Sometimes we find the same family giving America more that one great leader. The Roosevelt family gave us both TR and FDR, 5th cousins. The Kennedy family gave us John, Robert and Teddy. At other times, some families have given America more than one catastrophe. The Bush family gave is Prescott, a Nazi sympathizer, who continued to do business with Hitler throughout WWII, his son GHW who lied to get us into Iraq the first time, and his son and GW, aka Potomac Pinocchio, the worst president in US history. However, no family has given America two such absolute lunatics as the Paul family.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is planning a Senate filibuster next week in an attempt to force debt ceiling negotiations into the open.
"We’ve had not one minute of debate about the debt ceiling in any committee," he said in an interview with C-SPAN’s "Newsmakers" that aired on Sunday. "We haven’t had a budget in two years. We haven’t had an appropriations bill in two years. So I’m part of the freshmen group in the Senate that’s saying, ‘no more.’"
Paul’s plan: "Next week, we will filibuster until we talk about the debt ceiling, until we talk about proposals."
He added that a group of senators in the "conservative wing" of the Republican Party will also be presenting a proposal to tie raising the debt limit to passage of a balanced budget amendment.
"[W]e will actually vote in favor of raising the debt ceiling next week if we can, but it will be contingent on passing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution," he said, adding, "I’m not completely without the sense that we may need to raise the debt ceiling. But I will only do it if we have significant budgetary reform, and to me that means you have to balance your budget every year."… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <Huffington Post>
As nice as the idea of a balanced budget sounds, there are times when economic reality demands deficit spending and other times that allow a budget surplus. Roosevelt and Truman ran deficits during WWII. Truman and Eisenhower knew how to deal with it. They kept the top marginal tax rate over 90%. Ronald Reagan ran up a huge deficit needlessly. Clinton balanced the budged and gave us a surplus. GW Bush ran up a huge deficit and trashed the economy. Obama has taken the blame for major deficit increases, but the vast majority of them were mandated under the Bush Regime. To enable decreases in spending, we first need increases in revenue, a task that would be far easier had not Republicans blocked stimulus.
Now Paul whines about the lack of a budget. There has been no budget for one reason only. His Republican Party has filibustered every budget attempt, sabotaging America for political gain. Like his father he has zero understanding of economic issues. The father would return us to specie, one of his new ideas, although requiring specie almost collapsed the economy during the 19th century. The son would require balancing the budget completely on the backs of the poor and middle classes.
Rand is just a chip off the old tin foil hat.
27 Responses to “A Chip Off the Old Tin Foil Hat”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I heard that Rand Paul was ‘smart’….where does he hide it? A Constitutional amendment will NEVER pass, much less in three weeks! It takes 2/3 of the House & Senate PLUS 3/4 of the STATES have to agree! How would States EVER agree on that much Federal government control?????? Where WOULD all the State aid come from that big mouthed Southern Governors reject publicly, but take desperately?
I doubt Paul actually intends the amendment to go anywhere. It’s an excuse for obstruction.
Where Ron Paul does come up with some logical ideas , now and then, Rand is completely out of his mind ! The absolute grandiosity of this whippersnapper ‘freshman’ -The entire situation is just disgusting– Paul is putting on open display his ignorance , not only about economics , but about how the government process works-Constitutional amendment–Horsefeathers !!
Phyllis, on Ron, a broken watch is right twice a day.
lol
I take it you agree, 😉
Repubicans are happy to practice political extortion at the expense of the credit of our nation. Even in extreme conservative circles, that was previously regarded as outlandish and irresponsible. Why even Ronnie Raygun warned against it. If reasonable moderates are not ready to condemn the shenanigans of the Tea Party and Repubicans, I would hope they at least would stop supporting them.
I suspect Obama will get lots of Republican votes.
……..I know one thing! If “Tin Foil Randy” wants to filibuster on this important issue, I say “knock him self out”! He’s not going to look very “smart” doing that! (Gaaaa! Where’s the “Hammer cracking nuts”, emotican?) 👿
Johnny, the thing is, Republicans know that that anarchy of collapse is a breeding ground for the establishment of a Republican Reich.
You’re right! Tom and that’s a sad fact! 👿
Isn’t it?
I agree that Ron Paul occasionally comes up with some decent ideas that the Repubs would never put in place because they’re idiots. Rand on the other hand, is simply clueless. I think he should go back to his old job, as a supposed doctor. 🙄
End the wars and legalize marijuana. That’s the end of Paul’s ideas.
As pointed out by a couple of other commenters here, a big part of the problem with the Tea Party and most of the freshmen is that they are completely clueless and ignorant as to how Congress actually works.
Too true Charles. May they be gone before they have time to learn.
Miserepubilkans: Halfascists ALL!
Bruce, I don’t know what you art trying to say. May I respectfully suggest use of English?
To the person who posted as Robespierre the younger.
Read the rules page. Your comments were rejected because you instigated a personal attack against someone who commented before you.
Wow, TomCat! And which part of this statement have you deemed to be a personal attack?!?
“So, please, O Great Leftist Boffin, clarify the lunacy. We need to spend more money that we have not yet collected in taxes — is that correct? We need to provide the Chinese with rope with which to hang us high? So, we need to move yet even closer to the Edge of the Abyss? Tell us, O Great Authoritarian Sachem of the Left, what we stupid & ignorant plebeians get with even greater deficits???”
Calling you a ‘boffin’ (a person with knowledge or skill)? Calling you a sachem (boss or leader)? A leftist (I don’t believe that you’re a libertarian)? Or, perhaps you’re upset that I refer to myself as part of the ‘stupid & ignorant plebeians’? Asking one of the commenters if they actually knew the meaning of ‘Reich’?
Or, do you simply have a set of rules for yourself & your friends and a different set of rules for those who don’t agree with your positions? You know what that’s called, don’t you? Yes, ‘hypocrisy’!
RPY, the sarcasm dripped from your comment to such a great extent, that the intent to offend was self evident. There is no different set of rules here. Comments from people who disagree with me are welcome here. My policy to forbid personal attacks has actually caused me the most trouble when I lost two long term readers, because I pulled their comments making personal attacks against people who commented that they disagree with me. If there is hypocrisy here, it is the claim that calling me a Boffiin, etc., was not an attack.
If you wish to discuss issues, you are welcome to do so, even if that includes assaults on public figures, but here we do not attack each other.
BTW, I just read ‘About Me’ section. The journey you’ve made is an impressive one. The time, effort & energy that goes into an endeavor like ‘Politics Plus’ is typically substantial, and I offer my accolades & congratulations. However, I will mention one thing to you: there are those of knowledge, wisdom & good faith who will come to this page and NOT read the ‘About Me’ section. They will have a different judgment about you than I. And, I don’t write that simply because I’m probably older than you.
Best,
RobespierretheYounger
I appreciate that. Thank you.
I readily admit that I am thoroughly biased, but that bias is limited to my opinions. However, I do not believe I have a right to create my own facts. I fact check carefully. From time to time, I am wrong despite that effort and when I do discover an error, I say so.
This blog is actually well received. Our Technorati rating is 512, making us one of the top 300 websites in the world on US Politics.
Alright, ‘TomCat’, I’m not proud. Let’s do it in a different fashion, i.e., your way. How do you find the following attempt at a non-offensive set of questions?
“Clarify your use of the expression “lunatics” (NOTE: this is YOUR word for the Rands!). Do we to need to spend more money that we have not yet collected in taxes — is that correct? Do we need to provide the Chinese with yet more rope to hang us high? Or, do you believe that it is of no political or economic consequence that the Chinese government (read: Chinese Communist Party) currently holds $3 trillion in US sovereign debt? So, we need to move yet even closer to the Edge of the Abyss? Explain to me, a mere aged peasant in Minnesota (with an MA in economics from the U of Chicago), what we citizens & taxpayers get with even greater deficits?”
I have neither the knowledge nor the inclination to defend SEN Rand Paul’s positions. However, I have BOTH the knowledge AND the inclination to defend REP Ron Paul’s positions. With one exception (he is a pro-life physician & does not support wholesale access to abortion services), he has supported classic libertarian positions on — among other things — (1) the re-legalization of drugs (the legal prohibition of which has caused the deaths of countless innocent people), (2) the transparency of operations at the Federal Reserve Bank, (3) the rationalization of the US’s currently ‘much-less-than-prudent-and-highly-irrational-immigration’ laws, (4) the removal of American military forces from foreign countries (most specifically, Iraq, Afghanistan & Kuwait), (5) the substantial reduction of the size of the US military, (6) the confirmation & strengthening of the separation of church & state in the US, (7) the removal of the US government from the business of determining whom Americans can & cannot marry, (8) the change of American foreign policy from being driven by neo-colonialism to a foreign policy driven by friendship & accord with as many nations as possible, and (9) the legalization & regulation of prostitution (as practiced currently in at least 8 European post-industrial countries including Germany, France, Austria, Spain, Portugal, and the Netherlands). Please to tell me which of these positions you don’t support & which ones you consider to be ‘lunatic’.
Your question has little to do with what I said in the article, but on the debt, I agree that we need to balance the budget, over time, and pay it down. I am no more thrilled over $3 trillion in China than you. Rand’s lunacy was holding current business hostage to enacting a balanced budget amendment. He effectively said he will block everything.
No disrespect to you intended, but when it comes to Ron, I cannot abide his opposition to the Voting Rights Act, his stated preference for specie, his desire to dismantle the safety net, and his preference for allowing corporate criminals to prey on Americans absent regulation.
However, I don’t see any chance that Ron will ever be President.
BTW, I believe that I may have mixed up my replies to your two replies. So, in response to your statement, “I appreciate that. Thank you.”, my reply is, “You’re quite welcome!”
🙂