A really good article that gives insight into Rand's upcoming debate skills vs Cruz and others

[kbs021]

http://www.expressnews.com/news/loc...icts-his-fiscal-conservatism-will-6391986.php


This is from his stop in Houston. Rand made the point that he is the most fiscally conservative in the race and is using the defense budget fight to hold up his argument. I am really glad Rand will be bringing that up. Cruz voting for Rubio's budget instead of Rand's was not a conservative move. I really like Rand's argument about being more fiscally conservative than Cruz and anyone else in the race. It saddened me in 2012 when the media portrayed Santorum as "the conservative" in the race even after he voted to double the size of the dept. of education AND voted for a bill funding planned parenthood. Now he even wants to raise minimum wage... but the same thing might happen with Cruz now if Rand doesn't get in front of him. Rand voting record is better than Cruz and that shouldn't be ignored.

 

[Occam's Banana]

In 2011, Rand proposed and supported decreasing defense spending. That was fiscally conservative.

Now, he has proposed increasing defense spending while offsetting the increase with cuts elsewhere.

That is not fiscally conservative. At best, it is fiscally neutral.

So Rand has gone from being fiscally conservative to being fiscally neutral. IOW: He has become more fiscally liberal ...

 

[kbs021]

Rand proposed this to back Cruz in a corner and Cruz crumbled. It is fiscally neutral in defense spending but it is obvious that Rand would be Cutting other areas in the budget that would bring spending levels down. It cannot be argued that Cruz's vote was more conservative.

 

[Occam's Banana]

It is fiscally neutral in defense spending [...]

It is not fiscally neutral in defense spending. It is fiscally liberal in defense spending. (Rand now wants to increase defense spending.)

[...] but it is obvious that Rand would be Cutting other areas in the budget that would bring spending levels down.

If the decreases Rand proposes in other areas merely offset the increase he wants in defense spending, then it's a wash.

In that case, overall spending levels would not go down - they would remain the same, and it would merely be fiscally neutral.

It cannot be argued that Cruz's vote was more conservative.

I didn't say that it was. But if Rand's budget does not more than just offset his proposed increase in defense spending, the he isn't being fiscally conservative.

 

[kbs021]

Rand found things to cut that would offset the spending increase yes. But does that mean that Rand cannot find other areas to cut? Of course not. Spending what we take in IS conservative. The only reason that we have to go further than that right now because of decades of spending much more than what we take in. And yes Rand will find other areas to cut that WILL DECREASE spending. Now whether or not it passes is another argument.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Rand found things to cut that would offset the spending increase yes. But does that mean that Rand cannot find other areas to cut? Of course not. Spending what we take in IS conservative. The only reason that we have to go further than that right now because of decades of spending much more than what we take in. And yes Rand will find other areas to cut that WILL DECREASE spending. Now whether or not it passes is another argument.

You are repeating things that I have already addressed.

 

[Jan2017]

Is Rand the only sitting or ex-Senator who will be on stage at either the the Faux News August 6 or
the recently announced Colorado/CNBC October 28 GOP debates - (Rand, Cruz, Rubio, Santorum)
to give hundreds of thousands of his allotted Congressional budget back to the U.S. Treasury ?

I am not sure about where Rand would intend to get the funding for any of his proposed defense strategies -
but I love it that we are bringing up the "pure" economics of war, in addition to human and productivity costs.

I want the electorate to start thinking out loud how we pay for the foreign entanglements we are in.

 

[Vanguard101]

In 2011, Rand proposed and supported decreasing defense spending. That was fiscally conservative.

Now, he has proposed increasing defense spending while offsetting the increase with cuts elsewhere.

That is not fiscally conservative. At best, it is fiscally neutral.

So Rand has gone from being fiscally conservative to being fiscally neutral. IOW: He has become more fiscally liberal ...

This isn't true considering fiscal conservative also deals with balancing your budgets. If you want to increase spending in one area, but you cannot afford it, you have to offset it with decreases somewhere else. While the entire budget is still not budget, the point is you are still inevitably making the point

 

[Krugminator2]

If the decreases Rand proposes in other areas merely offset the increase he wants in defense spending, then it's a wash.

In that case, overall spending levels would not go down - they would remain the same, and it would merely be fiscally neutral.

I didn't say that it was. But if Rand's budget does not more than just offset his proposed increase in defense spending, the he isn't being fiscally conservative.

Both of the budgets he has submitted have cut spending His second budget increased defense spending by reinstating the sequester cuts but still cut spending overall. His second budget cut $570 billion the first year. He has also pushed the penny plan which is 1% across the board cuts to every department each year for 5 years.

Even if you want to include that messaging amendment that increased the defense budget a few months ago (which is ridiculous b/c it was clear why he submitted it), the cuts would still amount to hundreds of billions of dollars.

 

[Occam's Banana]

This isn't true considering fiscal conservative also deals with balancing your budgets. If you want to increase spending in one area, but you cannot afford it, you have to offset it with decreases somewhere else.

It is true. A balanced budget merely means that expenditures are matched - i.e., "balanced" - by an equal amount of revenues. An "unbalanced" budget in this context means that income and expenses do not match - in which case, you either have more income than expenses (positive cash flow) or more expenses than income (negative cash flow).

Thus, assuming a balanced budget as a starting point, you could, for example, increase spending in every budget category by 50% - but as long as you also increased revenues by an equal amount (via taxes or whatever), you would still end up with a balanced budget. But increasing spending in every budget category by 50% can not in any way be described as being "fiscally conservative."

"Balancing budgets" does not ipso facto equal "fiscal conservativism." It is possible to be "fiscally conservative" with "unbalanced" budgets (especially under conditions of positive cash flow - by socking away excess revenues in savings assets, for example). It is likewise possible to be "fiscally liberal" with "balanced" budgets (see the example in the previous paragraph). IOW: Balanced budgets do not in themselves have anything to do with fiscal "conservatism" (or fiscal "liberalism") per se.

While the entire budget is still not budget, the point is you are still inevitably making the point

I have no idea what this means.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Both of the budgets he has submitted have cut spending His second budget increased defense spending by reinstating the sequester cuts but still cut spending overall. His second budget cut $570 billion the first year. He has also pushed the penny plan which is 1% across the board cuts to every department each year for 5 years.

Even if you want to include that messaging amendment that increased the defense budget a few months ago (which is ridiculous b/c it was clear why he submitted it), the cuts would still amount to hundreds of billions of dollars.

That is well and good, then. It was precisely in order to cover such contingencies that I explicitly used the words "if" and "in that case."

 

[Brett85]

It is not fiscally neutral in defense spending. It is fiscally liberal in defense spending. (Rand now wants to increase defense spending.)

He doesn't want to increase defense spending. It was just a ploy to put Cruz and Rubio on record as wanting to increase defense spending without paying for it with cuts to other areas.

 

[juleswin]

In 2011, Rand proposed and supported decreasing defense spending. That was fiscally conservative.

Now, he has proposed increasing defense spending while offsetting the increase with cuts elsewhere.

That is not fiscally conservative. At best, it is fiscally neutral.

So Rand has gone from being fiscally conservative to being fiscally neutral. IOW: He has become more fiscally liberal ...

Rand's flip flopping on issues is going to hamper him during the debates. This time around, he can't just shout over some poor lady reporter when they read back to him his previous quotes. This is the problem with too much pandering, you do it so much that you reach a point where you start contracting your old positions.

This is why Ron Paul would always be the gold standard, he wasn't perfect but 99% of the time you know he was telling you the truth and not pandering.

 

[Occam's Banana]

He doesn't want to increase defense spending. It was just a ploy to put Cruz and Rubio on record as wanting to increase defense spending without paying for it with cuts to other areas.

You see, this is the biggest problem I have with Rand.

I am pretty much at the end of my tether when it comes to all the ploys and panders and triangulations and etc.

If you don't want to increase defense spending, then dammit! don't propose increasing defense spending ...

 

[Brett85]

You see, this is the biggest problem I have with Rand.

I am pretty much at the end of my tether when it comes to all the ploys and panders and triangulations and etc.

If you don't want to increase defense spending, then dammit! don't propose increasing defense spending ...

I understand the argument that it's more important to stand on principle than it is to win elections. But it seems true in the current political environment that you can't win an election without pandering, triangulating, etc. So it's just a choice that has to be made, and neither option is necessarily wrong in my opinion.

 

[Crashland]

You see, this is the biggest problem I have with Rand.

I am pretty much at the end of my tether when it comes to all the ploys and panders and triangulations and etc.

If you don't want to increase defense spending, then dammit! don't propose increasing defense spending ...

This one was pretty clear cut though. Rand's legislation had zero chance of passing (what did it get, like 2-5 votes?). If Rand had proposed something that decreased military spending then Cruz and Rubio would have had an easy out for why they voted against it, but now everyone knows they aren't serious about cutting anything at all and that they want to pay for things by borrowing even more money rather than finding cuts.

 

[Foreigner]

Can somebody post the full article here? It's behind a paywall.

 

[Occam's Banana]

I understand the argument that it's more important to stand on principle than it is to win elections.

What I don't understand is what the point of winning elections is supposed to be if (for whatever reasons) you can't do it by standing on principle (both before and after election day).

But it seems true in the current political environment that you can't win an election without pandering, triangulating, etc. So it's just a choice that has to be made, and neither option is necessarily wrong in my opinion.

Why does it seem true, though? I mean, it's not as if there are very many data points from which to confidently derive such a conclusion.

How many people have actually tried to win an election "on principle" (without pandering, etc.) and lost - compared to how many have NOT done so and lost anyway?

I'll bet that ratio is very heavily lopsided on the "have NOT done so and lost anyway" side of things.

And in any case, it's pretty much guaranteed that you won't win by standing on principle if don't even try to do so ...

This one was pretty clear cut though. Rand's legislation had zero chance of passing (what did it get, like 2-5 votes?). If Rand had proposed something that decreased military spending then Cruz and Rubio would have had an easy out for why they voted against it, but now everyone knows they aren't serious about cutting anything at all and that they want to pay for things by borrowing even more money rather than finding cuts.

Did anyone who really cares not already know this?

I can't see that whatever marginal advantage might have been gained from this is worth muddying waters that are already getting murky.

We've come to a place where he's proposing things that he doesn't really mean and he's not proposing things he (supposedly) would really mean if he dared to propose them.

So we're left guessing about what he might do (but hasn't actually done) while making excuses for what he has actually done but didn't really mean ...

 

[Brett85]

What I don't understand is what the point of winning elections is supposed to be if (for whatever reasons) you can't do it by standing on principle (both before and after election day).

Why does it seem true, though? I mean, it's not as if there are very many data points from which to confidently derive such a conclusion.

How many people have actually tried to win an election "on principle" (without pandering, etc.) and lost - compared to how many have NOT done so and lost anyway?

I'll bet that ratio is very heavily lopsided on the "have NOT done so and lost anyway" side of things.

And in any case, it's pretty much guaranteed that you won't win by standing on principle if don't even try to do so ...

Well, I guess if Rand wins the GOP nomination or at the very least wins a state or two and was more competitive than Ron was, then we'll know that Rand's strategy works better. If he does poorly in Iowa and withdraws from the race quickly, then we'll know that Rand's strategy doesn't work.

 

[T.hill]

Rand actually voted against the military budget bill on the closure vote, but then after the fact he tried to make it less bad with his amendment.