Paul/Rubio 2016

I’m thru being numb and dumb.

Have a great Lenten Season too.

I think Rubio’s approach will do more good with the general electorate. While I agree with what Rand said, he was preaching to the choir – I doubt he persuaded anyone…and politics is supposed to be the art of persuasion.

That said, I like both of them.

DRayRaven on February 13, 2013 at 11:09 AM

Do better with the general electorate?

You mean just like McCain and Romney did right??

We were told we couldn’t have someone too extreme like Bachmann or Santorum that Romney would appeal to them.

How that work out again????

Time to stop watering down our principes!

A 1% reduction in spending will eliminate the debt?
Am I wrong in thinking that the gubmint borrows 40 cents for each dollar spent?
I guess I’m dense. Please help.
FOWG1 on February 13, 2013 at 9:43 AM

coldwarrior on February 13, 2013 at 9:51 AM

Dusty on February 13, 2013 at 10:46 AM

Rand Paul didn’t say that 1% cuts would eliminate our dept, only that it would balance the budget. It works quickly because of compound interest. I don’t know how the penny plan is calculated by its authors, but here’s it with some basic assumptions:

Assume a continuation of our average growth rate in federal spending of 4.5%
Assume the budget is $100

PennyPlan —- vs -Historical
Year 0, $100 – 1% $100 + 4.5%
Year 1, $99.00 vs. $104.50
Year 2, $98.01 vs. $109.20
Year 3, $97.03 vs. $114.12
Year 4, $96.06 vs. $119.25
Year 5, $95.10 vs. $124.62
Year 6, $94.15 vs. $130.23
Year 7, $93.21 vs. $136.09
Year 8, $92.27 vs. $142.21
Year 9, $91.35 vs. $148.45

By year 7, federal spending would be 32% less
By year 10, federal spending would be 42% less (about what it would need to be today for our budget to balance.)

The worst thing about it IMO is that future governments would probably not follow it. The best thing about it is that it’s unlikely to trigger a civil war or an economic collapse like a 10% cuts might. And it’s actually “possible” in this world, not just in a fantasy world.

elfman on February 13, 2013 at 12:05 PM

Thanks guys/gals, it makes some sense now.

A 1% reduction in spending will eliminate the debt?

Am I wrong in thinking that the gubmint borrows 40 cents for each dollar spent?

I guess I’m dense. Please help.

Check out the Mack penny plan

Yes, that is CERTAINLY the basis for a viable opposition party…

Gary Johnson pulled just a bit more than one million votes and around one percent of the vote. ChaCha!

Seats in the Senate
0 / 100

Seats in the House
0 / 435

Governorships
0 / 50

State Upper Houses
0 / 1,921

State Lower Houses
0 / 5,410

Seats in the Senate
0 / 100

Seats in the House
0 / 435

Governorships
0 / 50

State Upper Houses
0 / 1,921

State Lower Houses
0 / 5,410

JFKY on February 13, 2013 at 3:22 PM

Fewer votes than the Green Party?

Really?

Not in this state nor the several it borders on. Not in 2012.

In actual numbers, since you fired the volley, the Libertarian Party (a real Party, not like that “tea party” pseudo-GOP thing) is growing in all states…while the GOP is declining in all states.

And gets fewer votes than the Green party…and has run recycled Republicans the last two POTUS cycles and a lunatic in the 2000 cycle.

The GOP is declining, so that’s why the GOP captured those state legislatures and holds 30 governorships….

As Moynihan said, “Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.”

If you are going to start on aboout the Libertarian PARTY as some form of salvation, you can just stop right there….

By the time the libertarian Republicans moved their furniture in, there wouldn’t be any Libertarians left…

BigWyo on February 13, 2013 at 2:33 PM

This past recent election was the first time the Libertarian Party actually was permitted on most of the state ballots for federal office. Was on all 50 until a couple state supreme courts decided to make a few last-minute changes to established eligibility rules.

Locally, we have been on local ballots for the past few years, and each time we are gaining in numbers of members and in number of voters…which this last election were well over the number of registered Libertarians in this State.

It has to start somewhere.

The GOP is failing because the GOP in the past couple decades has failed America.

GOP candidates try to out Democrat the Democrats time and time again.

Conservative principles are tossed aside, routinely, in order to find an “electable” candidate.

Not working out too well, is it?

In actual numbers, since you fired the volley, the Libertarian Party (a real Party, not like that “tea party” pseudo-GOP thing) is growing in all states…while the GOP is declining in all states.

No, we’ve not yet elected a Libertarian President, but we are electing local mayors, city council members, state representatives, had a good number on the Congressional ballot last time around, too…and we intend to do a lot more of that sort of thing.

The Libertarian Party made a huge mistake years ago when they focused on getting a President elected, and never gave a moment’s thought to getting local and state officials elected.

We are trying to remedy that error.

Ask yourself, under both the GOP and the Dems, has government intruded more into your life or less? Are you paying more for that privilege or less? Are these presently United States better off today or less well off because of all those who decided to get along and compromise and reach across the aisle was more important to getting elected that standing their ground, on Constitutional principles?

Wish we had actual real Conservatives in the GOP and on the ballots.

But, alas, we do not.

We just have two permutations of the Democrat Party.

The Progressive faction is clearly socialist. The so-called conservative faction is merely trying to be polite, so as not to offend anyone.

And the GOP presidential winner in 2008 was?

And in 2012?

coldwarrior on February 13, 2013 at 10:18 AM

They were standing right next to every libertarian presidential winner in this nation’s history.

Can’t believe you missed it.

There is no “unelectable” anymore. Any strong conservative who tosses their hat in should get our attention and support. If that’s Rand Paul, then so be it.

kim roy on February 13, 2013 at 1:44 PM

Totally agree! We are going to decide who is or who isn’t electable. Not the GOP or Karl Rove and his RINOPAC gang. They are the Cotton Conservatives and we know where they ended up. Hope we can help them along.

Rove et al are smearing and attacking Rep.Steve King just because he’s thinking about running for that open Senate seat in Iowa. I’m not even from Iowa but I intend to support him.

coldwarrior on February 13, 2013 at 9:37 AM

coldwarrior on February 13, 2013 at 9:51 AM

coldwarrior on February 13, 2013 at 9:54 AM

coldwarrior on February 13, 2013 at 9:58 AM

coldwarrior on February 13, 2013 at 10:18 AM

You make excellent points and possible solutions. We know the Admin/Dems/MSM are against Conservatives/Tea Party and so are the GOP. We’ve been fighting all of them and as you say electing some Tea Party members, but all that does is add to the GOP who have proved worthless to our cause. Seems like we’re beating our heads against that brick wall.

Our government is best described as Boomtown. No matter who is in power, we the people lose; as we have for many many years.

What have we gained since 2010? 2012? I see nothing but a few timid speeches from Leaders in the House & their man McConnell in the Senate; right before they cave.

Enjoyed and appreciated your comments. Certainly food for thought:-)

Badger40 on February 13, 2013 at 1:49 PM

Glad a Pissy-Willow fellow like you wasn’t around after Bull Run/Antietam or the Fall of the Philippines or in 1976, because that’s what folkz said before Thatcher or Reagan, too.

There’s no political cost to correct your speech habits, so just do it.

anotherJoe on February 13, 2013 at 12:42 PM

To be honest, if that’s what you think will actually change the low information moron voter’s mind about the dire circumstances of this country, er uh I mean how we are sooooo f@cked, then let it burn.
Bcs if they don’t know what some of those words mean, the likelihood of them even getting WTF is wrong with simple words isn’t really going to improve much anyway.
These morons are only looking for the liberals to increase the spreading around of other people’s $$ to those who are unproductive.

He isn’t electable anyway but definitely not CinC material. He would do the most good I. The Senate fighting the size of govt in domestic sphere.

jp on February 13, 2013 at 10:48 AM

I haven’t seen your handle before so I’ll be nice in case you’re a newbie, but as a warning: Don’t use the phrase (or any form thereof) of “isn’t electable” around here.

We (I think I can speak for a lot of us here) have had “electable” people shoved down our throats and had to suck it up and had our ears boxed for the effort. We’ve watched “unelectable” strong people who might have made a huge difference wander off.

There is no “unelectable” anymore. Any strong conservative who tosses their hat in should get our attention and support. If that’s Rand Paul, then so be it.

Sometimes a truth speaker shows up. Not sure it will do any good though.

WordsMatter on February 13, 2013 at 9:27 AM

Have to start somewhere. It’s up to us to keep it going and make truth speaking honorable again.

Dusty on February 13, 2013 at 12:18 PM

Sorry Dusty, I meant to make it clear that my reply was to FOGW1 and was just copying you and ColdWarrior, but forgot to include that.

letget on February 13, 2013 at 11:23 AM

Thanks, bookmarked it for later.

Palin 2016

ChuckTX on February 13, 2013 at 10:17 AM

Thank you for posting those. A few of our commenters posted some on the SOTU thread. To see them all is helpful. Great way for Sarah to respond in realtime!!

The willpower to do this (cut the deficit) won’t come from Congress, it must come from the American people.

Good luck with that. As of November 6th, 2012, the American people have exhibited no such willpower. With no signs of that changing any time soon.

Rand Paul says: “the economy is tenuous

I love Rand Paul, and I’m all for big words when appropriate, but a serious piece of advice: when talking to all the people, DON’T USE BIG S.A.T. VOCABULARY WORDS! ~ 65% of the people doesn’t know what tenuous means. It’s an unforced needless error. Practice correct speech. Don’t use big words when talking to the hoi polloi. Say instead, simply “the economy is in terrible shape” or something else sans tenuous.

Romney used these type of big vocabulary words repeatedly. And it reinforced a sense that he was a rich out of touch dweeb of the 1%. It needlessly made him appear (more) stilted, (more) stuffy, (more) Ivy Tower, even arrogant. There’s no political cost to correct your speech habits, so just do it.

[elfman on February 13, 2013 at 12:05 PM]

Yeah, my comment addressed the budget deficit. I should have been clearer that my comment had nothing to do with the debt other than as a way to stop contributing to it.

I ignored the FOWG1′s reference to the debt as being a typo.

A 1% reduction in spending will eliminate the debt?
Am I wrong in thinking that the gubmint borrows 40 cents for each dollar spent?
I guess I’m dense. Please help.
FOWG1 on February 13, 2013 at 9:43 AM

coldwarrior on February 13, 2013 at 9:51 AM

Dusty on February 13, 2013 at 10:46 AM

Rand Paul didn’t say that 1% cuts would eliminate our dept, only that it would balance the budget. It works quickly because of compound interest. I don’t know how the penny plan is calculated by its authors, but here’s it with some basic assumptions:

Assume a continuation of our average growth rate in federal spending of 4.5%
Assume the budget is $100

PennyPlan —- vs -Historical
Year 0, $100 – 1% $100 + 4.5%
Year 1, $99.00 vs. $104.50
Year 2, $98.01 vs. $109.20
Year 3, $97.03 vs. $114.12
Year 4, $96.06 vs. $119.25
Year 5, $95.10 vs. $124.62
Year 6, $94.15 vs. $130.23
Year 7, $93.21 vs. $136.09
Year 8, $92.27 vs. $142.21
Year 9, $91.35 vs. $148.45

By year 7, federal spending would be 32% less
By year 10, federal spending would be 42% less (about what it would need to be today for our budget to balance.)

The worst thing about it IMO is that future governments would probably not follow it. The best thing about it is that it’s unlikely to trigger a civil war or an economic collapse like a 10% cuts might. And it’s actually “possible” in this world, not just in a fantasy world.