12:40 pm ET
Feb 2, 2011

Budget Battle

Rand Paul: No ‘Great Compromiser’

    • We can hear quite well, despite the empty room.

    • I guess when you know everything there is no reason to compromise. I wish I was that smart!

    • Blah blah blah insert horrible historic irrelevant analogy to establish baseless comparison to promote current ideals with something epic and worthy of support.

      But raising taxes as part of a deal to pay down the federal debt is a nonstarter, he said.

      Okay…instead of raising taxes, how about we simply return them to Clinton levels.
      See, part of the reason we don’t have enough revenue is because of the LOWERING of taxes. That didn’t work out to well, so now it’s time to put taxes back to where they were.

    • Bad ass mofo

    • Privatize everything!!

    • Excellent idea. We can treat them just like the banks. Executives get all the benefits of the market but taxpayers subsidize the risk.

    • De-certify the publiic employees union. That would be a great place to start.

    • Does he want to get anything done or is he simply going to grandstand to empty rooms and get nothing done? His choices are to compromise and start taking little steps towards his ultimate goals or refuse to compromise and get nothing accomplished. He appears to be as much a fool as his father.

    • When you're right, you must never compromise with stupid people.
      Let the whole machine grind to a halt....no more laws being made, no more budgets being passed, no endorsement of the status quo.

    • Great man in the making. Rand for President.

    • what was the point - 3 attendees?

    • Pretty weak story. Just post the video.

    • Why do the compromises always result in more debt and spending and never the reverse ?

    • I hope Rand filibusters the debt ceiling raise.

    • Mr Paul - hopefully you find strength from the example of that "other" Cassius Clay. He wasn't for compromise either...

    • Rand will just as effective a conservative as his father, i.e. not at all. In fact, he's no different than all the other budget hawks that have suddenly emerged from their Bush comma: full of vapid platitudes and emotive rhetoric and absent a single substantive idea their willing to put their reputation behind.

      We want to make cuts and lots of them! When? Uh, we'll get back to you on that.

    • No, because compromising with all sides on serious issues risk actually getting things done to create real progress in America, and we wouldn't want that. Obama might get some of the credit! So more of the "party of no" it is, then...

    • Geeeeeeee... that's a no brainer... "My way or the Highway"!

    • Why do we constantly have pseudo intellectuals like Anon-non-non pontificating their lies on these boards? The empirical evidence is without a doubt that lower rates stimulate MORE revenues by growing the size of the pie via economic activity. Its all about resource allocation - do you want the bigger slice allocated by the public or the private sector? Clearly the latter is more effective.

      While the relationship between rates and revenue are not exactly 1:1 over the short run, they certainly do lead to higher revenues over the long run. Clinton CUT capital gains taxes. When Obama was asked during the debates by Charles Gibson why he would insist on raising capital gains rates DESPITE a history that shows lower cap gains revenues, he essentially said it wasn't about revenue maximization, rather it was about ideology (something he called "fairness").

    • thanks for the platitudes, paul.

    • "Compromise" is settling between your firm position and the oppositions firm position, to actually get something done. The art of compromise is the art of the practical.

      Idealism has its place, and certainly compromising too early in a negotiation is not a sign of strength, but if you are too idealistic you get nothing done. Decide when you will hold your ideals above the practical, choose wisely, there are certainly moments to compromise. and moments not to compromise. Do not tie your hands, this is the path of the foolish. Champion your cause, and move wisely, to execute as much of your philosophy as is feasible given the landscape. Woe to those who go home from Washington empty handed, your idealism serves your own foolish ego. Every compromise requires adroit messaging so that you do not get characterized as weak or a flip-flopper.

    • We need more people like Rand Paul, working seriously to make the correct decisions for America. Stop with the posturing, stop with being a democrat, stop with being a republican, be an AMERICAN first.

    • Taxes will rise Mr. Rand, it is simple math as acceptable cuts will not reach deep enough to get out of debt. But they will not be acceptable to the majority until they see real honest cuts. And as you say, they must be across the board and across party lines.

    • Compromise ...... The Nation of Japan compromised on the deck of an American Battle Ship and the Germany compromised to allied forces. There is no reason for conservatives such as the senator to surrender (compromise) the voters will who elected him

    • Yes, he is a "bad ass mofo" and is exactly what is needed to save this nation from indebted slavery.

    • Douglass, not Douglas

    • Thank you, Rand Paul, for making economic sense. The founder of my alma mater (Mr. Jefferson) was on the same place in the 2-dimensional political spectrum. If it's good enough for TJ, it's good enough for me.

      In the words of George Will, be like sand in the gears of government. Stop them from passing money-spending laws. I do NOT want compromise; I want obstruction. Less is more.

    • What a goon. Out of touch idealist, talks a great game but will be such a thorn in the side of the other congressmen no one will want to work with him.

    • Paul's 1st pass was $500B in cuts - where's your list?

    • there aren't enough straightjackets to prevent you liberal fools from stabbing your thighs with the cafeteria forks. eh, eh, BUSH! eh, eh, TEABAGGERS! eh, eh...like beavis and b*tthead.

      go rand paul. crank it up. remain obstinate. we're behind you.

    • This is what I voted for him to do. No compromise, no deals with those Liberals who are ruining our counrty.
      Relentlessly drive a stake in the heart of the devils. He is doing exactly what is needed to bring the country back from the brink of disaster. The November election was just the first step. Notice to appeasers and compromisers, you will be voted out next. Bring on more like Rand Paul.

    • The good people of Kentucky elected Senator Paul to go to Washington for the purpose of limiting the scope of the federal government. That is precisely what he will attempt to do. Whether or not he succeeds depends in large measure on whether or not he can find enough like-minded Senators to cooperate in that endeavor. I am not particularly hopeful about that, but at least Rand Paul can say he held fast to his principles. There are not very many other politicians in D.C. who can honestly make that claim.

    • Hmmm!!! Time and the reality of issues will tell

    • Well, our deficit exceeds discretionary spending. We could cut discretionary spending by 100%, and still not have enough to pay for the deficit. We will have to cut the military or entitlement spending or raise taxes. We'll likely compromise, and do all of these. That compromise will help America, Sen. Paul's speech notwithstanding.

    • We could use 99 more just like him. Oust the left-wing liberal socialists who are destroying this great nation. Try them for treason if they fail to uphold the Constitution.

    • rand's a twerp. hallelujah for the twerps of the world. long live fratboy bush. long live the evil dick. long live rand the rabble rousing ranter.

    • He wasn't elected to compromise, he was elected to give you lins a pain in the backside. Apparently he is succeeding. LOL

    • I meant LIBS.

    • i just hope he holds true to his convictions.we really need to pay attention. i do agree, there is little room for compromise........we all know what that means

    • With 19% of his constituents on Food Stamps,, I can't wait till Rand votes to eliminate the Food Stamp program to reduce domestic government spending. It will show that he really cares for his constituents. As the WSJ recent article on food stamp subsidies showed,"red" states lead the country in the number of people on government assistance programs, such as food stamps. But, these states politicians are against such subsidies. Go figure.

    • it's refreshing when you understand an elected official well enough that you will know his position on most issues without waiting to hear him speak. They are called principles and they should not vary day to day.

      How many elected officials do you have to wait to hear what their position will be on an issue? If you do not know where they fall in major issues, exactly how are they representing you?

    • Great STATESMEN in the Making and the libs can't take it

    • "Conservatives, he said, need to accept cuts in defense spending while liberals need to accept cuts in domestic programs."

      "Conservatives" do not support the ludicrously wasteful spending on the military. Right-wing ideologues who depend upon funding for political campaigns from the military industrial complex do.

      There is also zero need for a tit-for-tat regarding the two key social programs, Medicare and Social Security, and military spending. The issue has nothing to do with conservatism versus progressivism either. The dynamics and funding for those social programs have completely different characteristics than other federal programs, such as military spending.'

      That Mr. Paul would compare himself to William Lloyd Garrison - who was widely disliked by the way by almost all of his contemporaries - is laughable from any perspective.

    • Why is a Tea Party luminary comparing himself to federalists?

      There have been few issues where the divide between states rights/federalism was clearer then slavery/abolition.

    • why is this slack jaw bringing up the civil war? didn't he put his foot in his mouth bad enough with the aqua-budda stuff?

    • He's right on the taxes thing - as long as we have a government that is willing to deficit spend, why would they stop the deficit spending even after they get more money?

      Show us self control and I'll show you a little more willingness to pay higher taxes. I don't think higher taxes are the answer, but I'd be a lot more likely to contemplate support if I knew the government wouldn't immediately say "oh, sweet, a windfall", and spend even more money they still don't have.

    • A principled statesman he is. Dr. Paul understands well from his father that compromise leads to incrementalism and inevitably bigger and more wasteful government.

    • Ironic that Senator Paul considers himself more in the spirit of the abolishinist Cassius Clay than Henry Clay. A significant percentage of Mr Paul's supporters, southern white conservatives, would not consider themselves in the same vein. They are anti-Democrat and anti-Obama, and posses a negative view of the progressive types of civil right initiatives that are an evolution of the abolishinist movement.

    • @PhillR RE: "There have been few issues where the divide between states rights/federalism was clearer then slavery/abolition." This is only "true" in public school text books. The facts of history are considerably more messy and include a federal government that provided cover to slave running ships even as it was fighting the Civil War, and Southern states that had outlawed the slave trade long before it ceased being practiced in the North. The inconsistencies are innumerable, both at the state and federal level. Entire books could be written on it, and have been. The long and short of it remains, the country, neither in the North or the South, neither at the state or federal levels, had not yet reached a clear consensus on slavery. It was a wedge issue, a bogey man, and a rallying cry to help raise foreign support for the North by dehumanizing the South. The war was, as all wars are, about money (in that particular instance, tariffs).

    • best speech I have heard fram the senate floor in a long time. So well thought out. Does anyone know who his writer is? Does he even have one yet?

    • Some of the folks who post here insist on mis-describing the TEA party people as
      anti-minority etc. That is pure BS cooked up by liberal spin meisters. TEA party
      people are united on only one issue. Bringing down Federal spending by cutting as
      much as necessary to get to sustainability. Social issues are on the back burner.

    • @Tharms - Can you name one Southern state that had outlawed slavery before the Civil War broke out? Or are you confusing that with the nationwide ban on the IMPORTATION of slaves that went into effect in 1808?

    • Rand Paul - taking the "great" out of great compromiser

    • Hey Tharms...that's a nice revision of history you have working there, except there's a problem with it. I can't quite put my finger on it, but it seems like there's a historical document, maybe oh, official that completely rebuts your ridiculous "state's rights" revisionism. Which by the way, you ought to study the history of civil war revision engaged in by the South and Southern politicians because it's priceless. But the document I'm referring to is South Carolina's declaration of secession in which they repeatedly mention they were seceeding over slavery which was god's greatest and noblest system. In fact, if you read the actual document (and no, I won't do your homework for you) it complains about abolitionists states like New York passing freemen laws which invalidated slaver posession once they crossed state lines. The MAIN reason (always has been, always will be) that the South seceeded was over their wish to continue slavery and the laws they passed after the Civil War ended just provides more evidence. You can revise history all you want and pretend taxes, or federal overreach (which is funny if you consider the implications) was the reason for the Civil War when documentation and an entire century of repression and oppression in the South post Civil War rebuts you. That's something you and every other revisionist like you will NEVER get around, oh and the text books don't make it a black/white issue and they do talk about Northern states (like Delaware) that hadn't abolished the institution yet by war's outbreak....it's the pro-Confederate revisionists who like to pretend otherwise.

Add a Comment


About Washington Wire


    Sign up for Capital Journal Daybreak

    • Washington Wire on Twitter
    • Washington Wire on Facebook

Top Groups In Politics

  • Honduras

    News and events related to Honduras

  • The Treasury Department
