Rand Paul Agrees w/ Dems - "The Republicans doubled the debt"

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by fivepoint, Sep 13, 2010.

  1. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #1

    Hopefully the Tea Party sticks to it's roots, continues to grow, defends against simple Republican Neo-Con (liberal-lite) infiltration, and holds it's soon-to-be elected Republican officials feet to the fire in working towards a fiscally conservative and small constitutional federal government once again.
     
  2. MattSepeta macrumors 65816

    MattSepeta

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2009
    Location:
    375th St. Y
    #2
    Hmmm....

    We need less "Tea-Party" and more "Libertarian."
     
  3. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #3
    Actually, we need more liberals. They are the ones with the historical debt reduction credentials.
     
  4. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #4
    We need fewer tea baggers and way fewer wanna be libertarians and more people who are willing to work together. I'm appalled that so many people feel that Reaganomics hasn't done enough for the rich. The Rush/Coulter/Beck/Gingrich Reality Distortion Field has led many Americans to believe that only the wealthy are deserving of tax cuts and although trickle down has clearly turned into an upwards flood, the belief prevails.

    Why?
     
  5. MattSepeta macrumors 65816

    MattSepeta

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2009
    Location:
    375th St. Y
    #5
    Honestly, I have faith in the economy eventually correcting itself. Sure, whichever party is in control will write some new measures and claim credit for the recovery when it does eventually correct.

    I am more concerned about conservative "Tea Partiers" that claim to support freedom, then in the next sentence espouse their anti-gay, pro-life, military-interventionist anti-freedom viewpoints.

    I am more concerned about liberal "Progressives" that claim to support freedom, then in the next sentence espouse their nanny-state, "we-know-better-than-you-do-and-are-not-afraid-to-regulate-anything" anti-freedom viewpoints.

    We can always fix a broken economy. Its a lot harder (I imagine) to reverse the social mindset that it is the governments job (No matter the level of government) to do crazy things such as banning salt in restaurants, toys in happy meals, talking on the phone while driving, etc...

    Don't get me wrong, I think that if a state wants to ban Salt from its restaurant and secure the "Most Bland State in the Union" award, that is up to them. I simply think that the collective mindset of the country is going to the birds. It blows my mind that people anywhere are ok with the Government banning foods or telling us how much our kids should weigh, or with the government deciding that two people should be denied rights due to their partners gender.

    Slippery slope here
     
  6. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #6
    The economy is not some sentient being capable of repairing itself when the very foundation we've placed it on over the last 2-3 decades is eroded away beneath it. We need to change our economics in this country and start making things again, preferably green tech and be the worlds leaders again.
     
  7. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #7
    China is taking the lead in something we've been talking about for decades. Why? Because Big Businesss has paid the GOP to oppose it.
     
  8. Sdashiki macrumors 68040

    Sdashiki

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Location:
    Behind the lens
    #8
    For a second I thought 5P had lost his mind...

    But apparently, like all the other topics started by him they are transparent and trite.

    So, you found an article about a guy you used to like, now you don't because he has an opinion which goes directly against yours.

    how convenient to say the Tea Party should stick to its roots when the "REAL" members just arent who you think or want them to be.

    So tied to one intangible entity that you can only feel how they tell you to. :rolleyes:
     
  9. fivepoint thread starter macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #9
    You're clearly confused, so let me help you out. I support Rand Paul and Ron Paul, true conservatives, far before I would any generic 'Republican' or any neo-con who are almost as likely as the liberals to raise government spending and debt. The Tea Party was started as an alternative to the Republicans who were perceived to be saying one thing and doing another. It was started in part because GW 'abandoned free market principles in order to save them.' It was started with more libertarian values than social conservative... over time it has taken on many different views, and there is no one viewpoint or one leader that the party represents.




    Um... see post above. Tea Party is the primary libertarian leaning conservative group of our time.




    Actually, we don't. Liberalism is what got us into this mess. Liberal Democrats, fiscally liberal Republicans. All big government big spenders spending like drunk sailors on shore leave.




    I agree with the rest of your post, but this part is off base. The Tea Party, first of all, does not stand for any of these views. It's purely an economic, small-government, fiscal conservative, etc. organization that makes no claims on these other issues. I agree that some social conservatism has infiltrated into the mainstream understanding of the Tea Party, but it's a falsehood. The Tea Party was started as an alternative to Republican Party because of many of these issues, because the Republicans haven't been trustworthy advocates of small government, low spending, low taxes, etc. in the past. True small government conservatives don't believe the government should have anything to do wtih gay marriage. They also are sick of interventionist foreign policies. Your addition of pro-life or pro-choice is interesting... since both sides of the conservative debate aim to defend liberty. The pro-choice argument protects the freedom of the woman to choose, the pro-life argument protects the freedom of the child to live.
     
  10. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #10
    The big "liberal" programs are going to be solvent for the next 75 years despite efforts by the right to defund and not support. On the other hand, all of a suddent, after Reagan was elected, we went from about 1 Trillion to 3+ trillion... It wasn't social programs. It was the military. Bust Jr. did the same thing. He did squat for social programs, but spent us into oblivion by cutting taxes for the wealtiest and spending like a drunken sailor on the military and wars.

    I can point to example after example of those on the right (including the pauls) that has led us into this position... Can you point to examples like that on the left? If so, show me a chart to counter this one.

    http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm

    (edit) Ron Paul has voted with a majority of his Republican colleagues 77.0% of the time during the current Congress.

    To y'all, FP, who think Ron is such a rebel and such an independent, here is a list of EVERY bill he voted on differently from the GOP. Everything else, he voted with the GOP!

    http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/p000583/votes/against-party/
     
  11. MattSepeta macrumors 65816

    MattSepeta

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2009
    Location:
    375th St. Y
    #11
    Oh please... Of all the "Tea Party" candidates that I have seen or checked out, I am yet to see one that has "Gay Rights" listed under their issues, and am also yet to see one that is publicly pro-choice.

    I understand and respect the movements views on economic matters, but I am having a very hard time differentiating them from the conservatives they are trying so hard to "throw out."

    I challenge you to show me a "Tea Party" candidate's "issues" page which supports gay rights, pro-choice, and non-interventionist policies.

    EDIT: IIRC The "Tea Party" is not a truly organized movement with an official website and everything. That makes it mighty hard to know what the "Tea Party Stands for" as you put it. This leaves me with only one choice: Look at the candidates who "stand for" the Tea Party. These candidates seem like republicans. The only difference is that these are often lesser-experienced republicans (Could be good or bad, depends.)
     
  12. fivepoint thread starter macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #12

    If you can't look at the situation honestly and know that both the Dems and the Republicans have contributed greatly to the National Debt (Obama being far and above the largest contributor), then you aren't analyzing the situation honestly and a discussion is meaningless. Dems love to point out how it's always a Republican in the White House when the deficit goes up in recent years, but most of those years also included the Democrats controlling at minimum of one of the houses of congress. This is by no means an attempt to shift blame off of the Republicans... the Republicans have proven themselves in past years to be nothing more than liberal-lite. Spending money hand over fist... contributing to big-government big spending ways... Again, that's why the Tea Party exists, because the Republican Parties constituents are fed up!
     
  13. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #13
    Ok, so point me to the spending outrages and excesses that the dems are responsible for.

    (edit) I know there are some and a billion here and a billion there add up, and eventually, we're talking real money, but history proves the recent GOP are the most fiscally irresponsible.
     
  14. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #14
    *cough*


    Bush started BOTH wars.
    Bush and the Republicans did the huge tax break for the rich that wasn't paid for thus incurring debt.

    Those two account for a vast majority of the debt. Obama had nothing to do with that.
     
  15. fivepoint thread starter macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #15
    Ummm.... like I said before:

    The Tea Party does not have a set of 'issues' and is a conglomerate of people with different views... with one thing in common like I stated before! Now, with the addition of a Tea Party Caucus you may begin to see something like this, but it doesn't exist as I know right now.

    BTW, many libertarians are pro-choice. I'm not, but it is in their official planks. There are many libertarians in the Tea Party. Most Libertarians I know also think that the government should not be remotely involved in marriage... so would fully support a church deciding to 'marry' a homosexual couple. Again, there are many libertarians in the Tea Party. Now, there are also many ultra-socially-conservatives who would be pro-life in the Tea Party as well... and many social liberals who would support gay marriage because they agree w/ the small government issues. The whole point here is that the Tea Party does not deal with these issues... only the economic and straight-forward size of government issues.
     
  16. fivepoint thread starter macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #16

    Apparently you haven't seen a federal budget past 2008.


    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  17. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #17
    I could compile a list of things that the tea party conglomerage seems to agree on.
     
  18. MattSepeta macrumors 65816

    MattSepeta

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2009
    Location:
    375th St. Y
    #18
    I read everything you wrote the first go around. I understand that the "Tea Party" gained momentum (Despite what big bad evil rich bastard was funding it) due to their views on economic policies, which I fully agree with. I also understand that these views do not include societal issues. I also understand that not every Tea Party supporter holds the same exact views.

    However, you must have your head in the sand to not realize that the VAST majority of "Tea Party" candidates are plain and simply conservative republicans.

    You can change my mind QUITE easily though. Show me a few "Tea Party" candidates whose platform includes "Gay Rights" or "Pro-Choice." Heck, show me even one!?

    Would I vote for somebody on the Tea Party ticket? Nope. Someone on the Libertarian Ticket? Yup.

    Until then, I am forced to realize that the Tea Party COULD have been a great thing, but it is not. It was taken over by the status-quo republicans simply trying to rebrand.
     
  19. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #19
    So, the 2009 budget passed by Bush is his, right? But even after the damage he did, by 2012, they project the deficits pretty close to 2008? And you think Obama is doing the wrong things? Do you not see the peak followed by a reversal? Do you even have a clue how to read a graph? (edit) And you're looking at projected 2009 "Obama" statistics based on spending post Bush. Where are things now?
     
  20. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #20
    What that Obama == bad.
     
  21. fivepoint thread starter macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #21
    Thank you for clarifying that you understood my points.
    Yes, I agree that many of the 'tea party' candidates are simply conservative republicans. However, I would also suggest that they are far more focused on cutting spending and bring the government back to it's constitutional roots that your average Republican. Look at Rand Paul and the other 'tea partiers' who are beating the more mainstream Republican opponents. They're doing so because the electorate doesn't want more of the same. They don't want big government advocates. Is it perfect, hardly. But it's far better than voting for classic R's.

    I frankly don't know what you mean by gay rights. I can point out many 'tea party' candidates who think the government shouldn't be involved in deciding marriage, heck I can name two of them with the last name Paul! No true small-government candidate would support the federal government telling individual states that they're required to marry homosexual couples. Unless you can find that authority somewhere in the constitution... I haven't been able to.

    As for 'pro-choice' again, there are many libertarians in the tea party, it won't take long to find one who's pro choice... but I don't find that to be a particularly pro-liberty position. Yes, the vast majority of them are pro-life, because I think they know that in addition to it being morally wrong, the state has a role to play in protecting the liberty of that child to live their life without being killed by someone before they're even able to defend themselves.

    BTW, there is no Tea Party ticket. It's not an actual 'party'.




    When are you going to realize that I'm not in the business of defending Bush. How many times to I have to criticize his big-government, big-spending, big-deficit policies before it'll sink in that I simply see him as a less bad version of Obama? A liberal-lite, Republican. Far from a fiscal conservative with a constitutional view of the role of government? You guys are so transparent... you can't argue the point, so you just say yeah, welll, neener neener because the last guy with an R next to his name spent a lot of money too!

    That's not the point! The point is that they all spend money they don't have! They all push the Federal government to do things it shouldn't!
     
  22. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #22
    You didn't address a single point he made. Not even one. This is why people don't take you seriously around here at all.
     
  23. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #23
    I will believe that when you support someone who isn't a Republican or someone who votes with them. Simple.

    Oh hey, here's a graph for you. Going way back, when costs went up, taxes went up. All the way until Reagan. When Clinton reversed the Reagan trend, things got better, until GWB.

    Every policy you advocate reduces taxes while there are still massive costs associated with government. Until the taxes are raised to pay down the debt, and reasonable reductions are agreed upon, then you are supporting the GOP.

    [​IMG]
     
  24. fivepoint thread starter macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #24
    Because it was so grossly ridiculous. He said that deficits were predicted to go back to Bush-level amounts... look at the charts, read the CBO if you get the chance. It's either a straight-up lie, or he just doesn't know what he's talking about... in either event, how does it benefit me to argue the already proven point?



    Exactly. The country needs to have a national discussion on what they want the role of government to be. If you want the government to take care of you from cradle to grave... then fine, lets have the argument and then you can attempt to amend the constitution to make that a reality. If on the other hand, you want the government to simply stay out of our way, provide for basic and fundamental government functions such as basic infrastructure and the common defense, but generally serve to maximize liberty, protect the free market, and otherwise leave us alone... then all we have to do is throw the bums out and return to a more constitutional federal government.
     
  25. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #25
    Here's where I get angry at you. We can have a government that provides a safety net for our poorest, our elderly, and those who served our country without bankrupting ourselves. We are the greatest nation in the world, and the ONLY reason we can't do that easily is because fools spent too much on the military and wars we didn't need.

    Do we need to punish those who have the least in favor of the richest of the rich merely because almost 50% of those who voted elected morons? (edit) Not morons, republicans.
     

Share This Page