It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fact Check: Ron Paul is Wrong About Defense Spending

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 06:21 AM
link   
During last week's foreign policy debate, Ron Paul and Mitt Romney go into a minor toss-up regarding cuts to military spending, with Romney asserting that $1Trillion was scheduled to be cut and Ron Paul calling it bs. It starts at about the 09:00 minute mark of the video. Red State says that Ron Paul is wrong because he does not distinguish between the two segments of Defense spending: base budget and OCO (spending on wars). This second part fluctuates wildly depending on the current admin and other things. But the debate crowd screamed in approval at Ron Paul's remarks, even though he was wrong.

Interesting piece. Read and enjoy.


During last week’s foreign policy debate, Ron Paul won accolades from the crowd when he professed that there are no real pending cuts to the military, just reductions in baseline spending. Here is the full quote:

“Believe me. They’re cutting — they’re nibbling away at baseline budgeting, and its automatic increases. There’s nothing cut against the military. And the people on the Hill are nearly hysterical because they’re not going — the budget isn’t going up as rapidly as they want it to. It’s a road to disaster. We had better wake up.”

This statement is absolutely false. Sequestration will indeed reduce military spending from ‘actual dollar amounts’ of FY 2011 spending levels over the next seven years.


Link





posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 06:30 AM
link   
Well since Ron Paul receives the most money from troops and veterans (and by far) I think we know who's right... (not red state and not Mitt).

Those warmongers can suck it.



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 06:34 AM
link   
I saw a great poster one time..

"Wouldn't it be great if the military had to hold bake sales to buy bombs, and schools were fully funded by the federal government?"

Bring our troops home, secure OUR borders.

Get our noses out of every drama in the East.



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 06:35 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

...


RedState is a conservative American political weblog.



During the 2008 American presidential primary elections, a decision was made to ban anyone who had been a member for less than six months from posting about Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul, due to a significant number of Paul supporters' continuous spamming of diaries and comments, and unwillingness to follow site rules and policies, while Ron Paul bashers were welcomed to violate any and all site rules and policies. An unwritten policy that continues today.[13]


Source

Sure, these people don't have a vested interest in making Paul look like a lying moron now do they? So the only thing they can write about is how he was wrong on a technicality.

The US spends bout 600 Billion a year on defense. "Officially" anyway. Besides, Ron's plan is to pretty much end the military abroad by having the US mind it's down damn business. Therefore he cuts he would make, are accross the board as far as defense goes, not just jimmy-rigged so you can move spending somewhere else like they do today.

~Keeper

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Well since Ron Paul receives the most money from troops and veterans (and by far) I think we know who's right... (not red state and not Mitt).

Those warmongers can suck it.


May I ask what makes you believe the troops are well informed on the matter? I am not saying they are ignorant but their access to information is a bit limited. Especially in areas like talk radio. I am just curious what makes you think, especially at a time of war, they are being informed?



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 06:42 AM
link   
So he's wrong about ONE thing! So what! Thats darn better that the other perverted leading candy's!!

Rich, Money and Tennis man!! - All waste of puppet spaces with no aces!!! And Huntsman not in the hunt and basically he's a two faced cu.t!!

Its Paul or reps will fall!
And if not then more Obama stall!!!
Either way TPTB cant lose
Because they have the golden goose!!!
edit on 29-11-2011 by RP2SticksOfDynamite because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 07:18 AM
link   
Right because the Neo Cons never blur the lines between defense spending and overseas adventures. Besides the argument is that they are cutting FUTURE increases not real cuts. They are proposing cuts over the next 10 years which will never happen. This country is broke why can't people figure this out...the credit card is maxed out. END THE WARS!



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 07:46 AM
link   
but how is america supposed to be 75 years technically and military more advanced than it's nearest enemy.

in 75 years america will be in trouble if ron paul wins.

america needs a cloaking device, nano bombs and phase shifting bullets.



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 07:51 AM
link   
give RP a chance - he deserves it.
we've given the prior (naer-do-wells) the illustrious office.

at least RP gives back his part of his non used budget every year.
i will refrain from rant.

i was at his Ron Paul freedom rally in '08 where he and others including G.Edward Griffin "the Creature of Jekyll Island" said...concerning the unfed unreserve..."can you say the biggest scam in the history of the United States..."

vote Ron Paul.



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 08:07 AM
link   
There is no distinction for me. Military spending is military spending. "Overseas spending" is not something ethereal that a president has no control over. He could stop it if he wanted to. Stop wars of aggression, and you'll find your country out of debt before too long.



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 



RedState is a conservative American political weblog.



During the 2008 American presidential primary elections, a decision was made to ban anyone who had been a member for less than six months from posting about Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul, due to a significant number of Paul supporters' continuous spamming of diaries and comments, and unwillingness to follow site rules and policies, while Ron Paul bashers were welcomed to violate any and all site rules and policies. An unwritten policy that continues today.[13]



Source

Sure, these people don't have a vested interest in making Paul look like a lying moron now do they? So the only thing they can write about is how he was wrong on a technicality.

The US spends bout 600 Billion a year on defense. "Officially" anyway. Besides, Ron's plan is to pretty much end the military abroad by having the US mind it's down damn business. Therefore he cuts he would make, are accross the board as far as defense goes, not just jimmy-rigged so you can move spending somewhere else like they do today.

~Keeper


First point: It's not unusual for site owners to make strict decisions on actions that affect their business, like " a significant number of Paul supporters' continuous spamming of diaries and comments, and unwillingness to follow site rules and policies". ATS would do the same, I'm sure.

Second: Defense spending is indeed baseline and OCO. They have to be handled separately, since OCO could be here today and gone tomorrow. But Obama wants to consider OCO as a budget cut in the same sense as the baseline money we must spend every year. RP uses the same reasoning in his debates; he's being tricky.



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 10:29 AM
link   
So he's wrong about ONE thing! So what! Thats darn better that the other perverted leading candy's!!

Rich, Money and Tennis man!! - All waste of puppet spaces with no aces!!! And Huntsman not in the hunt and basically he's a two faced cu.t!!

Its Paul or reps will fall!
And if not then more Obama stall!!!
Either way TPTB cant lose
Because they have the golden goose!!!

Attention seeking!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   
Factcheck leans far to the left, so they have no reason to call themselves factual. Secondly, It's not like the military will stop getting money, so as dr. paul would ask, where is this money coming from when we're broke? More debt, more inflation, more taxes. It's still a deficit under the war monger plans



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 11:05 AM
link   
I think you have to look at the game Red State plays when they write this article. This a mere play on words and unreasonable expectations that the war will, in fact, be over and that the actual "war spending" is not a factor when making such statements as RP did.




So where do Ron Paul and some good conservative/libertarian commentators obtain their data to suggest that defense spending will still rise over the next ten years, albeit at a slower rate (baseline reductions)? The answer is they are including the war spending (OCO) in their calculation. The CBO is forced to score current policy, irrespective of the likelihood of its implementation. Therefore, they not only assume the continuation of the war over the next ten years, they anticipate increased spending on OCO:

If you include those phantom numbers into the equation, then you can arrive at the conclusion that overall defense spending will not decrease over the next ten years, even after sequestration. However, this baseline is bogus because that money will never be spent. In fact, such projected war spending is so universally disregarded that conservatives (rightfully so) will not count “the war savings” as real cuts. The reality is that we will never spend that money, and as such, the baseline is irrelevant.


Their premise is that actual war spending should not be included, only baseline spending, and that we will not be fighting these wars in 10 years, so RP is wrong.

This article is crap, and it is simply a knee-jerk reaction by the war mongers in an attempt to invalidate RP's comments. Of course, this is par for the course from Red State.



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by dannotz

"Wouldn't it be great if the military had to hold bake sales to buy bombs, and schools were fully funded by the federal government?"


LOVE this



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   


So where do Ron Paul and some good conservative/libertarian commentators obtain their data to suggest that defense spending will still rise over the next ten years, albeit at a slower rate (baseline reductions)?



OP and article author is kidding right? Has the military spending not been rising in the past ten years? What is the only way for these military contractors to improve their profits? How can anybody possibly believe that the military industrual complex will start dismantling itself with no outside force giving them pressure to?

use your brains people, the military and its spending has been growing like a cancer and this is why we SHOULD assume that the spending will be higher and higher every year. If we assume they will regulate themselves in size and power, we're not looking at history correctly, not being truthful to ourselves.



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   
I'll be out back with a shovel digging a hole. You all know what to do with this thread when I am done digging it.


By the way, the comment from (now banned) poster KendraSins has been the most ignorant one I have seen in the history of ATS. Our troops are the most informed about the "war on terrorism", they are the ones overseas trying to find these so called terrorists that our government continues to convince us exist and are a threat to our country.

Ron Paul: "Believe me. They’re cutting — they’re nibbling away at baseline budgeting...", and indeed it appears the cuts are coming from future increases...

As one person in the article commented:

I’ll tell you what the real cuts are **inflation adjusted** using the numbers you posted:

It appears you are using a ~1.81% inflation rate.
In year 1: $24 billion inflation adjusted cut.
In year 2: $538*1.0181=$547.68- $541= **$6.68 billion** inflation adjusted cut
In year 3: $541*1.0181=$550.79 – $550=**$.79 billion** inflation adjusted cut
In year 4: $550*1.081=$560 – $560 = $0 billion inflation adjusted cut.

Real cuts are $24 billion + $6.68 billion + $.79 billion = $31.47 billion.
link

So like Ron Paul said... Nibbling away, and the cuts become increases eventually along down the road. Ron Paul wants to make real cuts now.

Being in the military myself, I can tell you I have witnessed resources of immeasurable amounts paid for by this very budget literally thrown in the trash on a daily basis. I will not go into much detail regarding that but lets just say I have seen budget wastes that would blow your mind if they came to light. It made me sick to watch, our military compartmentalization have no doors between compartments, with no real spending oversight and as a result it is often spent poorly and what is bought frequently goes up in smoke, quite literally.

So yes. I think we can handle some real defense budget cuts.
edit on 29-11-2011 by Sek82 because: adding comments



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by CALGARIAN
 




There ya go!

The little girl holding up the poster gets the point across better than i ever could!



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by mishigas
 


I believe if he was wrong about the defense spending he wouldn't get any support from the military or veterans...So where do we go from here? Fact Check: Ron Paul is Right About Defense Spending
edit on 29-11-2011 by KonquestAbySS because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by mishigas
 

One down, but a trillion other claims to debunk.

Just remember, RP supporters always got another card to pull because RP is always busy making em.



new topics

top topics



 
6

log in

join