It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?"
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)?