Posted on 02/13/2013 2:13:30 AM PST by Reaganite Republican
*** PING ***
Any who’d like to be added to the RR ping-list, pls FReepmail me at ‘Reaganite Republican’ -TIA
I’ve been thinking that about Rand Paul myself! He’s been good in Senate Committee hearings too.
I am VERY pleasantly surprised... very reasonable, principled, and politically skilled imho
Mr. Paul does not call for any cuts to entitlements in his speech.
Mr. Paul does not call for any cuts to Social Security in his speech.
Mr. Paul does not call for any cuts to Medicare in his speech.
Mr. Paul does not call for any cuts to Medicaid in his speech.
Mr. Paul is a nice man, but he is obviously not prepared to take on senior entitlement programs because he is afraid to say or do anything unpopular. He is no worse, but no better than all of the other Washington politicians who will not risk their cushy jobs to tackle our real problems.
So, what chance is there that there will be any cuts to entitlement programs (all of which are unconstitutional) when no one has the guts to call for cuts?
Also....RP basically endorsed Rubio’s Amnesty plans.
Has anyone actually read what RP said? Are we just too busy cheerleading instead of standing up for our values?
Regarding specific cuts ... look to the Senator Paul’s budget proposal.
It has been characterized as reducing “the average” SS benefit by 40 percent. What it does is preserve the earned benefits of those who paid in, not only by making SS solvent forever, but also by balancing the budget of the entity that “backs” SS.
It returns health insurance either to the private sector (for those who should pay for their own insurance) or to the states (for the poor).
It shuts down several departments of the federal government, returning their functions to the private-sector or to the states.
It lowers tax rates, closes loopholes, and otherwise simplifies the federal income tax structure.
Since we will all pay the same rate on income above the poverty level, we will have tax fairness among those of us of today; and, because the budget is balanced, we will have tax fairness between those of us of today and those who will succeed us.
Rand Paul has indicated a willingness to compromise, but compromise with whom? The other side doesn’t have a starting point.
Clearly, we cannot pass Sen. Paul’s budget this year. But, with the elections of 2014 and 2016, we may be able to pass something like it in the future, perhaps a compromise between it and Congressman Ryan’s budget.
What Ryan and Rubio are lacking is fire in the belly. Without it, no Republican will win. I like Rand Paul and am hoping that he can start to raise his voice and go on the attack.
Agree completely. The only concern I have, which has been raised here, is that he's weak on immigration. I'm waiting to hear more.
But we have to unite behind a single candidate early.
Didn’t watch any of the 3.
Did catch about one minute of Rubio. He looked like he was giving hand signals, left hand rubbed brow, right hand rubbed temple. Looked like he was swatting flies or something. He seemed nervous and flubbed some of his delivery. Later, I saw the thread of him reaching for the water bottle.
I remember the delivery criticism Jingal got a few years ago when he was the official responded. I expect the morning ‘news’ [a.k.a., propaganda] venues will be skewering Rubio this morning.
Rubio was ‘hoping’ Obama would take the Pubbies’ budget advice. Amnesty Rubio wants to ensure ‘securing the border’ with a new law. [Either Rubio is naive or he is in on the ole shellgame — if ‘securing the borders’ is his first goal regarding illegals, that can be done with EXISTING laws. Wny should Obama take the pubbie budget advice? He won.]
CSPAN made reference to Paul’s response and said they would show it later. It is probably online.
According to an early yahoo.com poll yesterday, some 76% of responders indicated they would not tune in The One’s spiel. [I included myself in that group.]
He's the current front runner as far as my voting interests go for a 2016 Presidential candidate. Not even a close second at this point since I'm thinking Mark Levin isn't going to run.
Mr. Paul does not call for any cuts to entitlements in his speech.
Mr. Paul does not call for any cuts to Social Security in his speech.
Mr. Paul does not call for any cuts to Medicare in his speech.
Why don’t you run for office on that plan, see how it goes.
He’s the current front runner as far as my voting interests go for a 2016 Presidential candidate. Not even a close second at this point since I’m thinking Mark Levin isn’t going to run.
The most you can hope for out of any talk show host is that they actually endorse someone during the primary season—other than that, look for more money-making books and iced tea.
What Ryan and Rubio are lacking is fire in the belly. Without it, no Republican will win. I like Rand Paul and am hoping that he can start to raise his voice and go on the attack.
Ryan and Rubio are just the latest in cookie cutter moderate Republicans, not altogether much different from Dole, Bush, McCain, Romney. Rand Paul is his father’s son. And actually believes in the Constitution. Been a fan of the father for DECADES, and a fan of the son since I learned he lived here in Kentucky at least ten years ago. Flame away; I am accustomed to that on Free Republic.
That is a good suggestion, but I think it is easy for some people here to be a keyboard politician or run campaign from a keyboard to actually do something.
Listening to him in the run up to the last national election, I was wishing like he*& that HE’D be our nominee!
For the first time in history, men and women were guaranteed in America a chance to succeed based not on who your parents were, but on your own initiative, and desire to work. We're in danger, tho, of forgetting what made us great: the President seems to think the country can continue to borrow $50,000 every second... the President believes if we can just squeeze more money out of those that are working... I don't think it'll work.
The path we are on is not sustainable, but few in Congress -or in this Administration- seem to recongize that their actions are endangering the prosperity of this great nation...
Ronald Reagan said 'Government is not the answer to the problem, government is the problem': tonight, the President told the nation he disagrees- President Obama believes government is the solution, more taxes, more debt.
What the President fails to grasp is that the American system that rewards hard work is what made America so prosperous. What American needs is not Robin Hood, but Adam Smith: in the year we won our independence, Adam Smith described what creates the Wealth of Nations... he described a limited government that largely did not interfere with individuals in their pursuit of happiness.
All that we are -and all that we wish to be- is threatened by the notion that you can have 'something for nothing'... that you can have you cake and eat it too, that you can spend a TRILLION DOLLARS a year that you don't have...
Congress is debating the wrong things: every debate in Washington is about 'how much to increase spending' a little, or a lot- how much to increase taxes, a little, or a lot...
Few people understand that the sequester -it just slows the rate of growth. Even with the sequester -if it goes through- government will grow $7 TRILLION over the next decade... ONLY in Washington could an increase of $7T be called 'a cut'. Big Government is NOT your friend- Big Government gives you stuff- but keeps you poor.
Tonight I urge you to demand a new course: demand Washington change their ways, or they'll be sent home. We absolutely MUST pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution: the amendment must include strict spending and tax limitations. Liberals complain that the budget 'can't be balanced', but if we cut just ONE PENNY from each dollar we spend, the budget would be balanced in 6 or 7 years (!)
Video/more at Reaganite Republican
One penny?
I think the government spends about $3 trillion a year, half of it ~ $1.5T is borrowed(yearly deficit) To balance that it would have to cut that $1.5T in spending.
The sequester I thought cuts $100B billion this year (1/15 th of that yearly deficit), about half the cuts from defense, and you will hear screaming and wailing about that 1/15th assuming congress even lets it go.(its coming) In 18 months they couldnt find specific spending cuts to replace that $0.1T let alone $1.5.
(are these numbers accurate??)
Rubio called for the balanced budget last night too, the two should get together and produce a budget that is balanced. You know why they wont do that.
No amendment like that will ever be passed into law. But all hell would break loose if they even wrote a budget to do it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.