Friday, February 4, 2011

Rand Paul: Senators Aren't Brave Enough

 "There's a disconnect between Republicans who want a balanced budget but aren't maybe yet brave enough to talk about the cuts to come," Rand Paul told ABC News's Jonathan Karl.

The Republican budget proposed Thursday offers just $32 billion in spending cuts from a resolution funding the government in fiscal 2011. Last week, Paul unveiled a plan of his own to cut spending cuts by $500 billion, including drastic cuts to the Department of Education, minor defense cuts and the elimination of all foreign aid.

During his interview with Kark, he did not rule out a future run for president and suggested it may be time to reduce U.S. force levels in Afghanistan.

As for Republican Party affiliation, he said,
There are always problems in our nation's capitol that are more important than party affiliation and I will always believe that. It's not necessarily Tea Party versus Republican Party, but I would say that if you ask me what's more important, tackling our nation's deficit, our nation's debt problems or being a Republican, I would say tackling the debt.


  1. Sad that this "freedom fighter" can only come up with "minor" cuts to the defense budget considering:

    1.) it's one of the largest federal expenses
    2.) it's probably most blown out of proportion between 'what's needed' and 'what's wanted', however one might calculate that
    3.) it is the gross expenditure on the DoD, along with the existence of a perpetual standing army, that has led to all kinds of other tyrannies, economic and political in nature-- the military is always and everywhere the largest standing threat to liberty wholesale and the most efficient vehicle for providing excuses for violating liberty (wars of aggression, taxation, inflation)

  2. Taylor, are you physically capable of being positive at all? Remember when you crapped all over Schiff after he and his supporters petitioned his way onto the ballot for saying 'we did it'?

    Without even touching the defense budget, cutting 500 billion is a huge move. And politically, a DoD budget cut would have to come after the wars.

    This is a million times better than nothing.

  3. Anon,

    Aren't you at all curious why this principled man of liberty doesn't want to touch the defense budget?

    Do you take issue with the logic I laid out in my first comment, or is your problem merely your impression of me as a Man of Great Negativity?

    Pardon me for not jumping for joy about all of this, I was distracted by all the egregious flag-saluting and raping and pillaging of foreigners as I was staring at my wallet whose contents are rapidly diminishing thanks to all the money-printing required to pay for the DoD budget.

    By the way, cutting $500B WOULD be a huge move-- it hasn't happened yet and you should know better that in politics, nothing is final until it's signed into law (and even then it's not final).

    Meanwhile, 1,000,000 x 0 is still 0.

  4. @ Taylor

    There are two different modes of thinking.
    Ideals and reality.
    Ideally, Rand Paul is not a freedom fighter AT ALL.
    Realistically, he is one of the best you've got. So pissing all over him serves no purpose other than to beat your own chest. And beating your own chest will not give any of us any more liberty either.
    Or, to put it simple, Rand Paul would (if he is succesful) give us more freedom than you will. Because the reality is not that you are a politician, but the likes of Obama, Reid, Clinton, and all the neocons ARE, and Rand Paul is pulling into our direction.
    It may not be substantial for US, but let realism reign for just a second and realize that the American people will probably, simply, not STAND for much more than what Rand Paul is suggesting. At least not yet.
    So do you want to be right, or do you want to see some improvement?
    This is not to deny the fact that he indeed has not done anything yet. In that sense you are correct.

  5. Cannon,

    Don't lecture me on ideals/reality or impractical vs. practical. What is practical and impractical is an opinion you hold, not a fact you've discovered, so your particular perspective has no more weight than you tell yourself it does.

    Rand Paul just gave a speech on the value of not compromising. As I've pointed out in my comment, not cutting the DoD's budget is a compromise on the principles of liberty in various ways. What does that make Rand Paul then? A hypocrite? Or an ignoramus?

    Rand Paul is incapable of "giving" any freedom, as a man's freedom is not his to give or withhold. He can attempt to legislate a reduction in the burdens and reach of government and nothing more.

    Apparently you don't see the disconnect between a man preaching about the virtues of liberty and the intolerance of compromise, who nonetheless leaves to "defense" budget as it is. If only Rand Paul had proposed slashing the DoD budget by 50-60% while proposing only "minor" cuts for everything else. I would've loved to see you all outraged, kicking and screaming about this traitor to liberty.

    I'm not here to beat my own chest. I don't think I become greater by pointing out the faults of others. All I'm trying to do is judge everyone by the same standards of logic and reason rather than compromise my own intellectual honesty by making excuses and exceptions for people who appear to be moving things in "my direction." Your opinion of Rand Paul as a great man and "our man" is so arbitrary-- you could make the exact same argument about any politician who adopts any pro-liberty policy or stance to a lesser degree. There's nothing noble and righteous about choosing the lesser of evils, of compromise.

    But Rand Paul could've told you that, I guess.

  6. @ Taylor,

    I think you've misunderstood a number of my points so i would urge you to read again and not assume anything other than i've said.

    Just one example: nowhere did i say Rand Paul was a "great man" so obviously you are committing a strawman by claiming that i did.
    What i said was that he is one of the best we've got, which is not the same at all as a "great man". It merely points out how awful the rest of them are. I made pretty clear that - ideally - he is not a freedom fighter at all. And i would never even vote for him.

    Let me repeat again, i don't think he is remotely close to being a guinine freedom fighter, but there is no use in pissing all over someone who is at least pulling in our direction a lot more than the others we -whether we like it or not- have to deal with, especially as long as the rest of us are certainly not going to achieve anything by just complaining about those that come closest.

    You are simply not going to GET any politician more libertarian than the Pauls, in all likelyhood. I wouldn't expect you to vote for them and i wouldn't myself, but how about you at least not waste time with useless complaining about the one or two men who would at least *improve* things, even if only slightly.

    You are merely doing the kind of job that would suit the even worse statists just fine.

  7. Cannon,

    There appears to be at least one thing we can agree on: that I am an obstinate fool.

    Let's leave it at that.