of cuts that Rand Paul proposed weren't listed in the article you linked. Perhaps they are listed in articles that were linked from the one you listed. In any case, if Paul gets the nomination, I think most who want to shrink the govt. will vote for him.

National defense is a function, yes, but that doesn't mean that every penny we spend on defense is needed or justified. The Department of Defense, like every other Federal agency, is replete with waste not to mention expenditures on weapon systems the United States neither needs nor can afford. If you think the DOD's budget doesn't need to be trimmed then you're kidding yourself.

A good chunk of Defense spending has nothing to do with defense; it has everything to do with pork for individual members of Congress.

[Eielson]

Did it say what cuts were proposed?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Did it say what cuts were proposed?

The article Sicem linked didn't say. Maybe there's a link from that article. In any case, fire away candidates! best of luck to whoever wins against the socialist in Nov. 16.

[SicEmBaylor]

Did it say what cuts were proposed?

$21 billion from Foreign Assistance accounts (budget 150 function)
$14 billion from the National Science Foundation and Climate Change research under the General Science, Space, and Technology (budget 250 function)
$10 billion total from the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Commerce activities under Natural Resources and Environment (Budget 300 function) and Commerce and Housing Credits (Budget 370 function)
$20 billion from Department of Education
$41 billion in discretionary spending from the Department of Housing and Urban Development