Rand Paul Will Filibuster Over Debt Ceiling

The GOP plans to hold the country hostage
Politics • Views: 37,273

Pseudo-libertarian kook Rand Paul has announced that he’s planning a filibuster over the debt ceiling.

On Newsmakers, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) said he will hold up the Senate’s business next week to force a debate on the debt limit. The Senate canceled its Fourth of July break to ensure discussions on raising the debt ceiling continues, but most of the discussions are happening behind the scenes.

Senator Paul said on Newsmakers that he “will filibuster until we talk about the debt ceiling.” He said the full Senate, instead of a small group of Senators, needs to engage in debate. He also said he and a group of conservative members would support raising the debt ceiling on one condition: “We will vote in favor of raising the debt ceiling if we can, but it will be contingent on passing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. “

The truth is that it’s not about a “balanced budget.” The Republican vote to raise the debt ceiling will be contingent on whether they can tack on their far right social engineering schemes — killing Planned Parenthood, eliminating reproductive rights, and oppressing gays. These are the truly important issues in today’s Republican Party, and it’s proven by the simple fact that they’ve larded down every budget amendment with these religious right agenda items.

Jump to bottom

47 comments
1 laZardo  Sun, Jul 3, 2011 10:10:12am

Along with the sad fact that these measures will probably ensure their re-election in 2012 among their conservative base.

2 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Sun, Jul 3, 2011 10:11:04am

Meanwhile, Ron Paul's solution to the debt crisis:

have the Federal Reserve Board destroy the $1.6 trillion in government bonds it now holds.

[Link: www.tnr.com...]

3 laZardo  Sun, Jul 3, 2011 10:12:20am

re: #2 000G

Meanwhile, Ron Paul's solution to the debt crisis:

[Link: www.tnr.com...]

GOLD (or other commodities-based fixed rate exchange) STANDARD!

4 jaunte  Sun, Jul 3, 2011 10:20:27am

Republican roulette: Don't raise the debt ceiling or we'll shoot ourselves.


Deficits: Spending cuts alone can't work
Just to keep the country's total debt where it is now -- around 60% of GDP -- without tax increases, lawmakers would need to cut spending today by 35% or about $1.2 trillion, according to the Government Accountability Office.

That's almost as much as what the country spends on defense and other discretionary spending -- i.e., nearly everything Americans expect their federal government to do outside of providing Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security benefits.

5 PhillyPretzel  Sun, Jul 3, 2011 10:20:36am

Don't forget cutting funds to that horrible experiment in TV called PBS.//

6 laZardo  Sun, Jul 3, 2011 10:27:39am

re: #5 PhillyPretzel

Don't forget cutting funds to that horrible experiment in TV called PBS.//

If you can't defund it, fund it in a way that it will reduce quality to the point where it can only be defunded.

7 aagcobb  Sun, Jul 3, 2011 10:31:49am

re: #2 000G

Meanwhile, Ron Paul's solution to the debt crisis:

[Link: www.tnr.com...]

This just goes to show that this whole "debt crisis" is bogus, since such a large percentage of the "debt" is owed by the federal government to itself.

8 Decatur Deb  Sun, Jul 3, 2011 10:33:51am

So one inexperienced nutcase can send the country down the path towards the third world. If this happens, once we recover, there will be some significant changes to the way the government does business.

9 jamesfirecat  Sun, Jul 3, 2011 10:39:33am

///What's the matter with (that guy) Kansas (elected)?

10 laZardo  Sun, Jul 3, 2011 10:41:44am

re: #8 Decatur Deb

So one inexperienced nutcase can send the country down the path towards the third world. If this happens, once we recover, there will be some significant changes to the way the government does business.

Maybe we'll have a properly free economy this time. If anything, it's the current government's dictatorial policies that are already sending it on the path to third worldism.

11 jaunte  Sun, Jul 3, 2011 10:42:30am
Last year, Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles, co-chairs of President Obama's Fiscal Commission, released (PDF) a deficit reduction proposal that received a lot of publicity, but ultimately little support from either party.


From the report:
Lower rates, broaden the base, and cut spending in the tax code. The current tax code is riddled with $1.1 trillion of tax expenditures: backdoor spending hidden in the tax code. Tax reform must reduce the size and number of these tax expenditures and lower marginal tax rates for individuals and corporations – thereby simplifying the code, improving fairness, reducing the tax gap, and spurring economic growth. Simplifying the code will dramatically reduce the cost and burden of tax preparation and compliance for individuals and corporations.

Reduce the deficit. To escape our nation’s crushing debt and deficit problem, we must have shared sacrifice – and that means a portion of the savings from cutting tax expenditures must be dedicated to deficit reduction. At the same time, revenue cannot constantly increase as a share of the economy. Deficit reduction from tax reform will be companied by deficit reduction from spending cuts—which will come first. Under our plan, revenue reaches 21 percent of GDP by 2022 and is then capped at that level.

Maintain or increase progressivity of the tax code. Though reducing the deficit will require shared sacrifice, those of us who are best off will need to contribute the most. Tax reform must continue to protect those who are most vulnerable, and eliminate tax loopholes favoring those who need help least.

12 Decatur Deb  Sun, Jul 3, 2011 10:43:38am

re: #10 laZardo


Heh. Wait 'til there's no money to fund high school football.

13 jaunte  Sun, Jul 3, 2011 10:44:26am

Rand Paul blowing hard on the 'uppity' whistle.

14 Alexzander  Sun, Jul 3, 2011 10:46:56am

re: #8 Decatur Deb

So one inexperienced nutcase can send the country down the path towards the third world. If this happens, once we recover, there will be some significant changes to the way the government does business.

The frightening thing is that he's not just some random nut, hes a doctor and a senator, which makes he representative of perhaps 3 million people (well, thats one way to look at it anyway).

Also - there are many other factors already pushing the US towards 'the third world.'

15 laZardo  Sun, Jul 3, 2011 10:47:29am

re: #12 Decatur Deb

Heh. Wait 'til there's no money to fund high school football.

That's okay, our schools can still be funded by private entities.

/hence Baseketball.

16 justaminute  Sun, Jul 3, 2011 10:49:28am

When they talk about "balanced budgets' do they realize you can balance a budget with tax increases too?

17 Decatur Deb  Sun, Jul 3, 2011 10:49:59am

This thread brought to you courtesy of Rep. Allan West.

18 jaunte  Sun, Jul 3, 2011 10:51:12am

re: #16 justaminute

But all the rich people will flee the country!

19 Decatur Deb  Sun, Jul 3, 2011 10:53:05am

re: #14 Alexzander

The frightening thing is that he's not just some random nut, hes a doctor and a senator, which makes he representative of perhaps 3 million people (well, thats one way to look at it anyway).

Also - there are many other factors already pushing the US towards 'the third world.'

He shares representation of 4.2 million Kentuckians with Sen McConnell, who might not be the stupidest man in DC.

20 dragonfire1981  Sun, Jul 3, 2011 10:56:27am

Anyone else think if he follows through it will majorly help Obama's reelection campaign?

21 laZardo  Sun, Jul 3, 2011 10:57:51am

re: #20 dragonfire1981

Anyone else think if he follows through it will majorly help Obama's reelection campaign?

Not me.

22 justaminute  Sun, Jul 3, 2011 10:57:53am

re: #18 jaunte

But all the rich people will flee the country!

If they didn't leave when we had the Clinton tax rates then their not going anywhere. I guess they can just go live with their employee's in China or India.

23 Decatur Deb  Sun, Jul 3, 2011 11:06:49am

re: #20 dragonfire1981

Anyone else think if he follows through it will majorly help Obama's reelection campaign?

Might if the Dems do a very good job of hanging the results around the TPGOP neck before the crap comes down.

24 FreedomMoon  Sun, Jul 3, 2011 11:13:09am

Nothing says liberty like an assault of the rights of women and gays. Makes me cringe every time I hear them regurgitate their mantra of "But, but Libertarian is formed from the word liberty."

25 watching you tiny alien kittens are  Sun, Jul 3, 2011 11:13:46am

So when does the movie "Mr. Paul Goes To Washington" come out? I'm sure it will be a hugh blockbuster success at the box office. ;)

/apologies to Mr. Smith goes to Washington which was a truly great movie that deserves it classic status.

26 jaunte  Sun, Jul 3, 2011 12:04:29pm

Former Sen. Alan Simpson, co-chairman of the president's bipartisan fiscal reform commission:
"We're at 15 percent revenue, and historically it's been closer to 20 percent," says Simpson. "We've never had a war without a tax, and now we've got two," he says. "Absolute bullshit."
[Link: www.slate.com...]

27 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Sun, Jul 3, 2011 12:10:37pm

re: #7 aagcobb

This just goes to show that this whole "debt crisis" is bogus, since such a large percentage of the "debt" is owed by the federal government to itself.

The TNR article is slightly misleading. The Fed is not a national bank. It is partly private and partly public. Also, the federal debt titles held by the Fed did not come into being on its own. The bonds were created by the Treasury because it wanted liquidity. The Fed provided this liquidity by issuing the money to purchase the bonds. Now, the money has been spent, and it is in circulation. If you destroy the "assets" that backed that issued quantity up (even though it's essentially debt, government debt is still relatively secure) then you depreciate the currency in total.

Another effect probably also would be the prices of bonds rising. That could potentially be disastrous for the government's obligations.

28 yoshicastmaster  Sun, Jul 3, 2011 4:13:15pm

balanced budget amendment? literally no functional understanding of economics. i don't understand why the far right wants so desperately to reject keynesian economics.

29 wrenchwench  Sun, Jul 3, 2011 4:22:18pm

re: #28 yoshicastmaster

balanced budget amendment? literally no functional understanding of economics. i don't understand why the far right wants so desperately to reject keynesian economics.

A theory I'm working on: The only way to convince people that Libertarianism makes any sense is to blame all the problems we have on our financial system. An essential element is to accuse Jews and others of a conspiracy to run the financial system for their own benefit. Then they have a conspiracy-like solution for it, ie: end the Fed, go back to the gold standard, etc. If that can be swallowed, then all the other far right agenda items can be fit in as well: no federal support for the poor, no federal support for education, etc. Libertarianism must be swallowed whole. It does not make sense when looked at piece by piece.

30 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Sun, Jul 3, 2011 4:42:07pm

re: #29 wrenchwench

A theory I'm working on: The only way to convince people that Libertarianism makes any sense is to blame all the problems we have on our financial system. An essential element is to accuse Jews and others of a conspiracy to run the financial system for their own benefit. Then they have a conspiracy-like solution for it, ie: end the Fed, go back to the gold standard, etc. If that can be swallowed, then all the other far right agenda items can be fit in as well: no federal support for the poor, no federal support for education, etc. Libertarianism must be swallowed whole. It does not make sense when looked at piece by piece.

Afaic, the right libbercons like the Pauls and that cesspool of filth lewrockwell.com make total sense to me. They are really just a bunch of people still butthurt over the civil war, and integration/desegregation efforts. All their whimpering about taxes is because they think Jews are "controlling" their precious money, and their taxes are no longer divvied up like this Image: taxes.jpg

Their language is identical to the Citizens Councils of the 50s. They haven't even bothered to change their picket signs. [Link: citizenscouncils.com...]

These are the people Haley Barbour (R - Emotionally Retarded) casts as a favorable alternative to the KKK.

Same old bigots, different millennium.

31 lostlakehiker  Sun, Jul 3, 2011 5:25:37pm

re: #7 aagcobb

This just goes to show that this whole "debt crisis" is bogus, since such a large percentage of the "debt" is owed by the federal government to itself.

It's not bogus. The U.S. is borrowing money at a clip equivalent to a family with an income of $50K but spending $80K a year. That kind of trend will sink you hopelessly into debt within a decade.

32 Obdicut  Sun, Jul 3, 2011 5:43:35pm

re: #31 lostlakehiker

There is no analogy between a family and the government. Such an analogy has no purpose, and serves to misinform.

33 Achilles Tang  Sun, Jul 3, 2011 6:28:12pm

What, 32 post on this issue about the insane in the GOP?

We are starting to sound like Venezuela. (I don't necessarily mean LGF; for the pedants.)

34 Achilles Tang  Sun, Jul 3, 2011 6:30:34pm

re: #29 wrenchwench

A theory I'm working on: The only way to convince people that Libertarianism makes any sense is to blame all the problems we have on our financial system. An essential element is to accuse Jews and others of a conspiracy to run the financial system for their own benefit. Then they have a conspiracy-like solution for it, ie: end the Fed, go back to the gold standard, etc. If that can be swallowed, then all the other far right agenda items can be fit in as well: no federal support for the poor, no federal support for education, etc. Libertarianism must be swallowed whole. It does not make sense when looked at piece by piece.

A simpler theory is that our educational system has managed to allow a determining percentage of American voters to remain the stupids.

35 martinsmithy  Sun, Jul 3, 2011 6:55:14pm

The Republicans can filibuster and do whatever else they can to destroy the nation so that Barack Obama doesn't get re-elected. It's all irrelevant, because if this continues till August 2nd President Obama will end the circus by invoking the 14th amendment to the Constitution to nullify any debt ceiling laws that cause the U.S. to default on its debts.

36 RogueOne  Mon, Jul 4, 2011 3:38:26am

re: #28 yoshicastmaster

balanced budget amendment? literally no functional understanding of economics. i don't understand why the far right wants so desperately to reject keynesian economics.

Been asleep for the last couple of years?

Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job
The stimulus is now causing the economy to shed jobs.
[Link: www.weeklystandard.com...]

7th Quarterly Report:
[Link: www.whitehouse.gov...]

37 Obdicut  Mon, Jul 4, 2011 4:26:27am

re: #36 RogueOne

Heh. The Weekly Standard. Good one.

Do you know what Keynesian economics even is, Rogue?

38 RogueOne  Mon, Jul 4, 2011 4:51:32am

re: #37 Obdicut

I knew you wouldn't like the Weekly standard which is why I gave you the link to the quarterly pdf. Do you understand what they mean by "quarterly report"? It's such good news they released it on a friday before a 3 day national holiday because they wanted everyone to read it.

Start here:
Obama: Stimulus will create 4.1 million jobs

Frank: Obama admin 'dumb' to predict no higher than 8% unemployment
[Link: thehill.com...]

Then go here:
Obama: "No Such Thing as Shovel-Ready Projects"
[Link: www.cbsnews.com...]

Then start reading the quarterly report. You may want to start reading on page 7 where they discuss the modeling they used to determine the 2.4 million jobs "created or saved". It's a computer model so I think that means it's science. My calculator says $666Bill/2.4Mill=$277,500.

39 Obdicut  Mon, Jul 4, 2011 5:09:28am

re: #38 RogueOne

What are you babbling about?

I don't give a shit about the number of jobs 'saved or created'.

What on earth does that have to do with morons that reject Keynesian economics?

40 RogueOne  Mon, Jul 4, 2011 5:25:01am

re: #39 Obdicut

What are you babbling about?

I don't give a shit about the number of jobs 'saved or created'.

I do which should be evident by my comment: Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job. It was also the argument the WH and congress sold the country when passing the stimulus package.


What on earth does that have to do with morons that reject Keynesian economics?

The white house and keynesians fanatics sold us on the supposed multiplier effect. Their argument was that for every $1 spent we would get roughly $1.70 in return. The multiplier never showed up. It didn't show up in the '30's under FDR either, so far it's 0-2 here but some want to keep holding on to the dream while making fun of those pointing out the obvious. If after adding roughly 6% of gdp to the debt in 3 years the stimulus couldn't keep unemployment under control, which was almost the entirety of the administrations argument, by what basis are you going to argue that the multiplier effect is real and/or the stimulus package was a success?

41 Obdicut  Mon, Jul 4, 2011 5:48:21am

re: #40 RogueOne

Rogue, do you seriously not think that FDR's policies got us out of the Great Depression?

I still don't think you actually even know what Keynesian economics are.

There is only one central economic question about the stimulus: would things have been worse without it?

The answer, except from deranged Austrian Economic whackjobs, is "Yes".

42 RogueOne  Mon, Jul 4, 2011 6:20:20am

re: #41 Obdicut

Rogue, do you seriously not think that FDR's policies got us out of the Great Depression?

If by "policies" you mean the spending ramping up for war and the actual war itself then yes. If you mean the New Deal spending, then no.


I still don't think you actually even know what Keynesian economics are.

What is it about the multiplier effect you seem not to be understanding? If the argument was "for every $1 we spent on government projects we got a $1 in return", that idea wasn't new and we could be talking about a dozen different economists. The biggest addition to the argument was the "Keynesian multiplier" effect. That's why it's adherents are so determined that it's pure genius. The only problem is the multiplier isn't demonstrable in real world application, only on paper. It's weird that people want to ignore that part of the theory and argument since it was put out there as the basis for the stimulus package at the very beginning:

Obama Gives Keynes His First Real-World Test
[Link: www.npr.org...]


There is only one central economic question about the stimulus: would things have been worse without it?

The answer, except from deranged Austrian Economic whackjobs, is "Yes".

You might be right. The only problem is we'll never know. What we do know is we've spent $666 billion dollars thus far and it hasn't come close to what was expected or promised. Doing nothing might have made it worse but there weren't many people advocating doing nothing. Quite a few were advocating doing a lot less than spending $666 billion thus far and since even the administration can't gussy up the numbers to make them look even mildly convincing (otherwise they would have released it when someone might have been paying attention) I would say they understand the weakness of their argument too.

43 Obdicut  Mon, Jul 4, 2011 6:31:54am

re: #42 RogueOne

If by "policies" you mean the spending ramping up for war and the actual war itself then yes. If you mean the New Deal spending, then no.

Well, that's not reality. We were coming out of the depression, on the backs of FDR's policies, long before the build-up to war began. This is simple, actual, historical fact.

Let's try this simply:

What is Keynesian economics?

44 kirkspencer  Mon, Jul 4, 2011 7:14:05am

re: #18 jaunte

But all the rich people will flee the country!

(late, but) Yep, that's why San Francisco, NYC, and Seattle are ghost towns.

45 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Mon, Jul 4, 2011 2:07:39pm

re: #34 Naso Tang

A simpler theory is that our educational system has managed to allow a determining percentage of American voters to remain the stupids.

That's what happens when you let a bunch of rwnj ignoramuses homeschool their children then let those children get degrees from reputable colleges.

46 yoshicastmaster  Mon, Jul 4, 2011 10:36:52pm

re: #42 RogueOne

You originally linked articles apparently to demonstrate that keynsian economics has failed.... because we lost jobs after the stimulus?

I feel like you've proven my point with that post.

47 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Wed, Jul 6, 2011 11:12:37pm

Keynesian economics is bunk. It never developed a working theory of the rate of interest (which is due to it never developing working theory of property, either). Keynes even admitted this to be the major issue of all preceeding theories:

There is, I am convinced, a fatal flaw in … the orthodox reasoning …; the flaw being largely due to the failure of the classical doctrine to develop a satisfactory theory of the rate of interest.

– J. M. Keynes, "Poverty in Plenty: Is the Economic System Self-Adjusting?" (1934), in: The Collected Writings of John Maynard Keynes. Volume XIII: The General Theory and After. Part I: Preparation, London: Macmicllan, 1973, p. 489.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh