Senator Rand Paul is Right: Conservatives and Liberals Need to Both Compromise on Spending Cuts
by the Left Coast Rebel
Rand Paul appeared on CNN's "State of the Union" and implored both the left and right to make concessions and compromise on their pet spending issues to confront the nation's crushing debt. First, Republicans must take on the excess, waste and bloat of the Defense Department budget:
(CNN) “The compromise is for conservatives to admit that the military budget’s going to have to be cut,” Paul said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.”And Rand calls for Democrats to (cringe) consider cutting the excess, wasted and bloat from domestic welfare spending:
“Liberals will have to compromise and will have to cut domestic welfare.”Senator Paul also stood his ground on the upcoming debt ceiling battle:
When asked about the debt limit, the next major battle in Congress, Paul reiterated his stance that he would only vote for an increase in the $14.3 trillion limit if the legislation is passed with a balanced budget amendment and “say from here on out this is the last time we’re doing it.”Here's Senator Rand Paul on the United States Senate floor on Friday, April 14, defending the Tea Party:
Rand is precisely the kind of leader that we need at this point. More discussion at Memeorandum.
Rand Paul photo credit: Gage Skidmore at Flickr,
Cross posted to the Libertarian Patriot, Right Klik and Rational Nation.
No doubt, some rabid rightwingnuts will now condemn him to hell...
ReplyDeleteWe need more politicians like Rand Paul. I try to explain, to no avail, that we cannot just ram everything through. Our system is not set up like that. The Dems came as close as they could with Obamacare, and look where it got them.
the first thing that needs to be done if we follow his recomendations is to define what bloat and waste is to the satisfaction of all.
ReplyDeletethe big problem here is that it seems as if he is saying that the goals of each side can be attained if bloat and waste is eliminated. and that isn't true either.
bloat and waste are inherent problems with any government program because there will always be those who will exploit the system for their own selfish gain or for the selfish gains of others. this conclusion should be taken as an inevitability if we are to deal with government issues in a truthful manner.
The only compromise I'm comfortable with is "You stop taking my property and I won't shoot you in the face."
ReplyDeletePaul is such an idiot.
ReplyDeleteWhat kind of compromise is that? It's so stupid on so many levels.
Welfare is a drop in the bucket compared to the military. And he's going to encounter just as much resistance to cutting military spending from the Democrats as he will from the GOP. And what does he even mean by "domestic welfare"? There's no "The Domestic Welfare Law." So, what does he mean?
He's so unrealistic. Just a spoiled little brat punk who's never known a hard day in his life.
JMJ
As to idiots --- It takes one to know one I guess.
ReplyDeleteRand Paul, while not my favorite at this point will likely become a strong contender for the executive branch in the3 future as he grows.
ReplyDelete>Welfare is a drop in the bucket compared to the military
ReplyDeleteThe difference? National defense is both a rational and constitutional role of the federal government. Taking my property by force under threat of violence and giving it to someone who has not provided me goods or services in a free-will exchange (or in other words, government welfare) is not.
Bastiatarian - Well put.
ReplyDeleteYou must forgive JMJ, he has been a bit unhinged lately.
>he has been a bit unhinged lately
ReplyDeleteLately?
Bastiat, what the heck are you talking about? First of all, YES, the congress can levy taxes and spend it on the general welfare. And secondly - how the heck else could it PAY for the military???
ReplyDeleteThis absolutely correct reading of the constitution is "unhinged?"
JMJ
>spend it on the general welfare
ReplyDeleteDo you seriously not understand the difference between "general welfare" as used in the Constitution and "welfare" as used today?
The expression "general welfare" is used in the Preamble and in Article 1. In both cases, it merely refers to the obvious desired general effect. As can quickly be determined by opening a dictionary from that period, "welfare" in relation to the state referred to "the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government" (Webster, 1828).
It basically means "We're doing this Constitution thing because we want to have a peaceful and prosperous nation." If you have read the words of the Founders, you already know that they believed that a strictly limited, small federal government, that essentially left people alone, was the way to create that. In other words, such a tiny, non-meddling government would, by its non-meddling, "promote the general welfare."
This is simple, basic stuff. Your lack of understanding of such fundamentals makes it appear that you haven't read the Constitution at all, correctly or incorrectly. Don't be surprised if you appear to others to be unhinged. (The increasing shrillness of your comments hasn't helped either, of course.)
JMJ - 0
ReplyDeleteBastiatarian - 1
Hoping for a rematch!
>Hoping for a rematch!
ReplyDeleteCan I get an opponent that is actually qualified to be in the ring?