Must Read: Ron Paul Shreds "Cut, Cap, And Balance",And Basically Calls House Leaders Liars

[sailingaway]

http://www.businessinsider.com/ron-paul-slams-cut-cap-and-balance-2011-7?utm_source=twbutton&utm_medium=social&utm_term=&utm_content=&utm_campaign=politics

[Lothario]

why was Rand so supportive of it - calling himself a 'moderate' ?

[headhawg7]

At least one person in DC that will stand up and do what is right no matter the political consequences. Just another reason that he is the right person at the right time to lead this country.

[cindy25]

interesting that Bachmann also voted against it; I didn't expect that

[Patrick Henry]

She is simply following Paul. If he would have voted for it, she would have as well IMO.
interesting that Bachmann also voted against it; I didn't expect that

[pacelli]

walter jones NC also voted against it.

[TheDriver]

Cut, cap and balance is a terrible idea--rolls eyes.

[Romulus]

why was Rand so supportive of it - calling himself a 'moderate' ?

Yeah, I didn't like that much.

[MRoCkEd]

Justin Amash said this about it:

Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and I disagree with Ron Paul on this matter. I will provide you with a point-by-point response to Ron Paul's statement as soon as possible.

[Bruno]

She is simply following Paul. If he would have voted for it, she would have as well IMO.

Probably. "What would Ron Paul do?"

[Feeding the Abscess]

I'm so glad a rookie member of Congress who voted against troop withdrawals in Afghanistan and Europe because he couldn't talk to generals on the ground to assess the situation and get their input, and three members who are advocating raising taxes* and supporting unbalanced budgets, know better than Ron effing Paul about how to balance the budget and reduce spending.

Oh, and the Con, Crap, and Bull gives a blank check to the war apparatus. I'll gladly refute Amash's crap on his page whenever he posts it.

*Spending will be capped at 20% GDP. Taxes are currently at 15% of GDP. Only time taxes have been near or at 20% of GDP is when Bill Clinton was president - which, as we know, was a presidency that oversaw higher tax rates than currently exist. Anyone supporting the Strut, Crap, and Never Balance bill is a liar who supports unbalanced budgets and/or higher taxes. Don't take it from me, Ron Paul said it too:


First, it purports to eventually balance the budget without cutting military spending, Social Security, or Medicare. This is impossible. These three budget items already cost nearly $1 trillion apiece annually. This means we can cut every other area of federal spending to zero and still have a $3 trillion budget. Since annual federal tax revenues almost certainly will not exceed $2.5 trillion for several years, this Act cannot balance the budget under any plausible scenario.

[Badger Paul]

He had a heck of House floor speech.

[malkusm]

I'm so glad a rookie member of Congress who voted against troop withdrawals in Afghanistan and Europe because he couldn't talk to generals on the ground to assess the situation and get their input, and three members who are advocating raising taxes* and supporting unbalanced budgets, know better than Ron effing Paul about how to balance the budget and reduce spending.

Dude, we've been over this about 10 times already. He voted against an amendment that would have capped spending in Afghanistan for the fiscal year. Problem was, that number had already been spent, leaving no money to do anything (including withdraw the troops). He later voted for an Afghanistan withdrawal bill (about a week later).

And then there's this: http://img.votesmart.org/speech_detail.php?sc_id=682606


In anticipation of President Obama's expected troop withdrawal announcement Wednesday, Representatives John Garamendi (D-CA), Justin Amash (R-MI), Barbara Lee (D-CA), and Walter Jones (R-NC) today are leading a bipartisan Congressional delegation in sending a letter to President Obama urging a significant and sizable withdrawal from Afghanistan.

...

The American public is weary of a war with no end in sight, and we call upon you to bring the longest war in our nation's history to a close. Beginning in July of this year, we urge a swift, significant and sizable drawdown of U.S. troops from Afghanistan.

But of course, for those just searching for anything to nitpick, we'll be sure to call you.

[malkusm]

And also this:


Freshman Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) said he believes Thursday's resolution calling for the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, and a separate bill aimed at blocking federal funds to NPR, were both unconstitutional, which is why he voted "present" on both bills.

Regarding the Afghanistan resolution, sponsored by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), Amash said he supports the intent of the measure, but said that, "because of the way the resolution is written, it is unconstitutional and I cannot vote for it."

Amash said the resolution uses a mechanism in the War Powers Resolution that allows Congress to order the president to withdraw forces from abroad, but he said this "legislative veto" is unconstitutional because the Constitution requires all legislation that has the effect of law to "be presented to the president."

"The War Powers Resolution's legislative veto attempts to perform an end-run around the Constitution's presentment requirement," Amash said. "Every president since 1973 has viewed the legislative veto as unconstitutional, and in a different context, the Supreme Court held the mechanism violates the Constitution."

[Feeding the Abscess]

Dude, we've been over this about 10 times already. He voted against an amendment that would have capped spending in Afghanistan for the fiscal year. Problem was, that number had already been spent, leaving no money to do anything (including withdraw the troops). He later voted for an Afghanistan withdrawal bill (about a week later).

And then there's this: http://img.votesmart.org/speech_detail.php?sc_id=682606



But of course, for those just searching for anything to nitpick, we'll be sure to call you.

The bolded section of my post was a direct quote from him to me in his Facebook post. Quibble all you want, those were his words.

[wgadget]

I thought RP signed something in support of CC&B?

[Feeding the Abscess]

I thought RP signed something in support of CC&B?

His campaign signed a pledge to cut spending, cap spending, and balance the budget. He did not sign a pledge to support a fraudulent piece of DC-speak nonsense.

[wgadget]

Quoth Ron Paul:

First, it purports to eventually balance the budget without cutting military spending, Social Security, or Medicare. This is impossible. These three budget items already cost nearly $1 trillion apiece annually. This means we can cut every other area of federal spending to zero and still have a $3 trillion budget. Since annual federal tax revenues almost certainly will not exceed $2.5 trillion for several years, this Act cannot balance the budget under any plausible scenario.

Second, it further entrenches the ludicrous beltway concept of discretionary vs. nondiscretionary spending. America faces a fiscal crisis, and we must seize the opportunity once and for all to slay Washington's sacred cows-- including defense contractors and entitlements. All spending must be deemed discretionary and reexamined by Congress each year. To allow otherwise is pure cowardice.


Third, the Act applies the nonsensical narrative about a "Global War on Terror" to justify exceptions to its spending caps. Since this war is undeclared, has no definite enemies, no clear objectives, and no metric to determine victory, it is by definition endless. Congress will never balance the budget until we reject the concept of endless wars.

Finally, and most egregiously, this Act ignores the real issue: total spending by government. As Milton Friedman famously argued, what we really need is a constitutional amendment to limit taxes and spending, not simply to balance the budget. What we need is a dramatically smaller federal government; if we achieve this a balanced budget will take care of itself.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/ron-paul-slams-cut-cap-and-balance-2011-7?utm_source=twbutton&utm_medium=social&utm_term=&utm_content=&utm_campaign=politics#ixzz1SeN2QCPU

[malkusm]

I'm so glad a rookie member of Congress who voted against troop withdrawals in Afghanistan and Europe because he couldn't talk to generals on the ground to assess the situation and get their input


The bolded section of my post was a direct quote from him to me in his Facebook post. Quibble all you want, those were his words.

These were the quotes you referenced in early March which you take issue with:


"With respect to the military amendments, my concerns were different. They appeared to be properly drafted. There was certainly a lot of congressional debate on those issues before I entered Congress. Any objections were particular to me and my lack of knowledge on the subject. The procedures were fine, but I wasn't certain I fully agreed with the objectives (how much to cut, how quickly to withdraw troops, etc.) In such cases, I am more comfortable voting "no" than "present." "

"There was also a vote to cut European troop levels from 100,000 to 35,000, which I opposed. I support cutting European troop levels (perhaps even to less than 35,000) but not without a debate and input from commanders."

Since then, he's:
Introduced his own Afghanistan withdrawal bill;
Introduced his own bill to require a Congressional vote on Obama's intervention in Libya;
Voted "yes" on a different troop withdrawal bill

So, again, you can nitpick and kick and scream about it, but when someone votes against my beliefs and cites Constitutional, procedural, or logistical concerns, or hasn't had time to read the bill, or whatever ... and clearly articulates that to his constituents, along with where he stands on the position ...

[Feeding the Abscess]

He had no procedural issues with the bill, he read the bill, and raised no Constitutional concerns regarding the Nadler amendment. My point is this:

He clearly did not have a vision of what his foreign policy was at that point; at least not to the extent that he felt comfortable voting on something without consulting someone else. Which is fine. It shows he was still ironing out his positions on issues.

What is not fine is to criticize the greatest member in the modern Congress for not agreeing to a ridiculous, as if Amash is somehow privy to some grand revelation that Ron Paul is not.

[malkusm]

Also of note, I was referring to the Nadler amendment, which would reduce Afghan spending from 100+ billion to 10 billion, the amount needed to remove troops from the region.

Right, that's what I was referring to as well:


Amash says that in both cases his problem wasn’t with the underlying policy of withdrawing from Afghanistan, but with the means that would be used to do so. The first amendment “cut funding to a level that Rep. Nadler (D-N.Y.) claimed would allow for safe withdrawal.” Amash said he needed something more than Nadler’s assertions to know if the funding level would truly achieve that result. Meanwhile, Kucinich’s proposal relied on the “legislative veto” in the War Powers Resolution, which Amash deems unconstitutional. Amash has introduced his own bill calling for withdrawal from Afghanistan. He has also sponsored legislation to halt U.S. air strikes against Libya.

I suppose that you can go both ways on that, saying that "any spending cuts are good spending cuts," but why take the word of a New York Democrat on what number is appropriate to fund troop withdrawal?

[Feeding the Abscess]

Right, that's what I was referring to as well:



I suppose that you can go both ways on that, saying that "any spending cuts are good spending cuts," but why take the word of a New York Democrat on what number is appropriate to fund troop withdrawal?

Who cares what party someone belongs to? Republicans have proven time and time again to be big government apologists; to attack an amendment based on someone's party affiliation is absurd.

[Feeding the Abscess]

And, once more, Amash's own words to me:


With respect to the military amendments, my concerns were different. They appeared to be properly drafted. There was certainly a lot of congressional debate on those issues before I entered Congress. Any objections were particular to me and my lack of knowledge on the subject. The procedures were fine, but I wasn't certain I fully agreed with the objectives (how much to cut, how quickly to withdraw troops, etc.) In such cases, I am more comfortable voting "no" than "present."

Which supports everything I've stated in this thread about that vote.

Which is distracting from the core issue:

Ron Paul is correct in opposing the fraudulent Cut, Cap, and Never Balance bill. For Amash to call him out as wrong on this issue is perplexing. At best.

[MRoCkEd]

What is not fine is to criticize the greatest member in the modern Congress for not agreeing to a ridiculous, as if Amash is somehow privy to some grand revelation that Ron Paul is not.
He didn't criticize him or "call him out" ... People posted Ron Paul's comments on his Facebook, and he responded by saying he disagrees and will issue an explanation.

[angelatc]

He didn't criticize him or "call him out" ... People posted Ron Paul's comments on his Facebook, and he responded by saying he disagrees and will issue an explanation.

Yes. I am disappointed, because I desperately wanted to see a united front, but until I hear the details of his position I'm not going to say anything. (Except this.)

[sailingaway]

why was Rand so supportive of it - calling himself a 'moderate' ?

The Senate version might be different. There were amendments in the House, for example, taking the 2/3 requirement to raise taxes and the debt limit out of the Constitutional amendment, etc (at least that is what I have heard. I haven't seen the final bill).

[sailingaway]

Cut, cap and balance is a terrible idea--rolls eyes.

The pledge is fine. They made significant changes in the House version of the bill.

[sailingaway]

I thought RP signed something in support of CC&B?

Just as the 'Patriot' Act is not patriotic, they took the NAME of a popular pledge which Ron was first to sign, and made it a terrible bill.

[Chieppa1]

Just as the 'Patriot' Act is not patriotic, they took the NAME of a popular pledge which Ron was first to sign, and made it a terrible bill.

This.