• Rand Paul Wants To Cut $500 billion By Cutting Defense, Shutting Down Education Dept.
    395 replies, posted
[url]http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47720.html[/url] [quote]President Barack Obama will soon lay out his vision for federal spending when he releases his annual budget, setting in motion months of debate over the size and scope of government. The tea party hero is at the bottom of the Senate in seniority and was sworn in as Kentucky’s junior Republican senator only two weeks ago, but he’s about to unveil his own sweeping budget plan that would result in a $500 billion cut in just one year — about five times more than what the House GOP has promised to do. It’s an unusual move — a rookie senator releasing his own version of the federal budget — but it says a lot about how Paul is trying to carve an unconventional identity in the stodgy Senate. As he tries to navigate Senate politics, Paul faces a key question: Will he use his national profile to paint himself as a conservative firebrand and perennial outsider, or will he work within the system and with senators across the ideological spectrum to settle for less ambitious deals? So far, he’s showing signs he’ll do a little of both. Paul’s version of the federal budget — which he’ll unveil as early as next week — would target programs at virtually every federal agency, including the Defense Department, and would eliminate the Education Department. He plans to follow up with a five-year budget with even deeper spending cuts, a move likely to prompt backlash from groups that would be affected by his proposal. Like other Republicans, Paul is pushing a constitutional amendment to force Congress to balance its books, calling for a two-thirds-majority vote to increase taxes. And he plans to float bills that would kill certain federal regulations. Breaking from most lawmakers, he also wants to force a debate over instituting a limit of two terms for senators. And he’ll propose establishing a waiting period before lawmakers cast major votes and forcing them to read legislation. “These are not without ambition,” Paul told POLITICO in an interview. With these proposals, Paul is clearly moving to make a down payment on promises he made as a fire-breathing campaigner, when he vowed to drastically change the Senate from its core and force a dramatic belt tightening on Capitol Hill. But none of them are expected to go very far in the Democratic-controlled Senate. And with Paul lacking seniority in the Republican Conference, the real test for the new senator is how he adjusts when his more ideologically driven ideas stall and it’s time to start legislating. “The broad question for him and every other senator is: Is it confrontation or compromise?” said New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez, who ran the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee last cycle when it attempted to brand Paul as an “extreme” candidate. “Is it going to be about pure ideology, or is it going to be about, ‘OK, how do I pursue my principles but do it in a way that can still make progress?’ So that’s a challenge for every new senator, when they come and balance what they said and what they do.’” Paul said the fact that he’s never served before in elective office is a distinct advantage. “The difference between me and others is that I haven’t been beaten down by the process for 30 years,” Paul said. “I don’t understand why I can’t do something, why I can’t change anything. I’m incredibly optimistic.” Paul enjoys one of the biggest national profiles in his class of 13 Republican freshmen, thanks in part to the fervent grass-roots following of his libertarian-minded father, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas). Another junior senator with national name recognition is already hitting it off with the younger Paul: liberal Minnesota Sen. Al Franken, the former “Saturday Night Live” star, who attended Paul’s reception earlier this month after Paul was sworn into office. Each new senator is paired with a Democrat and a Republican to learn the Senate’s ways, and Paul has asked Franken to be his Democratic mentor.[/quote] Seems reasonable, considering defense department has gotten away with wasting money on too much shit that serve no real purpose, meanwhile the Federal Education Department is pretty much redundant since every state already has a state level education department
I don't know enough about the Education dept. to say they don't need money, but I'm 100% behind cutting the military's budget. [b]Far[/b] too much money goes into useless pet projects like the F22/35.
[QUOTE=Sector 7;27517423]I don't know enough about the Education dept. to say they don't need money, but I'm 100% behind cutting the military's budget. [b]Far[/b] too much money goes into useless pet projects like the F22/35.[/QUOTE] Actually the F-22 is a valid project, the pet projects are the V-22 and F-35 though
[QUOTE=Broseph_;27517477]Actually the F-22 is a valid project, the pet projects are the V-22 and F-35 though[/QUOTE] The F-22 is basically a bygone from the Cold War. Those campaign contributions from Lockheed Martin sure went a long way to secure support to ensure procurement of those jets until recently. Hell, even the F-35, a "Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter" is probably going to be more expensive than the F-22 once it goes into full-rate production. [editline]19th January 2011[/editline] We in the West bankrupted the Soviet Union back in the late 1980s, but the US is sure well on its way to do the same thing to themselves.
I don't know... I just think there are many other ways to cut spending other than from our Defense and Education budgets. We're spending a whopping 1% of our GDP in Afghanistan... A lot of kick ass shit in everyone's house is a result of something that was funded by our defense budget years back... And with those aircraft you got to remember, with each one produced they actually get cheaper... And if you think those are expensive, look at our fleet of B2's. They cost so much we're afraid to use them, they need climate controlled hangers, and constant maintenance... Just TWO of them cost the same as a full blown Nimitz class Aircraft Carrier, and we have 20 The F-22 is a project that needs money though I think... Our F-16's and F-15's are old, some of them hitting 30 years.. the F-15's were first put into service in the mid 70's and are expected to go until close to 2030... The F-22 can do What an F-15 can, but better. It can also do what an F-117 could, but better. And with Iran and China now developing their own versions of the same type of aircraft, it makes sense to just put these into full blown production and get more of them Just to throw it into perspective. We spend less than 5% of our GDP on Defense. Our economy is Fucking HUGE. It's god damn ridiculous. So I'm sure there are PLENTY of other places to cut spending
Well when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan it drained their economy. We were fighting in Vietnam or Korea, sleepy so I can't remember exactly. But we lured the Soviets into Afghanistan in order to hurt them and they fell.
We can definately cut the defense budget. We run an inefficient military, and we can save a lot of money and still be effective by doing certain things. Those things though, are not my expertise so don't hold me accountable for the previous statement, lol.
[QUOTE=Broseph_;27517403] meanwhile the Federal Education Department is pretty much redundant since every state already has a state level education department[/QUOTE] I may be wrong, but I think that's where some financial aid for colleges come from. If so, fuck this shit, I go to a state school (although not my state...) and I barely make it.
I support the cut in defense budget, but not the abolishment of the Department of Education. It's a lot cheaper to educate the youth so they can get proper jobs than leave them uneducated and then pay them because they don't have a job.
Considering all the shit texas is doing perhaps they shouldn't cut education.
[QUOTE=Sector 7;27517423]I don't know enough about the Education dept. to say they don't need money, but I'm 100% behind cutting the military's budget. [b]Far[/b] too much money goes into useless pet projects like the F22/35.[/QUOTE] Everyone is getting their leet new stealth fighters. I think it's a good idea to match them before we decide to start another useless war and find that our regular jets aren't cutting it. It should probably tell you something when they say our entire arsenal of F-22s can destroy every fighter from any other nation's air force and return without a single loss. You know that saying "Peace through superior firepower"? [QUOTE=Lambeth;27521693]Considering all the shit texas is doing perhaps they shouldn't cut education.[/QUOTE] Giving out money hasn't worked. It never works. More money isn't going to make the teachers suck less or the curriculum any more engaging. The whole mess goes a lot deeper than that.
[QUOTE=Jenkem;27522083]Everyone is getting their leet new stealth fighters. I think it's a good idea to match them before we decide to start another useless war and find that our regular jets aren't cutting it. It should probably tell you something when they say our entire arsenal of F-22s can destroy every fighter from any other nation's air force and return without a single loss. You know that saying "Peace through superior firepower"? Giving out money hasn't worked. It never works. More money isn't going to make the teachers suck less or the curriculum any more engaging. The whole mess goes a lot deeper than that.[/QUOTE] it should probably also tell you something that with your entire arsenal of useless f22's you could have built that many hospital wings, bought better school books, etc etc.
Are there any others stupid things the government spends money on, stupid things we could cut?
How about we eliminate state-based educational departments and centralize it federally? Pretty sure that would lead to much better standards.
[QUOTE=Jenkem;27522083]Giving out money hasn't worked. It never works. More money isn't going to make the teachers suck less or the curriculum any more engaging. The whole mess goes a lot deeper than that.[/QUOTE] Preferably I'd like to see creationism not being treating like a valid theory. [editline]19th January 2011[/editline] also more scholarships is always good.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;27522151]it should probably also tell you something that with your entire arsenal of useless f22's you could have built that many hospital wings, bought better school books, etc etc.[/QUOTE] Building more hospital wings will fix nothing. Don't bring health care into this. [QUOTE=Habsburg;27522242]Preferably I'd like to see creationism not being treating like a valid theory. [editline]19th January 2011[/editline] also more scholarships is always good.[/QUOTE] I have a question for you. Who gives you the right to determine whether something is valid or not? People keep swinging this kind of argument around for everything under the sun, but no real explanation of what gives them (or anyone else) the authority to say so.
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;27522240]How about we eliminate state-based educational departments and centralize it federally? Pretty sure that would lead to much better standards.[/QUOTE] or maybe lower.
[QUOTE=Jenkem;27522265]Building more hospital wings will fix nothing. Don't bring health care into this.[/QUOTE] what oh course sorry would you rather have expensive useless jets than something that actually serves a purpose
[QUOTE=Jenkem;27522265]I have a question for you. Who gives you the right to determine whether something is valid or not? People keep swinging this kind of argument around for everything under the sun, but no real explanation of what gives them (or anyone else) the authority to say so.[/QUOTE] Because it makes no fucking sense.
[QUOTE=Jenkem;27522265]Building more hospital wings will fix nothing. Don't bring health care into this. I have a question for you. Who gives you the right to determine whether something is valid or not? People keep swinging this kind of argument around for everything under the sun, but no real explanation of what gives them (or anyone else) the authority to say so.[/QUOTE] your country has seperation of church and state in its constitution teaching creationism in state schools is not seperation of church and state ergo, you don't teach creationism in state schools
[QUOTE=Jenkem;27522265]Building more hospital wings will fix nothing. Don't bring health care into this. I have a question for you. Who gives you the right to determine whether something is valid or not? People keep swinging this kind of argument around for everything under the sun, but no real explanation of what gives them (or anyone else) the authority to say so.[/QUOTE] Basic empiricism and the scientific theory, that's what. There's literally no way Creationism could possibly be treated as scientific.
I don't care if you teach theological evolution, just don't bring creationism into the science classroom. [editline]19th January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Jenkem;27522265]Building more hospital wings will fix nothing. Don't bring health care into this.[/QUOTE] Hospitals don't help anyone then?
[QUOTE=Jenkem;27522083]Everyone is getting their leet new stealth fighters. I think it's a good idea to match them before we decide to start another useless war and find that our regular jets aren't cutting it. It should probably tell you something when they say our entire arsenal of F-22s can destroy every fighter from any other nation's air force and return without a single loss. You know that saying "Peace through superior firepower"?.[/QUOTE] Everyone is getting stealth fighters? I didn't know that the first flight of the J-20 meant that they were going to see full-rate production in thirty seconds. By the time that they see full production (2020 proabably) the F-22 will be outdated. Might as well send F-4Es against MiG-29s in 1984. Back in the 1980s the Department of Defense really hyped up the "fear" of the Soviet Union. In one of these editions they claimed that they had anti-aircraft lasers, anti-SDI platforms, the "Hokum in full production" and more shit to make the average American believe that the Soviets were twenty feet tall and were a dire threat to their existence. [url]http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA152969&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf[/url] Are you really buying into the hype that the F-22 is some kind of super-fighter - a kind of wunderwaffe? That's what Lockheed Martin wants people to believe so they can crank out those fighters and receive the big bucks. Technical "superiority" can only get you so far. A smart enemy who knows the other's capabilities can very much defeat him with "inferior" equipment and methods. This isn't the Cold War anymore. "Peace through superior firepower" is a byproduct when the Department of Defense is the "Let's Go Mucking About Indefinitely on Foreign Adventures Department" and moreover the "Keep Employment Numbers Up in the Defense Industry Department".
[QUOTE=Intoxicated Spy;27522270]or maybe lower.[/QUOTE] We wouldn't have Texas wielding it's massive textbook influence to negatively affect educational standards because of the outrageous bias of it's school board. Face it, state school boards are an awful thing.
Personally, I think the Department of Education is generally fine in it's role, but it should have more power to force states to comply with certain standards. Yes, yes; states rights and all that, but states shouldn't be able to force through bullshit because it's tied to their beliefs e.g. the whole deal about intelligent design. There is no debate in the scientific community about what causes species variation, so it should not be presented as such. Intelligent design should be taught only in religion classes, and nowhere else. Then there's the whitewashing of the more unsavoury past of the US. It's not anti-American or unpatriotic to teach the past mistakes or crimes the US has committed, for fuck's same. Every country has blemishes on their past. To give you an example, during the Civil War here in Finland, supporters of the Reds were rounded up into prison camps, 80,000 in total at the end of the war. While most of them got off with lenient sentences, the tribunal was not completely fair. Many thousands died in the camps due to bad conditions e.g food shortages, disease (in particular, the Spanish Flu) Put another way, who is more patriotic? The one who loves his country, despite it's flaws, and wants the country to improve itself; or the one who covers up their country's flaws, denies their existence, and generally loves an idealised form of their country that doesn't actually exist?
Just completely get rid of the army, navy, air force, and marines. We have nukes, so fuck the people trying to fight us! :downs:
When I read the title I thought he was proposing stopping government-funded education altogether :v:
[QUOTE=rawr >:3;27523604]Just completely get rid of the army, navy, air force, and marines. We have nukes, so fuck the people trying to fight us! :downs:[/QUOTE] Your Avatar :geno: [img]http://www.facepunch.com/members/300203-rawr-gt-3[/img]
[QUOTE=The mouse;27523680]Your Avatar :geno: [img_thumb]http://www.facepunch.com/members/300203-rawr-gt-3[/img_thumb][/QUOTE] Is a symbol of the Nazi party?
[QUOTE=The mouse;27523680]Your Avatar :geno:[/QUOTE] he thinks he's making a statement [editline]19th January 2011[/editline] (he's not)
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.