Posted under Economics & Election 2016 & Rand Paul & Republican Party
Not every Republican is wussing out on the debt limit. Rand Paul isn’t.
Senator Rand Paul says he plans to vote against raising the nation’s debt limit as leverage to force the White House into budget reform…
“I’m not in favor of raising the debt ceiling unless we have significant budgetary reform which shows we have changed our ways and we’re going to begin to balance the budget,” Paul said.
Rand Paul says President Obama’s refusal to negotiate over the debt ceiling simply means he’s not going to reduce spending or the government.
“I don’t think the President is accurate when he says, ‘Oh, we have to pay our bills’ because raising the debt ceiling doesn’t pay your bills. It pays the interest on your bills and you keep accumulating more,” Paul said.
C Bowen on 19 Jan 2013 at 11:34 pm #
When you know your comrades are going to cave, it isn’t all that gutsy–what I do admire is this part: “It pays the interest on your bills and you keep accumulating more.”
Though Ron Paul was better when he noted that the Fed’s ownership of the debt (‘destroy the ~$2 trillion in bonds the Fed owns) should just be eliminated from the debt, providing plenty more room with the debt ceiling–Congress can do that.
A more cynical chap might suggest that Rand Paul is deflecting attention…
Tom Millican on 20 Jan 2013 at 8:02 pm #
The Paul’s have gained much fame for their public outcry for auditing the FED but no where in real terms have they said that the FED must go. Eight times during our history the U.S. used debt free money more commonly called the “Greenback.” How simple it would be to not only get rid of our debt but to do away with a National Debt altogether; by simply doing away with the FED and replacing it with the U.S. Treasury. Everybody in America looks for deals and especially if they can bypass the middle man. Dy doing away with the FED we will be getting rid of the middle man in the issuance of our own money. Thus the U.S. would never again have a National Debt.
RedPhillips on 20 Jan 2013 at 8:40 pm #
Tom, it is absolutely wrong to say that Ron Paul has never said that we should get rid of the Fed. He routinely calls the Fed unconstitutional. Auditing the Fed is legislation that would start us down that path by exposing the slight of hand that is inherent in central banking.
Obviously Ron Paul’s alternative of hard money and free banking is different than your Greenback solution, but that doesn’t mean he has never said we should shut down the Fed.
BTW, even though I am not a Greenbacker, I think the Austrians would be well served to make the distinction between debt money and fiat money that Greenbackers make. The more you exposed the absurdity of Federal Reserve bank notes, the more it strikes the Average Joe as a ridiculous system.
RedPhillips on 20 Jan 2013 at 8:46 pm #
C Bowen, it is precisely because we know the debt limit will pass that it is not “irresponsible” to oppose raising it, as some hand-wringing conservatives seem to believe. Standing firm against the debt limit increase is a rhetorical and symbolic gesture.
Sempronius on 20 Jan 2013 at 8:48 pm #
Can anyone spot the glaring contradiction in Rand’s battle cry to audit the Fed?
RedPhillips on 21 Jan 2013 at 3:03 pm #
Semp, why don’t you point it out for us.
Sempronius on 21 Jan 2013 at 9:39 pm #
Red,
The Fed is a private corp. To Paulites/Randians that makes it an incarnation of the Deity. Auditing (i.e. regulating) the Fed is government intrusion in the private sector – a sacrilege.
Kind of like approaching a painting of a Madonna and Child holding a can of spray paint.
By monkeying around with terminology (“audit” in place of regulate, “the Fed” in place of the private sector) loony Liberterians are attempting to have it both ways.
It’s a subtle but highly significant and revealing example of the intellectual dishonesty and bankruptcy of their cause.
C Bowen on 22 Jan 2013 at 12:52 am #
That’s just silly, Semp. The Fed is like Ma Bell, a government granted monopoly, if more vigorously enforced. Each dollar is a share in the Federal Reserve, so exercising shareholder rights easily fits a libertarian paradigm that can tolerate simple phrases like ‘audit the Fed’ or ‘end the Fed.’
But at least we can agree to audit the steel err- gold in Fort Knox right?
Sempronius on 22 Jan 2013 at 10:19 pm #
CB,
Creating legal tender is an inherently political/governmental function. The government didn’t therefore grant a monopoly; rather, it abdicated it’s responsibility and “privatized” it’s emission of currency.
I’m not arguing in favor of the Fed, I’m pointing to the contradiction in Paul’s approach, and by extension, to his unreliability as a leader for serious change in that direction.