Tell me about Ted Cruz.

[unknown]

Looks like he got an endorsement from RP but he also got an endorsement from Frothy? :(

[Jeremy]

Santorum endorsed Rand eventually too. Once his favorite person loses, he goes to the other side.

[Matt Collins]

Here is what Reason said about Cruz during the election:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?394252-What-Reason-Magazine-says-about-Ted-Cruz&highlight=reason+cruz

[kathy88]

He refused to endorse Ron.

[TokenLibertarianGuy]

He refused to endorse Ron.

Endorsing Ron would have hurt Cruz. I'd much rather he not have endorsed Ron and have him as Rand's biggest ally after Mike Lee in the Senate.

[PatriotOne]

Here is what Reason said about Cruz during the election:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?394252-What-Reason-Magazine-says-about-Ted-Cruz&highlight=reason+cruz

So Rand's comment about 17% flat tax in his speech yesterday didn't come right out of the blue. Maybe a pet project of Cruz's he's been working with him on behind the scenes?

From your link....

Cruz has talked vaguely about his support for a “fairer” or “flatter” tax system while getting behind a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

[The Gold Standard]

He's a warmonger that I would never personally support, but I appreciate any help he offers on domestic issues until we can get a better guy in there.

[Slutter McGee]

He's a warmonger that I would never personally support, but I appreciate any help he offers on domestic issues until we can get a better guy in there.

I honestly think that is still yet to be seen. Id like the context of those comments. He did have to win an election in Texas.

Either way, I don't blame those who are wary of him, but as of now I am really liking him.

Slutter McGee

[compromise]

Santorum endorsed Rand eventually too. Once his favorite person loses, he goes to the other side.

Can you source this?

[compromise]

He refused to endorse Ron.

As did a lot of people, even one of Ron's closest House allies, Jimmy Duncan.

[sailingaway]

Ron didn't endorse him until the very end, when it was between two people, the other being much worse. He seemed to me to do it for Rand to have a Senate coalition, his comments were that he was someone Rand could work with. Cruz is good on NDAA and the FEd, voted for Ron's audit, and we are learning his other views. He is more Jim De Mint in some ways than Ron Paul, but I couldn't tell you the exact boundaries. I don't know if he has De Mint's strength of character, which is one of DM's best features, yet, though. His wife was CFR and on the North American Partnership whosis, but he is apparently known for fighting local implementation of Agenda 21... I don't know that from my own knowledge but people here have said that.

[Matt Collins]

So Rand's comment about 17% flat tax in his speech yesterday didn't come right out of the blue. Maybe a pet project of Cruz's he's been working with him on behind the scenes?

From your link....

Cruz has talked vaguely about his support for a “fairer” or “flatter” tax system while getting behind a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

Rand is like us on taxation, but he uses popular language to help trumpet things that people like to hear (BBA is one as well as term limits).

[sailingaway]

Rand said running for Senate that he'd be open to anything that 'lowered the burden' but the question is always 'on who'? My problem with some of Rand's compromises are that they are with the corporatists putting corporate welfare first as a priority. (I'm thinking of stuff he works on with Graham which I am very leery of) but each plan has to be looked at on its merits when it comes out, imho.

[jbauer]

I'm coming around to Cruz for standing with Rand.

As for the 17%, thats a tax increase for most Americans. If you figured out the average persons marginal tax rate its WELL BELOW 17%. You'd have to be taking in a decent way into the 25% bracket to have a marginal rate at 17%. So for a married couple with 2 kids you'd be talking in excess of $200k'ish a year (I haven't done the math). To get your marginal bracket to that level.

[RonRocks]

I'm coming around to Cruz for standing with Rand.

As for the 17%, thats a tax increase for most Americans. If you figured out the average persons marginal tax rate its WELL BELOW 17%. You'd have to be taking in a decent way into the 25% bracket to have a marginal rate at 17%. So for a married couple with 2 kids you'd be talking in excess of $200k'ish a year (I haven't done the math). To get your marginal bracket to that level.

I was also disappointed in Rand's suggestion for a 17% flat income tax. I think GJ's sales tax + a $200 probate for living expenses was a better proposal as it doesn't penalize the poorest as much as the flat tax. Plus, it would do more to get rid of the IRS more than Rand's proposal.

[economics102]

It's hard to argue with Cruz' actions. For a freshman senator, he's been a powerful ally on several important issues.

In the sphere of forming coalitions on issues where we can find agreement, as Ron always talks about, Cruz seems pretty good.

Aside from simply voting with us on various issues and joining Rand's filibuster, he's clearly very smart, if you watch his questioning of AG Holder or listen to some of his filibuster speech.

Never forget, Audit the Fed sailed through the House in large part because of Ron's alliance with Alan Grayson, and his good relationship with Barney Frank, even though Frank opposed the bill.

I do wonder if Cruz' combative tone is counter-productive for him, and for us, but I can't exactly blame him for the fact that Diane Feinstein gets angry when engaged in intelligent dialogue about the 2nd amendment.

[Christian Liberty]

I was also disappointed in Rand's suggestion for a 17% flat income tax. I think GJ's sales tax + a $200 probate for living expenses was a better proposal as it doesn't penalize the poorest as much as the flat tax. Plus, it would do more to get rid of the IRS more than Rand's proposal.

I don't like FairTax either. Too much. So is 17% of everything...

Ron wants to abolish the income tax and increase it with nothing. I personally don't care exactly what type of tax we have but it needs to be less than 10%. Ideally 5% with default and dramatically cut spending, like 90% cut. Not going to happen though, and Rand knows this. I guess he's doing what he can. Personally I don't care about "Tax reform" unless we're actually paying less.

[TaftFan]

I don't like FairTax either. Too much. So is 17% of everything...

Ron wants to abolish the income tax and increase it with nothing. I personally don't care exactly what type of tax we have but it needs to be less than 10%. Ideally 5% with default and dramatically cut spending, like 90% cut. Not going to happen though, and Rand knows this. I guess he's doing what he can. Personally I don't care about "Tax reform" unless we're actually paying less.

Keep in mind the Fair Tax as proposed is revenue neutral so that it can be more widely accepted. Obviously the rate can be changed up or down when it is in law.

Before we reduce revenue (not rates) we have to pay off all of this debt, unfortunately. Otherwise it will exacerbate our monetary crisis.

[talkingpointes]

As did a lot of people, even one of Ron's closest House allies, Jimmy Duncan.

But anyone we already care about, ? No, don't compromise, compromise.

[Aeroneous]

I was also disappointed in Rand's suggestion for a 17% flat income tax. I think GJ's sales tax + a $200 probate for living expenses was a better proposal as it doesn't penalize the poorest as much as the flat tax. Plus, it would do more to get rid of the IRS more than Rand's proposal.

I wouldn't necessarily say I was disappointed with his suggestion, but I do agree that a consumption tax would be superior. My wife and I aren't that far into the 25% bracket, and 17% would be a decrease for us. If we have to have the income tax, I would prefer that it be a flat rate across the board.

[talkingpointes]

I wouldn't necessarily say I was disappointed with his suggestion, but I do agree that a consumption tax would be superior. My wife and I aren't that far into the 25% bracket, and 17% would be a decrease for us. If we have to have the income tax, I would prefer that it be a flat rate across the board.

Consumption taxes would beg for a huge black market to free them; I can see it now ....

[Aeroneous]

Consumption taxes would beg for a huge black market to free them; I can see it now ....

Easy solution: War on Black Markets.

They will be eliminated before you can say, "Mission Accomplished."

[TaftFan]

Consumption taxes would beg for a huge black market to free them; I can see it now ....

The Fair Tax does exempt used items, so that is a good market for lower incomes to be exempt from right off the bat.

We still need to work on ending state taxes on those things though.

[Aeroneous]

The Fair Tax does exempt used items, so that is a good market for lower incomes to be exempt from right off the bat.

We still need to work on ending state taxes on those things though.

That's actually pretty cool.. I had no idea about that. I bet the number of pawn shops and thrift stores would grow tremendously.

[Number19]

I wouldn't necessarily say I was disappointed with his suggestion, but I do agree that a consumption tax would be superior. My wife and I aren't that far into the 25% bracket, and 17% would be a decrease for us. If we have to have the income tax, I would prefer that it be a flat rate across the board.Cruz is a radical Tea Party Conservative who is a firebrand of a speaker and not afraid of confrontation with Democrats or Republicans. That said should not be considered totally within the Liberty Movement. I think he's solid in Texas and will be around for a while.

That said, we also have a old/new Congressman - Steve Stockman - who might be someone to pay attention to.

[Aeroneous]

Cruz is a radical Tea Party Conservative who is a firebrand of a speaker and not afraid of confrontation with Democrats or Republicans. That said should not be considered totally within the Liberty Movement. I think he's solid in Texas and will be around for a while.

That said, we also have a old/new Congressman - Steve Stockman - who might be someone to pay attention to.

I have to admit that I am not entirely familiar with his voting history or platform. I was on a three week work trip in Dallas during the election, and Cruz was all I kept hearing about on the news.

I'm reserving my judgement for how he acts in the Senate. Thus far, I welcome him as a friend to the liberty movement. Perhaps he isn't the living reincarnation of Thomas Jefferson, but I think we could easily consider him to be an ally. Obviously he could prove me wrong, but I think he has filled that role so far. As much as I would love 100 Ron Pauls in the Senate, I'm just happy to see some growing support.

[Pisces]

Ron endorsed Cruz before it was just a two man race with Dewhurst. I remember that some Paul supporters were upset that he didn't endorse Glenn Addison, who had endorsed him. I think Cruz is much better than most teocons on the Constitution and civil liberties. He even said in his remarks at the Judiciary committee hearing on Feinstein's assault weapons ban that he voted against a study on the effect of movie and tv violence on gun crimes because of his belief in the 1st amendment. I don't think a Michelle Bachmann or Allen West would have made this vote.

I think where his foreign policy goes wrong is in his extreme pro-Israel stance. I wish he was more neutral, as it is, it worries me that he can be convinced to support preemptive war with Iran. I'm keeping an open mind about him though.

[sailingaway]

Ron endorsed Cruz before it was just a two man race with Dewhurst. I remember that some Paul supporters were upset that he didn't endorse Glenn Addison, who had endorsed him. I think Cruz is much better than most teocons on the Constitution and civil liberties. He even said in his remarks at the Judiciary committee hearing on Feinstein's assault weapons ban that he voted against a study on the effect of movie and tv violence on gun crimes because of his belief in the 1st amendment. I don't think a Michelle Bachmann or Allen West would have made this vote.

I think where his foreign policy goes wrong is in his extreme pro-Israel stance. I wish he was more neutral, as it is, it worries me that he can be convinced to support preemptive war with Iran. I'm keeping an open mind about him though.

Well, if any of these bills come up for a vote we'll get some information: http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2013/03/13/same-old-stuff-from-aipac/

[anaconda]

He's a warmonger that I would never personally support, but I appreciate any help he offers on domestic issues until we can get a better guy in there.

We'll have to see how Ted votes when the military-industrial complex's bottom line is at issue.

[RonRocks]

That's another 'compromise' we have to accept to be on board with Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, they're gaga over Israel, almost to the point of being Israel firsters..sigh. And then there's the slightly social con. views, as well as Rand's tiptoeing around the drone issue, and almost ACCEPTING to the fact that we're killing civilians overseas and that's okay because its a war(paraphrasing here). And not as much howling about the indefinite detention issue, Rand went soft, used it as filler for his 13hrs, then the flat tax, heck I'd take Cain's 999 BS over this..sigh

I'm already having withdrawals of Ron's pure stance on EVERY important issue. So, what do we have to look forward to with Cruz? Another vote on Audit the Fed? Hooray, as if it's just not a politically opportunist vote to take. I can not for the life of me, get excited about Rand and his new BFF. Rand's a moderate libertarian at best, and Cruz, well..possibly an opportunistic and clever lawyer. Meet the new bosses.. Starting to look a whole lot like the old bosses.

[TaftFan]

And not as much howling about the indefinite detention issue, Rand went soft..sigh..


Where have you been?

[RonRocks]

Where have you been?

I actually watched most of Rand's filibuster. I know he definitely mentioned it, but there was no urgency, no immediacy about it when he had he chance to be interviewed by a dozen tv/radio shows. It's a bit too much pandering to neo-cons, and guess what happens when you do that? You lose the independent and liberal/civil libertarian core of Ron's supporters. I give Rand props for his votes, his filibuster, all of that. But he has the spotlight on him, and it's just more divisive talk about Obama this or that.

Ron NEVER did that, which is why he appealed to so many young, and what most people would consider 'liberals'. Bring people together, that was the message. I'm just getting it all off my chest and ranting here, so I apologize. I'd almost have to cover my nose and vote for Rand in 2016, as much as I hate to say it.

[TaftFan]

I actually watched most of Rand's filibuster. I know he definitely mentioned it, but there was no urgency, no immediacy about it when he had he chance to be interviewed by a dozen tv/radio shows. It's a bit too much pandering to neo-cons, and guess what happens when you do that? You lose the independent and liberal/civil libertarian core of Ron's supporters. I give Rand props for his votes, his filibuster, all of that. But he has the spotlight on him, and it's just more divisive talk about Obama this or that.

Ron NEVER did that, which is why he appealed to so many young, and what most people would consider 'liberals'. Bring people together, that was the message. I'm just getting it all off my chest and ranting here, so I apologize. I'd almost have to cover my nose and vote for Rand in 2016, as much as I hate to say it.

When indefinite detention was the issue Rand spent a lot of time on it.

[Feeding the Abscess]

So Rand's comment about 17% flat tax in his speech yesterday didn't come right out of the blue. Maybe a pet project of Cruz's he's been working with him on behind the scenes?

From your link....

Cruz has talked vaguely about his support for a “fairer” or “flatter” tax system while getting behind a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

Rand has put the 17 percent rate in his last two budgets.

[Slutter McGee]

I actually watched most of Rand's filibuster. I know he definitely mentioned it, but there was no urgency, no immediacy about it when he had he chance to be interviewed by a dozen tv/radio shows. It's a bit too much pandering to neo-cons, and guess what happens when you do that? You lose the independent and liberal/civil libertarian core of Ron's supporters. I give Rand props for his votes, his filibuster, all of that. But he has the spotlight on him, and it's just more divisive talk about Obama this or that.

Ron NEVER did that, which is why he appealed to so many young, and what most people would consider 'liberals'. Bring people together, that was the message. I'm just getting it all off my chest and ranting here, so I apologize. I'd almost have to cover my nose and vote for Rand in 2016, as much as I hate to say it.

I think Rand actually wants to win though.

Slutter McGee

[T.hill]

I actually watched most of Rand's filibuster. I know he definitely mentioned it, but there was no urgency, no immediacy about it when he had he chance to be interviewed by a dozen tv/radio shows. It's a bit too much pandering to neo-cons, and guess what happens when you do that? You lose the independent and liberal/civil libertarian core of Ron's supporters. I give Rand props for his votes, his filibuster, all of that. But he has the spotlight on him, and it's just more divisive talk about Obama this or that.

Ron NEVER did that, which is why he appealed to so many young, and what most people would consider 'liberals'. Bring people together, that was the message. I'm just getting it all off my chest and ranting here, so I apologize. I'd almost have to cover my nose and vote for Rand in 2016, as much as I hate to say it.

Rand and Ron agree on 99% of the issues, and really the 1% Rand disagrees with isn't necessarily inconsistent with libertarian ideology. As you said Rand's voting record is solid, but Rand isn't Ron, hes a different man with a different personality and a different approach. Rand has also actively engaged in civil liberty issues over and over again and openly espousing praise for Israel is also not inconsistent with libertarian ideology. Openly supporting any country, you could say.

It's very important to recognize Rand has not lied using his own approach, which really is only narrowing conversations and breaking-down the issues. It's really irrelevant whether he propagates the entire libertarian platform every chance he gets or not.

[RonRocks]

I think Rand actually wants to win though.

Slutter McGee

Winning while slipping on the most important issues? How about no more Israel pandering, no more old Republican 'broaden the base' tax reform, no more accepting of pre-emptive wars (Cruz) to 'protect our interests or Israel'? These issues are very repulsive to the more 'liberal' or Blue Republican minded. Good luck winning the election with teocons and us die-hards while alienating the core principles which made Ron so appealing in the first place.

[anaconda]

Meet the new bosses.. Starting to look a whole lot like the old bosses.

Did the old boss filibuster for 13 hours over due process? Rail against the Patriot Act? Indefinite detention? All foreign aid? Executive commitment of troops unilaterally? Object incessantly to bills set to pass under suspension, forcing debate and roll calls? Say all regulations need to sunset, only to renew if specifically voted for? etc. etc.?

[T.hill]

Did the old boss filibuster for 13 hours over due process? Rail against the Patriot Act? Indefinite detention? All foreign aid? etc. etc.?

Even advocating to de-authorize AUMF

[RonRocks]

Did the old boss filibuster for 13 hours over due process? Rail against the Patriot Act? Indefinite detention? All foreign aid? Executive commitment of troops unilaterally? Object incessantly to bills set to pass under suspension? etc. etc.?

I did say Rand was great in his filibuster.. Rail against the Patriot Act/NDAA? Yes, but that's my issue, he could have gotten tough on those issues, especially this week. Instead, we got a 'well, America is not a battle zone..those other places are, so yeah..its okay over there'. All foreign aid? Right! More like to those darn pesky muslim countries like Egypt because they're burning our flag. I want you to tell me where he mentions Israel, our biggest welfare queen. Ron laid it down in plain terms, no foreign aid to ANYONE, period!

[T.hill]

Rand Paul went to Israel and in a speech said that America cannot continue to keep giving aid to other countries, even Israel itself. In the filibuster he narrowed the discussion to certain issues, but it doesn't mean he compromised.

[RonRocks]

'Any Attack On Israel Will Be Treated As An Attack On The United States' -- Rand Paul

Hmm, why does Israel get to have this special privilege? This is the crux of it.. no one pays taxes to the US there, do they? A small slip on principle here, a slip there, and next thing you know, we've come full circle.

[T.hill]

'Any Attack On Israel Will Be Treated As An Attack On The United States' -- Rand Paul

Hmm, why does Israel get to have this special privilege? This is the crux of it.. no one pays taxes to the US there, do they? A small slip on principle here, a slip there, and next thing you know, we've come full circle.

That's a legitimate concern, I can't contest that.

[T.hill]

'Any Attack On Israel Will Be Treated As An Attack On The United States' -- Rand Paul

Hmm, why does Israel get to have this special privilege? This is the crux of it.. no one pays taxes to the US there, do they? A small slip on principle here, a slip there, and next thing you know, we've come full circle.

However I am just pointing out that the majority of your concerns are largely unfounded.

[RonRocks]

However I am just pointing out that the majority of your concerns are largely unfounded.

Do you remember May 2007? The infamous Paul smackdown of Guliani.
And who did Ron get to back him up? Michael Schuer, Ex head of the BL unit.. Remember what he said? Our support of Israel is the cause of the blowback and the anger in the Muslim world, the biggest reason there could be more terrorist attacks.

What about 17% flat income tax on someone earning $20,000 Gross pay? Will that give the poorest amongst us more liberty or less? Consumption tax is one thing, and I think it's pretty fair, because it's transparent every time you go to the store, and you have a choice. But this? The government takes even more from the poorest, with coercion? How about taking less from everyone? Money doesn't come easy to the lowest earners. These are two HUGE issues, not my idea of libertarianism.

[itshappening]

'Any Attack On Israel Will Be Treated As An Attack On The United States' -- Rand Paul

Hmm, why does Israel get to have this special privilege? This is the crux of it.. no one pays taxes to the US there, do they? A small slip on principle here, a slip there, and next thing you know, we've come full circle.

Brian Doherty of Reason suggested Rand is trying to blunt neocon attacks by giving such a statement as he believes they successfully painted Ron as anti-semetic due to not showing sufficient support for Israel.

Cruz is a bit of a neocon...

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/ted-cruzs-foreign-policy-and-the-paul-demint-caucus/

Sounds like he wants a confrontation with Iran

[itshappening]

I did say Rand was great in his filibuster.. Rail against the Patriot Act/NDAA? Yes, but that's my issue, he could have gotten tough on those issues, especially this week. Instead, we got a 'well, America is not a battle zone..those other places are, so yeah..its okay over there'. All foreign aid? Right! More like to those darn pesky muslim countries like Egypt because they're burning our flag. I want you to tell me where he mentions Israel, our biggest welfare queen. Ron laid it down in plain terms, no foreign aid to ANYONE, period!

You need to understand the people Rand is talking to... he's talking to "conservatives" not a libertarian convention.

He's got them cheering to end foreign aid. Ha! They've been punked. He does it by highlighting that the aid is going to some terrible regimes and anti-semetic ones too. Supporters of Israel are starting to see the stupidity of it.

Rand is also talking to neocon talk show hosts and interviewers. He's not going to go on some libertarian crusade. He's trying to win the GOP nomination. He does it in a subtle way.

Ron laid it down in plain terms but he never got close to the nomination. Conservatives would overlook him and choose anyone but him.. Santorum, Gingrich, Romney, it didn't matter. They managed to paint him as anti-Israel. Rand wants to sound like a dear friend of Israel.

[sailingaway]

This thread is about Cruz, right?

[Bastiat's The Law]

The third best senator we have.

[PatriotOne]

The third best senator we have.

I hope so. I really, really do.

[Christian Liberty]

Do you remember May 2007? The infamous Paul smackdown of Guliani.
And who did Ron get to back him up? Michael Schuer, Ex head of the BL unit.. Remember what he said? Our support of Israel is the cause of the blowback and the anger in the Muslim world, the biggest reason there could be more terrorist attacks.

What about 17% flat income tax on someone earning $20,000 Gross pay? Will that give the poorest amongst us more liberty or less? Consumption tax is one thing, and I think it's pretty fair, because it's transparent every time you go to the store, and you have a choice. But this? The government takes even more from the poorest, with coercion? How about taking less from everyone? Money doesn't come easy to the lowest earners. These are two HUGE issues, not my idea of libertarianism.

I'll take a flat tax of more like 5%. Cut the freaking spending. Rand is kind of failing there...

I mean, he's a conservative with an actually sane foreign policy. He's going to get my vote. But he's still disappointing me on a few issues, including this one and the Israel thing.

[cocrehamster]

I'll take a flat tax of more like 5%. Cut the freaking spending. Rand is kind of failing there...

I mean, he's a conservative with an actually sane foreign policy. He's going to get my vote. But he's still disappointing me on a few issues, including this one and the Israel thing.

His budget balances in 5 years, I'm OK with 17% flat for 5 years and once the budget is balanced it can be cut as revenue increases wit GDP, or even cut before its balanced as long as it stays on track.

[randpaul2016]

Santorum endorsed Rand eventually too. Once his favorite person loses, he goes to the other side.


source?

[TokenLibertarianGuy]

source?

I've only seen that Santorum endorsed Grayson.

[Pisces]

If you have time to listen to a 36 minute interview, I think you can learn more about Cruz from this interview. It starts out with Hagel and Iran but after that it gets better.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvBdZBl4u7I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvBdZBl4u7I