Mike Lee caves on debt ceiling

[cindy25]

on Freedom Watch today

[Southron]

Honestly, I think the Republicans are scared to death. On one hand, they will have to cave again, or on the other they will be blamed for killing grandma and little children.

[specsaregood]

on Freedom Watch today

thanks for all the gory details!

[cindy25]

he seemed to indicate (but did not say directly) that Romney was behind his change.

[Zatch]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWaLxFIVX1s

[Anti Federalist]

thanks for all the gory details!

tube, or it didn't happen.

[Sola_Fide]

Whaaaaaa?

[cindy25]

can't tube Freedom Watch, due to copyright Nazis

but stream is here: http://usaguns.net/patriots/fw4low.php

[klamath]

The debt ceiling will have to be raised in the end but did he cave without major budget cuts?

[Chester Copperpot]

hold the line.. no increase in the debt limit.. theyve had $14 trillion to get it fixed.. they wont until they cant..


oust the mountebanks

[Southron]

hold the line.. no increase in the debt limit.. theyve had $14 trillion to get it fixed.. they wont until they cant..


oust the mountebanks

The question is: will the people stand with them if they do?

[Chester Copperpot]

this is disappointing, the balanced budget amendment will be fraught with bullshit loopholes..

There is already a balanced budget amendment in the constitution - the requirement for money to be in gold or silver..


these fucks dont follow the constitution as it is.. theyre not going to follow any balanced budget amendment either... THeyll probably use it as an excuse in the future to show that INCREASES in futures debt limits are to be done without question.. and anything other will be unconstitutional.\

[cindy25]

the Balanced Budget amendment is meaningless unless ratified; and no way will 38 state legislatures ratify it. Because that would mean less federal money for the states to help maintain their handouts. Maybe it will pass NH and TX, but NY and CA? MA? OR? HI? IL? CT? WA? RI? VT? ME? NJ? MD? (that's 13, game over)

[Knightskye]

the Balanced Budget amendment is meaningless unless ratified; and no way will 38 state legislatures ratify it. Because that would mean less federal money for the states to help maintain their handouts. Maybe it will pass NH and TX, but NY and CA? MA? OR? HI? IL? CT? WA? RI? VT? ME? NJ? MD? (that's 13, game over)

34.

[TER]

He convinced me by that 10 story building.

[Inkblots]

Mike Lee has earned the benefit of the doubt from me. What exactly do you mean by 'caves'? Because I sure haven't seen any quotes from him on this thread.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Color me unsurprised. DC is the hive of villainy. The only solutions to DC will come outside of DC. It's time to shed any association with that filth hole and start promoting Independence from the hive on the Potomac.

[tsai3904]

What exactly do you mean by 'caves'? Because I sure haven't seen any quotes from him on this thread.

Exactly. I'm surprised there's so many comments without an explanation of how he caved.

[anaconda]

RIP Mike Lee. Mike Lee is now officially a liar. This is a shame.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAcQuH5jfJ8

[jct74]

Just FYI, Mike Lee's position is the same as Rand's. Rand says at 4:03 in the video below that he would vote to raise the debt ceiling contingent upon the House and the Senate passing the Balanced Budget Amendment but not upon waiting for the states to pass it.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/06/sen-rand-paul-no-debt-ceiling-increase-

There are other conditions he would also require also as outlined in the Cut, Cap, and Balance pledge of course.

[iamse7en]

Sorry Mike. You're bound for the Terrestrial Kingdom now. I had some hope for you. Have fun endorsing Mitt and leading other Mormons down the wrong path. Balance budget is a farce, just as you are.

[Inkblots]

Um, that's a video from last November. What did Mike Lee say on Freedom Watch that concerned you?

[tsai3904]

What did Mike Lee say on Freedom Watch that concerned you?

I'm really confused as to how everyone is making comments when no one has explained what he said on Freedom Watch.

[anaconda]

Just FYI, Mike Lee's position is the same as Rand's. Rand says at 4:03 in the video below that he would vote to raise the debt ceiling contingent upon the House and the Senate passing the Balanced Budget Amendment but not upon waiting for the states to pass it.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/06/sen-rand-paul-no-debt-ceiling-increase-

There are other conditions he would also require also as outlined in the Cut, Cap, and Balance pledge of course.

What is crucial to understand is that Mike Lee said he would not vote to raise the debt ceiling. Rand said he might if the Democrats agreed to a balanced budget amendment. Mike Lee is a liar and Rand Paul is not.

[anaconda]

I'm really confused as to how everyone is making comments when no one has explained what he said on Freedom Watch.

Most recent Freedom Watch says he will vote to raise the debt ceiling for a balanced budget amendment. This is not bad in of itself. EXCEPT that he previously said he would do no such thing. So Mike Lee is now officially a LIAR.

[RileyE104]

What is crucial to understand is that Mike Lee said he would not vote to raise the debt ceiling. Rand said he might if the Democrats agreed to a balanced budget amendment. Mike Lee is a liar and Rand Paul is not.

This... I have lost a LITTLE respect for Lee if he has changed his position from not voting to voting yes if it accompanies a balanced budget amendment. Only because he promised to NOT vote for raising the debt, in ANY scenario. As you point out, Rand has always said that he will vote if it is accompanied by a balanced budget amendment.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WSw0RvdIE4

^ Just a few days ago Mike Lee claimed he would NOT vote in favor of raising the debt ceiling AT ALL. He declares in this video that no matter what we should be discussing a balanced budget amendment, not as a compromise to raise the debt ceiling.

If he has changed from this position, I think it's sad and I definitely have lost respect for him. Some, but not all.

[anaconda]

This... I have lost a LITTLE respect for Lee if he has changed his position from not voting to voting yes if it accompanies a balanced budget amendment. Only because he promised to NOT vote for raising the debt, in ANY scenario. As you point out, Rand has always said that he will vote if it is accompanied by a balanced budget amendment.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WSw0RvdIE4

^ Just a few days ago Mike Lee claimed he would NOT vote in favor of raising the debt ceiling AT ALL. He declares in this video that no matter what we should be discussing a balanced budget amendment, not as a compromise to raise the debt ceiling.

If he has changed from this position, I think it's sad and I definitely have lost respect for him. Some, but not all.

Thank you, RileyE104. I don't know why there is confusion on this thread. Rand's approach has been different from Mike Lee's. Now, Mike Lee is a flip flopping liar and Rand is not.

[sailingaway]

I'll wait and judge Mike later. He is as strict as the strictest in the Senate, on this, and it needs more votes than one.

I never thought he was a Paul.

[anaconda]

What a shame...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAcQuH5jfJ8&feature=player_embedded

[sailingaway]

Rand's best friend and most consistent ally in the Senate, even if he caved on this.

[tsai3904]

I don't know why there is confusion on this thread.

There was confusion because up until your post, 23 posts in, no one explained what happened on the show.

Your characterization of Mike Lee as a "flip flopping liar" is a little harsh. I'm sure there have been times when Ron Paul has made a statement and was not able to follow through and that hardly makes him a liar.

I've seen interviews of Rand where he's asked if he will vote to raise the debt ceiling and his answer is usually "I can't see myself raising it" and only after the interviewer presses on and asks if he can see any scenario in which he will raise the debt ceiling does Rand explain the balanced budget amendment. In the Kudlow interview, Mike Lee wasn't pressed as Rand has been. Even in that interview, he talks with conviction how a balanced budget amendment needs to be passed. If you can find a clip where he says he does not see ANY scenario where he would not vote to raise the debt ceiling, this is a little overblown.

In the clip posted by RileyE104, start watching from 7:56. He says he will vote to raise the debt ceiling if a balanced budget amendment is passed unlike what was said below:


Just a few days ago Mike Lee claimed he would NOT vote in favor of raising the debt ceiling AT ALL. He declares in this video that no matter what we should be discussing a balanced budget amendment, not as a compromise to raise the debt ceiling.

[anaconda]

Rand's best friend and most consistent ally in the Senate, even if he caved on this.

LIAR is most significant. He is a LIAR. I will never trust a single thing that comes out of his mouth. NEVER. It is a great judge of character to think ahead about what you can do and be clear. Rand has been concise and clear and has followed through. Rand said he would consider voting for a debt ceiling increase under certain circumstances. Mike Lee stated unequivocally that he WOULD NOT. He is now A LIAR.

[sailingaway]

T I'm sure there have been times when Ron Paul has made a statement and was not able to follow through and that hardly makes him a liar.



.

Not that I am aware of, where it goes to how he will vote. He has lived by his pledges. However, I didn't track him his first years in Congress and maybe he didn't always speak as carefully as he does now about what he can and cannot accomplish.

Mitt's ties to the banks really worry me, though. Domestically AND internationally. And if somehow Mitt pressured Mike, THAT could be an issue, going forward. Someone said they thought Mitt had something to do with that. Where did that come from?

[anaconda]

There was confusion because up until your post, 23 posts in, no one explained what happened on the show.

Your characterization of Mike Lee as a "flip flopping liar" is a little harsh. I'm sure there have been times when Ron Paul has made a statement and was not able to follow through and that hardly makes him a liar.

I've seen interviews of Rand where he's asked if he will vote to raise the debt ceiling and his answer is usually "I can't see myself raising it" and only after the interviewer presses on and asks if he can see any scenario in which he will raise the debt ceiling does Rand explain the balanced budget amendment. In the Kudlow interview, Mike Lee wasn't pressed as Rand has been. Even in that interview, he talks with conviction how a balanced budget amendment needs to be passed. If you can find a clip where he says he does not see ANY scenario where he would not vote to raise the debt ceiling, this is a little overblown.

In the clip posted by RileyE104, start watching from 7:56. He says he will vote to raise the debt ceiling if a balanced budget amendment is passed unlike what was said below:

IT IS NOT HARSH when his quote was " Well look, I'm going to vote against raising the national debt ceiling.." See the video. Mike Lee is now officially: A LIAR!! Period. A LIAR.

[Galileo Galilei]

Most recent Freedom Watch says he will vote to raise the debt ceiling for a balanced budget amendment. This is not bad in of itself. EXCEPT that he previously said he would do no such thing. So Mike Lee is now officially a LIAR.

Mike Lee has not voted for an increase in the debt ceiling, so he is not a liar. Wait until he votes.

[anaconda]

Mike Lee is a liar.

[jct74]

Your characterization of Mike Lee as a "flip flopping liar" is a little harsh. I'm sure there have been times when Ron Paul has made a statement and was not able to follow through and that hardly makes him a liar.


I think Rand said something during the primary that he would never vote for a budget that wasn't balanced, which is a statement that wouldn't hold up if he were to vote for any of the budgets that he has since proposed.

EDIT: I think there was a vote on his plan to cut $200 billion, and he voted for it of course.

[Galileo Galilei]

Mike Lee is a liar.

No, you are an agitator. Mike Lee has not voted to raise the debt ceiling. Lee is not a liar.

[anaconda]

Mike Lee has not voted for an increase in the debt ceiling, so he is not a liar. Wait until he votes.

Incorrect. If one says " I will not do X." Then later says "I will do X if Y." If Y is a possible outcome then he has lied. Regardless of whether Y comes to pass. Mike Lee has stated that Y is a possible outcome.

[RileyE104]

In the clip posted by RileyE104, start watching from 7:56. He says he will vote to raise the debt ceiling if a balanced budget amendment is passed unlike what was said below:

Sorry.. I'll have to re-watch the clip. I could have sworn it was that video where he says that having a balanced budget amendment should be a debate in itself, not as a compromise. I must have been confused with a different video. Either way, the man has stated before that he would NOT in any way vote to raise the debt limit. I still love Lee though. He's right there under Rand.

[Galileo Galilei]

Incorrect. If one says " I will not do X." Then later says "I will do X if Y." If Y is a possible outcome then he has lied. Regardless of whether Y comes to pass.

Wrong, you are making the fundamental error and basing your opinions on what politicians say, rather than what they do.

[anaconda]

No, you are an agitator. Mike Lee has not voted to raise the debt ceiling. Lee is not a liar.

Pointing out Mile Lee's lying does not make me an "agitator."

[tsai3904]

Either way, the man has stated before that he would NOT in any way vote to raise the debt limit.

If Mike Lee said that he would not vote to raise the debt ceiling under ANY scenario, then I would be upset too.

[anaconda]

Wrong, you are making the fundamental error and basing your opinions on what politicians say, rather than what they do.

Crucial to the definition of "lying" is the content of what one says.

[Galileo Galilei]

Crucial to the definition of "lying" is the content of what one says.

Lee isn't going to vote for raising the debt ceiling. He said he would vote for it under conditions he knows will not happen. You've been duped.

[anaconda]

Lee isn't going to vote for raising the debt ceiling. He said he would vote for it under conditions he knows will not happen. You've been duped.

Duped by Mike Lee. Guess we can agree on that. Mike Lee said that the chances of passing the balanced budget amendment were very good. If he really believes (as you state) that this "will not happen" then this is in itself a lie.

[tsai3904]

Mike Lee has been talking about a balanced budget amendment since he got elected (a majority of that Kudlow interview is about a balanced budget). His problem was that he didn't clarify in that one interview to say that the only exception is if a balanced budget amendment is passed. I did a search and every interview I found, he explains that a balanced budget amendment is the one exception for raising the debt ceiling. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt that if Kudlow pressed him and asked if he envisioned any scenario where he would vote to raise the debt ceiling, he would have explained the balanced budget as he has in all of his other interviews.

Here's one from January:


"I'm against raising the debt ceiling and so I'm resisting it," Lee said after the inaugural meeting of the Senate Tea Party Caucus in the Hart building on Thursday morning.

"The only scenario in which I can imagine not using the filibuster is if the leadership of both parties agree that as a condition of that they would first pass out a balanced-budget amendment."

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/140721-freshman-gop-senator-vows-to-filibuster-debt-ceiling-increase

[Galileo Galilei]

Duped by Mike Lee. Guess we can agree on that.

You've been duped, but not me. Sorry, Mike Lee won't be voting to increase the debt ceiling.

[headhawg7]

OK...I have freedom watch recorded on my DVR. Funny because I just saw the mike lee interview before I came on this forum to check the new posts. Here is the most important part I thought throughout the interview(I will quote verbatim):

Judge: The core of cut/cap/balance is really your proposal to amend the constitution to require a balanced budget but you know from history and your personal experience that you will be required to vote up or down on the debt ceiling before you know if that constitutional amendment is ratified by the states because if it is ratified it will take years. Are you mike lee a champion of individual liberty and the sound dollar and the constitution meaning what it says...willing to take the chance and vote in favor of the debt ceiling going up on the hope and expectation, not the certainty, but the hope that that constitutional amendment might be passed?

Mike Lee: Yes I am because in this circumstance it is a very very good very strong likely hood that we will be able to get it ratified and it provides us with our best at this point our only chance to rein in federal spending on a long term basis to make sure that this perpetual inexorable expansion of the federal govt including its erosion not only of our economic liberties but also our personal/individual liberties doesn't continue. That's why this is worth fighting for. That's why this is worth banking on the fact that the states will in fact ratify it.

Judge: Are you the senator from Utah or are you a look a like who's telling hes now going to vote in favor of letting the government do more borrowing!? I almost cant believe what I am hearing coming from your mouth. That there would be ANY circumstances under which you, a champion of sound money, would let the federal government go deeper into debt.

Mike Lee: Yeah....look our spending situation is what it is. We are on this sort of auto-pilot path which cant be stopped immediately and it wont be. If those of us who belive in individual liberty, if those of us who believe that we got to rein in washington spending habits, the only way to stop this is to give them soimething in exchange for their willingness to give us a balanced budget amendment. They will never agree to it otherwise.
...........................the interview continues but I think this was the most relevant part.

Show of hands. How man here believe that the constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget will be ratified?

[Galileo Galilei]

OK...I have freedom watch recorded on my DVR. Funny because I just saw the mike lee interview before I came on this forum to check the new posts. Here is the most important part I thought throughout the interview(I will quote verbatim):

Judge: The core of cut/cap/balance is really your proposal to amend the constitution to require a balanced budget but you know from history and your personal experience that you will be required to vote up or down on the debt ceiling before you know if that constitutional amendment is ratified by the states because if it is ratified it will take years. Are you mike lee a champion of individual liberty and the sound dollar and the constitution meaning what it says...willing to take the chance and vote in favor of the debt ceiling going up on the hope and expectation, not the certainty, but the hope that that constitutional amendment might be passed?

Mike Lee: Yes I am because in this circumstance it is a very very good very strong likely hood that we will be able to get it ratified and it provides us with our best at this point our only chance to rein in federal spending on a long term basis to make sure that this perpetual inexorable expansion of the federal govt including its erosion not only of our economic liberties but also our personal/individual liberties doesn't continue. That's why this is worth fighting for. That's why this is worth banking on the fact that the states will in fact ratify it.

Judge: Are you the senator from Utah or are you a look a like who's telling hes now going to vote in favor of letting the government do more borrowing!? I almost cant believe what I am hearing coming from your mouth. That there would be ANY circumstances under which you, a champion of sound money, would let the federal government go deeper into debt.

Mike Lee: Yeah....look our spending situation is what it is. We are on this sort of auto-pilot path which cant be stopped immediately and it wont be. If those of us who belive in individual liberty, if those of us who believe that we got to rein in washington spending habits, the only way to stop this is to give them soimething in exchange for their willingness to give us a balanced budget amendment. They will never agree to it otherwise.
...........................the interview continues but I think this was the most relevant part.

Show of hands. How man here believe that the constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget will be ratified?

show of hands, how many here think the House AND Senate will vote for a balanced budget amendment?

[cindy25]

Mike Lee said he would vote for the debt ceiling increase if the senate passed the balanced budget amendment; even the judge seemed quite disappointed; the problem with Lee's plan is the Senate and even the House will pass this, but it will die in the state legislatures. maybe he just nieve, because Utah will pass it. but the Dem states won't. it like a child agreeing to turn off the TV at 11, and they do it as promised, but then turn it back on at 11:05; meaningless.

[headhawg7]

show of hands, how many here think the House AND Senate will vote for a balanced budget amendment?

I am literally jumping up and down raising my hand!!!

J/k

[anaconda]

Mike Lee may be a valuable force in the cause of liberty despite his lying.

[Lothario]

I've never been convinced that Mike Lee generates his own thoughts...

[tsai3904]

So his position is the same as Rand's. If the House and the Senate pass a balanced budget amendment, they will vote to raise the debt ceiling.

From this interview in April, Mike says he knows he will vote no because he doesn't believe that the House and Senate will pass a balanced budget amendment:


Discussing the vote to raise the debt ceiling, Lee says: “I know that I’m going to vote no. I know that I’m going to use every tool at my disposal to try to interfere with any efforts to raise the debt ceiling.

“I think anything that is offered in exchange for the agreement to raise the debt ceiling is going to have to be very very significant.

“It would have to be in my mind something that changes the way we spend money, so that we are not spending money constantly that we don’t have, so that we’re not racking up a huge bill that we will then send our grandchildren.

“In my mind the only thing that could do that is a balanced budget amendment. It’s the only way we can guarantee that Congress will be put into kind of an economic straightjacket where it can’t continue to harm itself.

[cindy25]

show of hands, how many here think the House AND Senate will vote for a balanced budget amendment?

I think the Dem leadership will agree to the house and senate passing it, then stop it in the state legislatures.

[tsai3904]

I think the Dem leadership will agree to the house and senate passing it, then stop it in the state legislatures.

I don't think 13 Democratic Senators will vote for it.

[headhawg7]

I think the Dem leadership will agree to the house and senate passing it, then stop it in the state legislatures.

This is what I think happens as well. Like the judge said....it could take years for it to be ratified IF it is ratified.

[tpreitzel]

Based on the excerpt, Mike made a mistake IMO. However, I understand the motivation so I won't throw Mike under the bus at this point.

[Galileo Galilei]

I think the Dem leadership will agree to the house and senate passing it, then stop it in the state legislatures.

I doubt it, once it passes the House and Senate, then it stays with the states forever, or until ratified. Remember the 27th amendment? Once it goes to the states, then it becomes an issue in all 50 states. It becomes a news item forever in each state, and the national media loses control of the issue. Then, each time a state ratifies, that becomes news, and soon the nation is watching.

Rand knows what is going on; there are not many tea party candidates yet elected in the congress, so it the amendment won't pass. This pledge by Rand and Lee is brilliant strategy, because they can then vote against the raising of the debt ceiling, while at the same time, appearing reasonable to the masses, and retaining political capital for another day.

[anaconda]

Based on the excerpt, Mike made a mistake IMO. However, I understand the motivation so I won't throw Mike under the bus at this point.

I won't throw him under the bus either. Even liars can vote with us. So Senator Lee may be a useful liar. We can lie our way to Freedom. I'm OK with that. But I can no longer trust what he says.

[anaconda]

Why is Mitt Romney meeting with senators? Why are senators meeting with Mitt Romney? We don't pay our senators to meet with presidential candidates. If they do it on their own time, fine. But then there should be NOTHING to report to the press. Shame on Mike Lee.

[tpreitzel]

I won't throw him under the bus either. Even liars can vote with us. So Senator Lee may be a useful liar. We can lie our way to Freedom. I'm OK with that. But I can no longer trust what he says.

As you and others have already indicated, credibility is important because it's an indicator of philosophical consistency. In other words, does Mike really believe his original position against voting for an increase in the debt ceiling strongly enough or is he susceptible to manipulation?

[Galileo Galilei]

As you and others have already indicated, credibility is important because it's an indicator of philosophical consistency. In other words, does Mike really believe his original position against voting for an increase in the debt ceiling strongly enough or is he susceptible to manipulation?

Mike Lee is not subject to manipulation regarding the debt ceiling. Rather, it is your opinion that has been manipulated. There are not anywhere near enough votes in the Senate to pass a balanced budget amendment. You might get 10 votes on a lucky day. Therefore, Lee will be voting against raising the debt ceiling.

[tsai3904]

As you and others have already indicated, credibility is important because it's an indicator of philosophical consistency. In other words, does Mike really believe his original position against voting for an increase in the debt ceiling strongly enough or is he susceptible to manipulation?

As I said before, every interview I found of him talking about the debt ceiling, he has brought up an exception for the balance budget amendment. It is in that one interview with Kudlow where he didn't fully explain himself. I haven't read or heard one time where he would not raise the debt ceiling under ANY scenario.

[Galileo Galilei]

As I said before, every interview I found of him talking about the debt ceiling, he has brought up an exception for the balance budget amendment. It is in that one interview with Kudlow where he didn't fully explain himself. I haven't read or heard one time where he would not raise the debt ceiling under ANY scenario.

Mike Lee knows that Harry Reid will not allow a balanced budget amendment to pass the Senate. Just getting a vote on it putting each Senator on the record would be a near miracle.

[tpreitzel]

As I said before, every interview I found of him talking about the debt ceiling, he has brought up an exception for the balance budget amendment. It is in that one interview with Kudlow where he didn't fully explain himself. I haven't read or heard one time where he would not raise the debt ceiling under ANY scenario.


Mike Lee is not subject to manipulation regarding the debt ceiling. Rather, it is your opinion that has been manipulated. There are not anywhere near enough votes in the Senate to pass a balanced budget amendment. You might get 10 votes on a lucky day. Therefore, Lee will be voting against raising the debt ceiling.

At least, I'm talking about Mike's remarks, not the possibility of his ultimate actions. Although probably not as expedient, the most credible verbal response to the question of raising the debt ceiling is a simple "no" without qualification. I don't see a problem, either, as long as the words and actions of Mike and Rand remain consistent. I agree with Anaconda that Mike's credibility has taken a hit, but not necessarily a terminal one which will depend on his ultimate vote. Politicians like to conditionally respond to questions whereas constituents like unconditional responses. I like Ron Paul precisely because his positions aren't as conditional as other politicians.

[anaconda]

Mike Lee knows that Harry Reid will not allow a balanced budget amendment to pass the Senate. Just getting a vote on it putting each Senator on the record would be a near miracle.

Then how do you explain the fact that he said this:

"in this circumstance it is a very very good very strong likely hood that we will be able to get it ratified."

Did he say something that he knew to be false?

[Galileo Galilei]

Mike Lee is not subject to manipulation regarding the debt ceiling. Rather, it is your opinion that has been manipulated. There are not anywhere near enough votes in the Senate to pass a balanced budget amendment. You might get 10 votes on a lucky day. Therefore, Lee will be voting against raising the debt ceiling. [/INDENT]
[/LIST]
At least, I'm talking about Mike's remarks, not the possibility of his ultimate actions. Although probably not as expedient, the most credible verbal response to the question of raising the debt ceiling is a simple "no" without qualification. I don't see a problem, either, as long as the words and actions of Mike and Rand remain consistent. I agree with Anaconda that Mike's credibility has taken a hit, but not necessarily a terminal one which will depend on his ultimate vote.

just saying "no" isn't good enough. Then you waste a chance to educate the public and set the stage for a balanced budget amendment down the road in the next congress.

[Galileo Galilei]

Then how do you explain the fact that he said this:

"in this circumstance it is a very very good very strong likely hood that we will be able to get it ratified."

Did he say something that he knew to be false?

I agree that getting the amendment ratified would be very doable, once the congress passed the amendment. The nearly impossible part right now is getting the amendment passed by the Senate. The best option now is to push for a balanced budget amendment now, vote against the debt ceiling, and then in the next congress a balanced budget amendment may have a better chance. Once the balanced budget amendment is on the table, it can be used as an issue in the 2012 elections by tea party candidates.

[sailingaway]

I just think the balanced budget amendment is nonsense because congress will meet the majority vote levels. Up to this point extending the debt ceiling has been by unanimous consent, often, and never below the majority vote it would take to raise the debt under the amendment, I'd bet.

It focuses people on the issue and makes them more sensitive to tradeoffs and spending, but I don't see it really changing anyone's ways, so I can't get too excited about it. And if somehow it morphs into the WRONG amendment, it could be damaging.

So the debt ceiling stands by itself, to me, and I'm with Ron, that if they really planned to cut it, they'd start now, not INCREASE the deficit next year as Ryan's plan does....

[LibertyEagle]

Yeah, I might have been for the amendment, but it seems to me that they neutered it, by making it so easy to go around it.

I dunno. I may call Rand's office and see what they have to say, in case I am overlooking something.

[cindy25]

the problem is not the balanced budget amendment, but just passing the House and Senate is useless states ratify; it would be ok if they would wait to raise the debt ceiling, or make it conditional on ratification by the states. Governors could easily call special sessions of state legislatures.

[sailingaway]

Yeah, I might have been for the amendment, but it seems to me that they neutered it, by making it so easy to go around it.

I dunno. I may call Rand's office and see what they have to say, in case I am overlooking something.

Well, in Rand's case, I think to get his vote they'd need BOTH the amendment AND significant cuts in spending, and last I heard, Paulian definitions of cuts don't start at some point in the future after first raising the deficit. But I don't absolutely know that. Rand seems to have what I consider to be a rather naive idea of how valuable a balanced budget amendment would be. I think he thinks at least during ratification Senate would stick to it. (Ha.)

I love Rand, and I knew he thought about amendments this way when I supported him in his election, so I don't feel betrayed. I just see it as a learning experience.

[The Dark Knight]

The solution to this problem is simple if you are a senator. All you have to do is ask "what would Ron do?" Then do it :)

[Galileo Galilei]

At least, I'm talking about Mike's remarks, not the possibility of his ultimate actions. Although probably not as expedient, the most credible verbal response to the question of raising the debt ceiling is a simple "no" without qualification. I don't see a problem, either, as long as the words and actions of Mike and Rand remain consistent. I agree with Anaconda that Mike's credibility has taken a hit, but not necessarily a terminal one which will depend on his ultimate vote. Politicians like to conditionally respond to questions whereas constituents like unconditional responses. I like Ron Paul precisely because his positions aren't as conditional as other politicians.

Per Rand Paul, the Senate has not spent even ONE MINUTE of time debating the debt ceiling! Another strategy Lee is using is trying to get an actual debate on the Senate floor, that forces Senators to take official positions on the record, rather than just opinions on TV interviews.

[Galileo Galilei]

Why is Mitt Romney meeting with senators? Why are senators meeting with Mitt Romney? We don't pay our senators to meet with presidential candidates. If they do it on their own time, fine. But then there should be NOTHING to report to the press. Shame on Mike Lee.

And presidential candidate Ron Paul met with Senator Rand Paul. The Horror.

[sailingaway]

I'm sure Mitt wants Lee's endorsement, and likely was making offers. I'm hoping Ron will get Lee's endorsement although I would expect him to be having to be doing well enough to justify that. Lee's reputation would be awfully tarnished with conservatives if he backed Romney, but Romney is quite a force in Utah. Romney might settle asking Lee to back no one.

[Napoleon's Shadow]

Incorrect. If one says " I will not do X." Then later says "I will do X if Y." If Y is a possible outcome then he has lied. Regardless of whether Y comes to pass. Mike Lee has stated that Y is a possible outcome.Mike knows that a BBA has zero chance in hell of passing, he's offering the impossible and then coming off saying that he's being reasonable and willing to compromise if the other side is willing to. He's trying to make the otherside look bad.

He can say he'll vote for raising the debt ceiling contingent on a BBA with a clean conscience because he knows that he'll never have to vote on a BBA because it'll never see the light of day.



show of hands, how many here think the House AND Senate will vote for a balanced budget amendment?Will never happen, even if the Republicans are in charge.




Mike Lee said he would vote for the debt ceiling increase if the senate passed the balanced budget amendment; even the judge seemed quite disappointed; the problem with Lee's plan is the Senate and even the House will pass this, but it will die in the state legislatures. maybe he just nieve, because Utah will pass it. but the Dem states won't. it like a child agreeing to turn off the TV at 11, and they do it as promised, but then turn it back on at 11:05; meaningless.No, no one wants to be on the record about this, so Congress won't touch it with a 10 ft pole.

Even if they did though, I think a lot of states very well would pass it because the State governments are much more accountable to the People than the Feds are. The question is whether or not enough states will pass it.


I doubt it, once it passes the House and Senate, then it stays with the states forever, or until ratified. Remember the 27th amendment? Once it goes to the states, then it becomes an issue in all 50 states. It becomes a news item forever in each state, and the national media loses control of the issue. Then, each time a state ratifies, that becomes news, and soon the nation is watching.

Rand knows what is going on; there are not many tea party candidates yet elected in the congress, so it the amendment won't pass. This pledge by Rand and Lee is brilliant strategy, because they can then vote against the raising of the debt ceiling, while at the same time, appearing reasonable to the masses, and retaining political capital for another day.Exactly. Rand knows exactly what he's doing.


Well, in Rand's case, I think to get his vote they'd need BOTH the amendment AND significant cuts in spending, and last I heard, Paulian definitions of cuts don't start at some point in the future after first raising the deficit. But I don't absolutely know that. Rand seems to have what I consider to be a rather naive idea of how valuable a balanced budget amendment would be. I think he thinks at least during ratification Senate would stick to it. (Ha.)

I love Rand, and I knew he thought about amendments this way when I supported him in his election, so I don't feel betrayed. I just see it as a learning experience.Rand isn't naive, him and his staff are road-hardened.



the Balanced Budget amendment is meaningless unless ratified; and no way will 38 state legislatures ratify it. Because that would mean less federal money for the states to help maintain their handouts. Maybe it will pass NH and TX, but NY and CA? MA? OR? HI? IL? CT? WA? RI? VT? ME? NJ? MD? (that's 13, game over)Maybe. If all of the other states pass it early, then a campaign can be launched in the more blue states to get it passed. Imagine all of the focus of the media and a national effort bearing down on a single state legislature to pass a BBA?

Most state governments tend to be a lot more responsive to pressure than the Feds.



Color me unsurprised. DC is the hive of villainy. The only solutions to DC will come outside of DC. It's time to shed any association with that filth hole and start promoting Independence from the hive on the Potomac.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy"
:p


This... I have lost a LITTLE respect for Lee if he has changed his position from not voting to voting yes if it accompanies a balanced budget amendment. Only because he promised to NOT vote for raising the debt, in ANY scenario. As you point out, Rand has always said that he will vote if it is accompanied by a balanced budget amendment.


^ Just a few days ago Mike Lee claimed he would NOT vote in favor of raising the debt ceiling AT ALL. He declares in this video that no matter what we should be discussing a balanced budget amendment, not as a compromise to raise the debt ceiling.

If he has changed from this position, I think it's sad and I definitely have lost respect for him. Some, but not all.Again, he won't be voting on it, and he can say this because he knows it won't ever happen.

[Napoleon's Shadow]

I'm sure Mitt wants Lee's endorsement, and likely was making offers. I'm hoping Ron will get Lee's endorsement although I would expect him to be having to be doing well enough to justify that. Lee's reputation would be awfully tarnished with conservatives if he backed Romney, but Romney is quite a force in Utah. Romney might settle asking Lee to back no one.
With Huntsman in the race too Utah, Idaho, and Nevada will be split with the Mormon vote, right?

[sailingaway]

Blue state legislatures feel no pressure whatsoever from red state ideas.

[sailingaway]

With Huntsman in the race too Utah, Idaho, and Nevada will be split with the Mormon vote, right?

So I hope. We will have to see it play out. Don't know about Idaho, at all.

[Sola_Fide]

Sound money encourages its own balanced budgets. That's all we need. We need to go back to the Constitution.

[sailingaway]

Sound money encourages its own balanced budgets. That's all we need. We need to go back to the Constitution.

Hence Ron's focus on that.

I think younger people see the balanced budget amendment as actually worth something in part because they weren't old enough to be politically aware during prior 'Constitutional amendment' farces. When there isn't enough hard support to even cut the deficit for the next budget in half, or follow Rand's $200 billion in cuts, there is never going to be enough support to pass/ratify a balanced budget amendment by near the number of states needed to do it. I think Rand sees it as another point of pressure, and the best he can do if he can't get others to vote sensibly.

I'm fine with this, but view it on the level of rhetoric.

[tpreitzel]

The solution to this problem is simple if you are a senator. All you have to do is ask "what would Ron do?" Then do it :)
If one must distill the whole issue into a compact form which I frequently do, your suggestion is probably a good choice. Ron equivocates less than most due to his well-reasoned positions... thank God! :)

[The Dark Knight]

With Huntsman in the race too Utah, Idaho, and Nevada will be split with the Mormon vote, right?

Ron should do well in Idaho and Nevada. I believe Ron got 25% last time in Idaho, and second in Nevada. If we get boots on the ground in Nevada we can atleast challenge Romney. If Huntsman decides to invest in Nevada hence splitting atleast some of the Mormons, we have a decent shot at pulling off a shocker in the Silver State.

[Pro-Life Libertarian]

Maybe I am not a purist, but I will remain a Mike Lee fan.

There will only be one Ron Paul, and Ron Paul doesn't have control of Congress.

[ctiger2]

Right after Mike Lee won he went to Israel. I knew right then he was a sellout. I'm sure Mittens promised him a cabinet position and some cash. Bought and Paid for.

[sailingaway]

Right after Mike Lee won he went to Israel. I knew right then he was a sellout. I'm sure Mittens promised him a cabinet position and some cash. Bought and Paid for.

Or he may have just been trying to address constituent concerns. I'll know them by their fruits... er, I mean, votes.

[RonPaulCult]

I can only read 5 pages of this thread. I think most of you guys are completely ignorant. Mike Lee has been saying for at least 6 months now that the ONLY way he would vote to raise the debt limit would be if they include a balanced budget amendment. It's called negotiation. He is not a liar and he is doing good work for our side.

You people are crazy if you think you can gain a mile without giving an inch in Washington.

[anaconda]

or follow Rand's $200 billion in cuts,

$500 billion I thought. Did I miss a more recent proposal from Rand"s office?

[IndianaPolitico]

$500 billion I thought. Did I miss a more recent proposal from Rand"s office? I think he introduced a few other plans after his 500 billion dollar plan was shot down, his others where shot down as well.

[tpreitzel]

I think he introduced a few other plans after his 500 billion dollar plan was shot down, his others where shot down as well.

If so, does the trail end with minimal cuts? We need to send reinforcements to support Rand, Mike, etc. pronto in 2012.

[IndianaPolitico]

If so, does the trail end with minimal cuts? We need to send reinforcements to support Rand, Mike, etc. pronto in 2012.
Agreed.

[AJ Antimony]

So... you guys are pissed that Lee said 'I will vote to raise the ceiling if we get a BBA?"

Um, didn't Rand sorta say the exact same thing?

[Napoleon's Shadow]

So... you guys are pissed that Lee said 'I will vote to raise the ceiling if we get a BBA?"

Um, didn't Rand sorta say the exact same thing?
I think the rub with some of the individuals here is that ML previously said he would never vote for the increased debt ceiling.

However, we all know it will never pass, so while ML has supposedly changed his phrasing a bit, he's still safe because he will still never voter for an increase in the debt ceiling.

[sailingaway]

$500 billion I thought. Did I miss a more recent proposal from Rand"s office?

Yeah, during the budget votes he was able to get an amendment up for the $200 billion. He didn't withdraw the other one, but no one was going for it and he wanted to see if he could at least get that. Didn't happen.

[DeadheadForPaul]

Most recent Freedom Watch says he will vote to raise the debt ceiling for a balanced budget amendment. This is not bad in of itself. EXCEPT that he previously said he would do no such thing. So Mike Lee is now officially a LIAR.

You haven't been following Mike Lee apparently

BBA from the start.

Stop libeling one of our best defenders of liberty on bad information and wild speculation

[anaconda]

So... you guys are pissed that Lee said 'I will vote to raise the ceiling if we get a BBA?"

Um, didn't Rand sorta say the exact same thing?

Rand never said he would not vote against raising the debt limit under any circumstances. He said, for example, that a BBA might be an acceptable compromise. Mike Lee said "I'm going to vote against raising the national debt ceiling." Now he says he would vote to raise it if there were a BBA. He changed his story. Rand didn't.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAcQuH5jfJ8&feature=player_embedded#at=17