Ron Paul, " Cut Defense Spending ! "

Being clear on the issue appears difficult for some , so lets break it down so we all understand.
Cutting back on defense, is cutting the Dept.of Defense or DoD for short.
While defense refers to a global expenditure and will include such things as covert operations, anti-terrorist measures, cost of alliances with other nations, satellite surveillance and other things a country must do to ensure the security of it's borders which these days must also include attack through knowledge by other nations of a country's operations through spy satellites.
" Under", (key word) the DoD there are several different expenditures, like the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force, which all fall under the category of the "Military". Military expenditure generally refers to the armed forces including personnel, weapons and transportation exclusively which is,The Military Budget. Which is only one piece of the pie, of the DoD budget.
With every budget, a business or a home , there are separate expenses. The DoD has a budget and one of it's expenses is military spending.
The DoD decides how it divides and spends it's budget , any cut in the military budget would come through the DoD.
Let's look at other expenses of the DoD.

Estimated cost of over $1 billion
Original cost estimates ranged over $1 billion, but Congress appropriated only $592 million in the emergency Iraq budget adopted last year. Most has gone to a Kuwait builder, First Kuwaiti Trading & Contracting, with the rest awarded to six contractors working on the project’s “classified” portion — the actual embassy offices.

BAGHDAD, Iraq — The fortress-like compound rising beside the Tigris River here will be the largest of its kind in the world, the size of Vatican City,
It will have its own water wells, electricity plant and wastewater-treatment facility, “systems to allow 100 percent independence from city utilities,” says the report, the most authoritative open source on the embassy plans.
Besides two major diplomatic office buildings, homes for the ambassador and his deputy, and the apartment buildings for staff, the compound will offer a swimming pool, gym, commissary, food court and American Club, all housed in a recreation building.
Embassy Baghdad ” will dwarf new U.S. embassies elsewhere, projects that typically cover 10 acres. The embassy’s 104 acres is six times larger than the United Nations compound in New York, and two-thirds the acreage of Washington’s National Mall. Any and all parts, supplys, food, liquor and staffing to maintain this small city would fall under the DoD budget , it will be staffed with military protection , also include dozens of FBI agents, along with representatives of the Agriculture, Commerce and other U.S. federal departments to help rebuild the country of Iraq.

This long term commitment by the DoD budget (U.S tax dollars) is not for the military budget or for protecting America or it's people.
.

The Department of Defense, already infamous for spending $640 for a toilet seat, once again finds itself under intense scrutiny, only this time because it couldn't account for more than a trillion dollars in financial transactions, not to mention , 56 airplanes, 32 tanks, and 36 Javelin missile command launch-units.
And before the Iraq war, when military leaders were scrambling to find enough chemical and biological warfare suits to protect U.S. troops, the department was caught selling these suits as surplus on the Internet "for pennies on the dollar," a GAO official said.

The last example of DoD out of control spending and abuse is really appalling , considering the number of american troops that lacked body armor in Iraq.
The Defense Department has uncovered its own credit card scandal. Over one recent 18-month period, Air Force and Navy personnel used government-funded credit cards to charge at least $102,400 for admission to entertainment events, $48,250 for gambling, $69,300 for cruises, and $73,950 for exotic dance clubs and prostitutes NICE ! I wonder what they spent on booze ?

The DoD doesn't worry about it's budget and it doesn't care what the public thinks or how it spends it's money or even tracking where the money goes.
Any funds lacking for the military are the fault of the DoD, because the DoD controls the military budget.

Ron Paul has stated, Defense cuts, NOT Military cuts, if you don't see the difference then you clearly don't see the problem.

Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE

Ron Paul has stated, Defense cuts, NOT Military cuts, if you don't see the difference then you clearly don't see the problem.

Other way around.. he states he wants to cut militaristic spending, not defense

Embassy Baghdad ” will dwarf new U.S. embassies elsewhere, projects that typically cover 10 acres. The embassy’s 104 acres is six times larger than the United Nations compound in New York, and two-thirds the acreage of Washington’s National Mall. Any and all parts, supplys, food, liquor and staffing to maintain this small city would fall under the DoD budget , it will be staffed with military protection , also include dozens of FBI agents, along with representatives of the Agriculture, Commerce and other U.S. federal departments to help rebuild the country of Iraq.

This long term commitment by the DoD budget (U.S tax dollars) is not for the military budget or for protecting America or it's people.

Whether it's called "defense", or "militaristic" spending, ^^^That, above, certainly seems like a waste of taxpayers money.

And if staffed like a small country, it'll keep on costing money indefinitely.....

reply to post by OLD HIPPY DUDE


dude you realy need to edit your OP and thread title while you still can, you got it backwards and it is not only going to confuse the few who are new to this issue but it also makes you sound ignorant

Ron Paul wants to cut MILITARY spending NOT DEFENSE spending,

heres a video of Ron Paul making a Fox news moderator sound like an idiot cause he didnt know the difference and also inaccurately said Ron was going to cut defense spending



www.abovetopsecret.com...

Congress is spending more money in the former Soviet Territories...than they spend on our military within the 48 States. They're trying to buy friends to complete the push to take over Earth.

Congress gave the former Soviet Territory, Georgia...mega Billions to build +130 Hospitals with a minimum of 20 beds capacity.

We don't even have that many Veterans Hospitals in America. We've got half that.

Ron Paul is a shill and knows what is really going on. Do you see him screaming we need to stop spending hundreds of billions in the former Soviet Territories? No?

He's a part of the plan. To fool you.

Check out this Ron Paul youtube video,
Joe Rogan breaks it down:

Ron Paul Revolution (The Joe Rogan Experience)

reply to post by OLD HIPPY DUDE


I'm not sure if anyone here is very familiar with the NHL, but I am too new a member to create a new post and was wondering if someone could create one on the following topic (It follows along with Ron Paul's views and awakening US citizens to the reality of our two-party corporatocracy).

The defending Stanley Cup champion Boston Bruins visited the WH today, excluding their all-star American goalie Tim Thomas. His statement about why he chose not to attend can be found at NHL.com [/url]http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=613279[/url].

He is quoted as saying, ""I believe the Federal government has grown out of control, threatening the Rights, Liberties, and Property of the People. This is being done at the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial level. This is in direct opposition to the Constitution and the Founding Fathers vision for the Federal government. Because I believe this, today I exercised my right as a Free Citizen, and did not visit the White House. This was not about politics or party, as in my opinion both parties are responsible for the situation we are in as a country. This was about a choice I had to make as an INDIVIDUAL."

I just love to see public figures with the balls to tell it how it is, and I'm sure many members here would enjoy hearing about this. Thank you to whoever posts this, and I hope I have not crossed any ATS boundaries in trying to get this out.

reply to post by jlssg4


Sorry, I also can't post yet. But yeah I follow the NHL and I was looking at his protesting statements as well. It's cool that he is standing up for what he believes in and I pretty much agree with what he had to say. However, I read that he idolizes Glenn Beck, so that was kind of disappointing to find out. But hey, whatever wakes you up is good I suppose.

The confusion is the DoD is not defense It's a Dept. The term military is a broad term that falls under the DoD budget and includes black ops , R and D and building new weapons and non combat troops, equipment and vehicles stationed over seas that serve no purpose in peaceful countrys and would better be served at home .
Who is america defending ?
Bringing home troops and opening bases in america is what Paul said. And that is not weak on defense of America or it's people.It's controlling the DoD.
How the DoD fudges the numbers or juggles the books is the issue, the DoD controls the purse strings of the military. Useless spending by the DoD is the real issue not the defense of America.
The fact is you cant cut the military budget unless you cut the defense budget.
Dr. Paul wants to cut the waste in the DoD not cut Americas Defense.
Do you really believe bring home troops and opening bases at home is weak on defense ?
When the military loses/ misplaces planes , tanks and missle systems and can't find them , thats not a problem and a waste of money when the country is broke?
Separating the DoD from the word "defense" and the word "military" and the industrial military complex is the problem with everyones whole interpetation of what Ron Paul is saying.

The point the OP is making is that the Department of Defense is increasingly not about defense at all, and thus, by cutting it, we may prevent these sorts of abuses of our money.
Please people, READ.

I just do not see how Ron Paul would be any different from any other president we have had. I mean what president has come through on the promises he has made? I can't think of many modern day presidents that have done that. Unless president bush promised on the campaign trail that he would pass a patriot act and sodomize our freedom.

Originally posted by pryingopen3rdeye
reply to post by OLD HIPPY DUDE

 

dude you realy need to edit your OP and thread title while you still can, you got it backwards and it is not only going to confuse the few who are new to this issue but it also makes you sound ignorant

Ron Paul wants to cut MILITARY spending NOT DEFENSE spending,

heres a video of Ron Paul making a Fox news moderator sound like an idiot cause he didnt know the difference and also inaccurately said Ron was going to cut defense spending

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Agreed. OP please change the title and edit the content to reflect as such. The thread is well intentioned, but let's not confuse the matter.

reply to post by JoshF


Its the fact that they weren't going to change anything that got them nominated to run for the presidency.

Neither a republican or democrat will ever deliver any real change from the current course.

Change has to come from outside if its ever to come at all.

Originally posted by justwokeup
reply to post by JoshF

 

Its the fact that they weren't going to change anything that got them nominated to run for the presidency.

Neither a republican or democrat will ever deliver any real change from the current course.

Change has to come from outside if its ever to come at all.

Yeah our entire system is flawed, how much could you expect someone to change a country in just 8 years max?