# Liberty Movement > Defenders of Liberty > Thomas Massie Forum >  There Ain't No Such Thing As A New Ron Paul: Massie Soft on Military Cuts

## Lucille

There Ain't No Such Thing As A New Ron Paul: Incoming Freshman Thomas Massie (Endorsed by Paul) Soft on Military Cuts
http://reason.com/blog/2012/11/09/th...s-a-new-ron-pa




> Newly elected Kentucky congressman Thomas Massie says something a little disturbing to this Ron Paul fan about how he intends to handle the "fiscal cliff" issue as he enters Congress. He'll be in earlier than other incoming freshmen, since he also won a special election to replace a retired Rep. Geoff Davis. 
> 
> From an article in Gannett's Cincinnati.com site, after Massie says he's for sequestration and against letting tax cuts expire, except for the "payroll tax holiday" for Social Security, since he argues that you can't keep promising the same Social Security benefits while putting less money into it:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> ...

----------


## Sola_Fide

This is my own personal (very unofficial) opinion from observing Thomas' race:  I think some (maybe a lot) of this is political posturing.  Thomas surrounded himself with Ron Paul anti-war people in his campaign.  Not just soft supporters either....but real intellectual anti-war people.  And I can tell you first hand that they endorsed him fully.

Let's remember that the 4th district of Kentucky is not libertarian-central.  This is still the land of Bush-era neoconism (but I see some positive changes happening).  

There are other ways in which Thomas has not been completely on board with the freedom message (for instance:  audit the fed, don't end it), but I'm still waiting for him to actually VOTE on these issues, not just make statements.  I will either praise or criticise the votes, because let's face it, that's where the rubber meets the road.

----------


## cajuncocoa

Tired of "political posturing"....anyone else with me?

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> This is my own personal (very unofficial) opinion from observing Thomas' race:  I think some (maybe a lot) of this is political posturing.  Thomas surrounded himself with Ron Paul anti-war people in his campaign.  Not just soft supporters either....but real intellectual anti-war people.  And I can tell you first hand that they endorsed him fully.
> 
> Let's remember that the 4th district of Kentucky is not libertarian-central.  This is still the land of Bush-era neoconism (but I see some positive changes happening).  
> 
> There are other ways in which Thomas has not been completely on board with the freedom message (for instance:  audit the fed, don't end it), but I'm still waiting for him to actually VOTE on these issues, not just make statements.  I will either praise or criticise the votes, because let's face it, that's where the rubber meets the road.


Counter-argument: if we can't even get neocons to agree with us on taxation, then there's literally zero common ground from which to build coalitions. The only outcome will be us compromising from our positions and moving in their direction (like opposing the payroll tax cut, or supporting flat taxes).

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Counter-argument: if we can't even get neocons to agree with us on taxation, then there's literally zero common ground from which to build coalitions. The only outcome will be us compromising from our positions and moving in their direction (like opposing the payroll tax cut, or supporting flat taxes).


I agree.  There are just magnitudes of differences between freedom and conservatism.  I look at Thomas's YAL scorecard and endorsement, and I like what I see.  That is why I think I am holding my criticism until I see the actual votes.  If the votes are wrong, I will definitely criticise them.

----------


## angelatc

Reason has no interest in supporting the Ron Paul agenda, and has written some amazingly brutal attack pieces on Paul in the past. This is more of that.

I want to see Massie's votes.

----------


## tsetsefly

> Reason has no interest in supporting the Ron Paul agenda, and has written some amazingly brutal attack pieces on Paul in the past. This is more of that.
> 
> I want to see Massie's votes.


Not really, out of media outlets they have been the most supportive...

As for massie, i'll wait for the votes but this is not encouraging...

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Reason has no interest in supporting the Ron Paul agenda, and has written some amazingly brutal attack pieces on Paul in the past. This is more of that.
> 
> I want to see Massie's votes.


I agree, but it's worrying that Massie is supporting raising payroll taxes.

----------


## Travlyr

> I agree, but it's worrying that Massie is supporting raising payroll taxes.


That is indeed concerning and the reason that the liberty movement should be working diligently for sound money, fully redeemable like Ron Paul suggested rather than working diligently to elect rulers.

----------


## angelatc

> I agree, but it's worrying that Massie is supporting raising payroll taxes.


I was not a fan of the "Payroll Tax Holiday! Whee!" to begin with.  Massie is speaking truth - you can't cut taxes without cutting spending and expect the deficit to get smaller.

----------


## W_BRANDON

Massie at least said these cuts didn't (would not) go far enough. TM only said he would rather see those automatic cuts heavier on domestic spending as opposed to military. Not that damning.

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

> I agree, but it's worrying that Massie is supporting raising payroll taxes.


I agree with him.

They could cut taxes anywhere else, but instead they cut it where it only makes the fiscal cliff for seniors ever closer.

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

WTF? Massie completely right!




> “I’m for the automatic spending cuts,” Massie said. “I support the Republican position that there should be more distributed toward the domestic spending–those cuts should be–instead of military spending, but if we can’t come to some bipartisan agreement on redistributing these cuts, than we already have an agreement. Republicans and Democrats agreed to this as part of raising the debt ceiling. The only thing that’s changed is that Jan. 2 is almost here, and now they’re faced with actually doing what they said.”


It doesn't make sense to cut military and domestic spending evenly, because the spending on them isn't even to begin with. And the military is something the government is supposed to fund, not all this domestic spending.

Massie stills wants to reduce the military budget, but he wants to reduce the domestic budget more proportionately which is the correct position.

----------


## KCIndy

Frankly, given that this is based on an article in Reason magazine, can we really trust the details to be accurate?  Let's hold fire and see what actually happens when it's time for the voting to begin.

----------


## LatinsforPaul

> Tired of "political posturing"....anyone else with me?


Not when you use it to get  elected as a "Liberty" candidate.

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

Can anyone explain to me why he is wrong???

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Tired of "political posturing"....anyone else with me?


Once again you don't take time to read what Massie actually said.  You just want to crucify a successful liberty candidate.  Nobody is "with" you because you have no vision for the future.

----------


## itshappening

GOP should let the tax cuts for everyone expire and let the sequestration take effect, elections have consequences. 

if the GOP rewrite the tax code then they fall into the Democrats trap for higher rates on those earning over a certain amount

----------


## jdmyprez_deo_vindice

Can we let the man at least take one vote in the House before we sling arrows in his general direction?

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Tired of "political posturing"....anyone else with me?


Howzabout we wait till the man actually *does* something objectionable (as opposed to merely talking) before we start grousing about "political posturing," hmmm?

Otherwise, how are we anything but "political posturers" ourselves?

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.




> Reason has no interest in supporting the Ron Paul agenda, and has written some amazingly brutal attack pieces on Paul in the past. This is more of that.


Brian Doherty has an interest in supporting the Ron Paul agenda. And that's who wrote this piece. So this isn't really "more of that" (though I certainly understand the suspicion).




> Frankly, given that this is based on an article in Reason magazine, can we really trust the details to be accurate?


I used to subscribe to Reason - for many years - but I'm no apologist. I  no longer have any use for the rag, and haven't for a while. (I'm a libertarian, not a libertine beltarian.)

The only thing I regret about giving up Reason is Brian Doherty's stuff. One of the reasons I subscribed in the first place is because Doherty moved from Liberty to Reason.

Doherty is a solid Ron Paul guy (which ought be obvious, given that he's criticizing Massie's rhetoric for not being *enough* like Ron Paul's, instead of *too much* like Ron Paul's).

----------


## Michigan11

Watch what they do, not so much what they say. There is politics and then there is voting. I don't care how they play the game of politics so much as I care of how they cast their votes.

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

And people still aren't reading what he said. Its very short. There is nothing disagreeable about it at all.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Can anyone explain to me why he is wrong???


If you're looking at it as percentages of the budget, then I guess what he said was fine.  But, I think people here want a strident, intellectual, anti-war guy.  And (again, my very unofficial opinion) I don't think that Thomas is that kind of person.  Thomas is more of a numbers guy, not a big-picture guy. In my opinion, he is a lot like Rand in that he likes to crunch budget numbers.

It takes all kinds.  Some of the people who are going to vote on our side of the issues are not going to be the big-picture, morality-type libertarians like Ron.  In fact, there aren't many people in American politics like Ron, and probably won't be anyone like him for a long time.  AS long as Thomas votes on our side of the issues, I am fine with these statements.  If he is consistent with his YAL questionnare, then I will be pleased.

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

> If you're looking at it as percentages of the budget, then I guess what he said was fine.  But, I think people here want a strident, intellectual, anti-war guy.  And (again, my very unofficial opinion) I don't think that Thomas is that kind of person.  Thomas is more of a numbers guy, not a big-picture guy. In my opinion, he is a lot like Rand in that he likes to crunch budget numbers.
> 
> It takes all kinds.  Some of the people who are going to vote on our side of the issues are not going to be the big-picture, morality-type libertarians like Ron.  In fact, there aren't many people in American politics like Ron, and probably won't be anyone like him for a long time.  AS long as Thomas votes on our side of the issues, I am fine with these statements.  If he is consistent with his YAL questionnare, then I will be pleased.


It's important to note the percentage of the budget though and people need to understand. It's not simply half-and-half as people would believe.

The military budget is not growing nearly as fast and unsustainably as the domestic budget. This sequester was structured as to divert from that and avoid tackling out deficit issues.

And the size of the military =/ war. 

This is really concerning that people can read a headline but not what the candidate says, and utter condemnation.

That tells me that there is conscience effort by some on the forum to expect betrayal and unrest to be the norm.

Me, I like to investigate and think about it.

----------


## Pericles

> Tired of "political posturing"....anyone else with me?


Also tired of losing elections?

----------


## Matt Collins

He is probably reading this thread, for that matter, he may be anonymously posting here. He did get his start on RPF you know...

----------


## Matt Collins

> Tired of "political posturing"....anyone else with me?


Unfortunately it is necessecary to be successful in politics.

----------


## Victor Grey

The only reason I can see for someone getting all pissed about what he said, is that they'd have to be some sort of hardliner anarco-superpurist, or spending hypocrit or something similar; so much so that they in truth, are almost alike to the neoconservatives and establishment GOP when it comes to tax policy. That being, none at all.

Let me clarify that statement; what I mean is, they just like the GOP usual, don't care about budget deficits.

What Massie to my understanding seems to be stating, to paraphrase: "If we're going to have this stuff in the budget, then dammit we're going to _pay for it._ Not put it on debt, and pretend we're fiscal conservatives." He may correct me completely if wrong.

I happen to agree with him on his stance. The borrow and spend routine has been the GOP's policy for 3 presidents. It's trash. It's immoral. 
Until the time that political support is strong enough to vote out these program's scale or existence, people who still desire their use, yet want to pay for them through borrowing off of future eventual payers instead of actually ponying up, are just a bunch of ***holes. 

I don't like that people want all this current-standing crap and that it costs money but, one certainly swell way to start pressuring people to begin considering support toward the notion of getting rid of these assorted government entities, is to actually    make them _pay_  for it, and not borrow-leech off some other guy; usually society's kids.
Want less owe? Buy less stuff. Or pay up. Neglected lesson since 1981.

Lastly, on this notion Massie is some warhawk, where exactly do they get that idea outside simply pulling it from nowhere? It sounds more like the article writer is simply butthurt Massie hasn't told him the rhetoric he'd like to hear, pertaining to defense cuts. Who cares which side of the pie the slice is taken out of; I do not. Massie seems to say he'd prefer it be out of the domestic side, but qualifies clearly, he doesn't care ultimately, where spending cuts come so long as they are indeed done. 

Paying for stuff you owe is not fiscally unconservative. 


Have people looked at Ron Paul's proposed presidential defense spending budget? It wasn't exactly drastic. I thought it would be more, myself.
Despite all the noninterventionism, Ron Paul surprisingly, was not a granola eating superhippy. Hate to say. Actually don't.
His defense budget was still quite healthy.

----------


## 1836

I have always had a hard time believing my eyes when I see the folks on here posting about how we can't posture, can't message, can't have rhetoric! No!

We must be pure blooded freedom!

I'm all for freedom, and I have worked exceptionally hard to that end. I've also worked hard within the GOP, quite a lot, because of the fact that you can't really be effective outside of it.

Thomas Massie has shown himself to be *SUPERB* at messaging throughout his race and far better at articulating the message than almost anyone else. *Precisely because* he is soft spoken and doesn't say more than he needs to, he is able to bring people on board.

The first rule of politics... don't upset anyone you do not have to. Once someone likes you, they are *a lot more likely to find themselves in agreement with your policies*.

----------


## MelissaWV

Massie's fault...

M4.3 - 13km W of Whitesburg, Kentucky 

Event Time
2012-11-10 17:08:12 UTC
2012-11-10 12:08:12 UTC-05:00 at epicenter
2012-11-10 12:08:12 UTC-05:00 system time
Location
37.135°N 82.978°W depth=1.1km (0.7mi)
Nearby Cities
13km (8mi) W of Whitesburg, Kentucky
74km (46mi) NNW of Kingsport, Tennessee
88km (55mi) NE of Middlesboro, Kentucky
92km (57mi) NW of Bristol, Tennessee
179km (111mi) SW of Charleston, West Virginia

----------


## V3n

Can we let the guy place one vote first?

Heck.. Can we let him get sworn in first???

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

Why is raising the payroll tax more acceptable than raising the income tax?

----------


## Confederate

> Massie's fault...
> 
> M4.3 - 13km W of Whitesburg, Kentucky 
> 
> Event Time
> 2012-11-10 17:08:12 UTC
> 2012-11-10 12:08:12 UTC-05:00 at epicenter
> 2012-11-10 12:08:12 UTC-05:00 system time
> Location
> ...


Well at least Rand won't be taking the blame for every bad thing that happens...

----------


## Pisces

> Why is raising the payroll tax more acceptable than raising the income tax?


Because it's sole purpose is to fund the Social Security program. Cutting payroll taxes while still promising the same amount of benefits to retirees leaves the program underfunded. It doesn't work from an accounting stand point. For the govt to keep their promises to retirees in the future they will have to either raise payroll taxes even more in the future or print money. So cutting these taxes doesn't really reduce govt, it just postpones and makes dealing with the shortfall more painful. Unless, of course, social security is done away with which no one sees happening. I think people like Thomas, who have been in business themselves, are looking at this in the way an accountant or business person would, and not so much from a philosophical point of view about taxes in the abstract.

----------


## tsetsefly

> WTF? Massie completely right!
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't make sense to cut military and domestic spending evenly, because the spending on them isn't even to begin with. And the military is something the government is supposed to fund, not all this domestic spending.
> 
> Massie stills wants to reduce the military budget, but he wants to reduce the domestic budget more proportionately which is the correct position.


military is something the government must spend on but to tune of $700 billion? probably not, they could cut the budget by $200 and still spend more than the next 10 countries combined!

edit:  Welfare must also be cut, but the expenses of the military are extreme, they need to see the most cut.

----------


## tsetsefly

> Watch what they do, not so much what they say. There is politics and then there is voting. I don't care how they play the game of politics so much as I care of how they cast their votes.


^^^^^^^^^^

That is why I say with Rand!  he can say George Bush was America's greatest president for all I care, as long as he continues to vote the way he has (for the most part off course, can't agree 100% on everything  )

----------


## trey4sports

> WTF? Massie completely right!
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't make sense to cut military and domestic spending evenly, because the spending on them isn't even to begin with. And the military is something the government is supposed to fund, not all this domestic spending.
> 
> Massie stills wants to reduce the military budget, but he wants to reduce the domestic budget more proportionately which is the *correct* position.


the *correct* position, eh?


I would argue that cutting the military budget would cause less harm than cutting domestic spending simply because we have a class of people that have become dependent on government whereas I think we could cut huge amounts from the militarism and the only thing we would see less of is death, destruction and enemies abroad. 

I understand where Thomas is coming from considering the demographics of his district and I hope his _votes_ reflect that of someone who is actively trying to cut the militarism worldwide.

----------


## CaseyJones

Thomas is my friend ,,, if you want a politician you agree with 100%. Run For Office

----------


## Occam's Banana

> if you want a politician you agree with 100%. Run For Office


I'm not sure that even that would work. Ask any ten of us our opinions on something, and you're likely to get at least a dozen different answers.

----------


## CaseyJones

> I'm not sure that even that would work. Ask any ten of us our opinions on something, and you're likely to get at least a dozen different answers.


exactly , I meant individually ( this is a movement of individuals) time to $#@! or get off the pot , Run

----------


## CaseyJones

so sorry did this just get real?

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Because it's sole purpose is to fund the Social Security program. Cutting payroll taxes while still promising the same amount of benefits to retirees leaves the program underfunded. It doesn't work from an accounting stand point. For the govt to keep their promises to retirees in the future they will have to either raise payroll taxes even more in the future or print money. So cutting these taxes doesn't really reduce govt, it just postpones and makes dealing with the shortfall more painful. Unless, of course, social security is done away with which no one sees happening. I think people like Thomas, who have been in business themselves, are looking at this in the way an accountant or business person would, and not so much from a philosophical point of view about taxes in the abstract.


Payroll taxes go to the same place income taxes go. There is no special lockbox named "Social Security" (as if that would be preferable in any way).

----------


## CaseyJones

> Payroll taxes go to the same place income taxes go. There is no special lockbox named "Social Security" (as if that would be preferable in any way).


then run

----------


## Pisces

> Payroll taxes go to the same place income taxes go. There is no special lockbox named "Social Security" (as if that would be preferable in any way).


No, they don't. They do go into a Social Security fund. In the past, the govt would take the current revenue out of the fund and replace it with Treasury notes. The so-called "lockbox" was just an idea that some politicians came up with that would disallow borrowing from the fund. It may seem like a distinction without a difference, but the Treasuries in the Social Security fund are liabilities of the  federal government and assets to the Social Security adminstration. It's not at all the same as if the payroll tax revenue went straight into the general fund. These days, I believe Social Security payments exceed payroll tax revenue, so the govt can't even borrow from the fund anymore.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

The next Ron Paul will be Greg Brannon of North Carolina.

----------


## CaseyJones

there ain't no GD next Ron Paul... there is you and you and YOU!

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

> the *correct* position, eh?
> 
> 
> I would argue that cutting the military budget would cause less harm than cutting domestic spending simply because we have a class of people that have become dependent on government whereas I think we could cut huge amounts from the militarism and the only thing we would see less of is death, destruction and enemies abroad. 
> 
> I understand where Thomas is coming from considering the demographics of his district and I hope his _votes_ reflect that of someone who is actively trying to cut the militarism worldwide.


The military budget is not the same as war budgets.

Spending money on the military itself does not cause death, destruction, or enemies. It actually reduces them because soldiers become safer and less involved in conflict.

You are completely right on people being dependent on government. That is why we need to cut there drastically!

I would cut maybe 200 billion out of the military budget. But we have a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit that is GROWING because of domestic spending.

When Ron Paul speaks of the welfare-warfare state, he doesn't mean they are equal issues, and his budget is strong proof of that.




> military is something the government must spend on but to tune of $700 billion? probably not, they could cut the budget by $200 and still spend more than the next 10 countries combined!
> 
> edit:  Welfare must also be cut, but the expenses of the military are extreme, they need to see the most cut.


Massie wants to reduce the military budget, but proportionate to domestic spending. And the military is constitutional, most of this domestic spending is not. Military spending is too large, but isn't growing unsustainably like our domestic spending.

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

Here is budgetary reality:



Discretionary spending is projected to grow, while Social Security, Medicade+Medicaid, and interest payments are the main drivers of our deficits.

A responsible budget will reduce military spending, but not on a "half and half" basis with domestic spending.

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

> Payroll taxes go to the same place income taxes go. There is no special lockbox named "Social Security" (as if that would be preferable in any way).


Revenue is earmarked however.

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

> Payroll taxes go to the same place income taxes go. There is no special lockbox named "Social Security" (as if that would be preferable in any way).


Revenue is earmarked however.

----------


## CaseyJones

listen we are only gonna kill this MFer with the death of 1000 cuts ,, Thomas has his scalpel now you guys join and use yours

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> The next Ron Paul will be Greg Brannon of North Carolina.


He needs to raise his profile.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Thomas Massie will be one of the great ones.  Mark my words.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Thomas Massie will be one of the great ones.  Mark my words.


I agree.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Thomas Massie will be one of the great ones.  Mark my words.


Unless he gives in to the madness of answering to a bunch of griping non-constituent  purists on an internet forum 

I hope he resists.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Thomas Massie will be one of the great ones.  Mark my words.


He is in a district where he has support to flex his fiscal conservative and civil liberty muscle.  He may not have a credible challenger for a very long time.  Geoff Davis didn't.  The Tea Party in the 4th District is very strong.  Where he has some educating to do is with foreign policy (as is the case with conservatives everywhere).

----------


## RonPaul25

Reason has different goals and objectives than the liberty movement, I feel as if they are trying to create division and tension amongst us

----------


## deadfish

I read that blog post by Brian Doherty first on reason and I just could not understand it.

Even now, after re-reading it several times... I still don't get it.

In two lines Doherty quotes Massie as 1. "Supporting Rand's budget" and 2. "Supporting automatic cuts"

So what the hell is Doherty talking about? Good grief I can't understand it. Is there another "budget" out there other than Rand's that will balance the budget sooner?

----------


## itshappening

Massie will be an excellent congressman who I fully support ! 

He has worked very hard to win his seat and has years of having to raise more funds and keep in contact with his constituents ahead of him.

I do not doubt that he can have a very successful congressional career and advance our ideals in a Congress with few liberty voices.

----------


## Matt Collins

> The only reason I can see for someone getting all pissed about what he said, is that they'd have to be some sort of hardliner anarco-superpurist, or spending hypocrit or something similar;


You must be knew here

----------


## Lucille

Don't get me wrong!  I am _very_ happy to have Massie in Congress.

----------


## Spoa

Congrats to Congressman Elect Thomas Massie!

To those who are concerned about words...remember: it is all about the VOTES! Good luck and look forward to calling the congressman elect...CONGRESSMAN MASSIE after tomorrow!

----------

