11 votes

Why Rand Paul Is Wrong On Government Default

According to his website, conveniently named RandPaul2016.com (and yes, I know that the “2016″ is theoretically referencing his future Senate reelection bid in 2016 but….come on), Senator Rand Paul yesterday introduced the Default Prevention Act as a response to the latest iteration of the “debt ceiling debate”. Of course we’ve seen this show before, and we know how it ends: with the debt ceiling being raised after some sort of “compromise” is reached, where both sides cross-their-hearts-and-hope-to-die promise to fix the budget problems the country is facing next time.

Since the U.S. government technically reached the current legal debt limit on December 31, 2012, the government must rely on the funds it has and the funds it takes in to pay the bills. Those bills include everything and anything the government spends money on, from funding the overseas military empire to Social Security payments and of course, the interest on the debt itself. According to the press release from Senator Paul’s office:

In order to remove any chance of government default, Sen. Paul’s legislation spells out which government-funded programs should be held at the highest priority to continue funding, while paying down the interest and principal on debt held by the public.

“Some of my Republican colleagues in the House have decided to surrender to the Democrats’ annual plan to increase the debt ceiling. I believe we should stand and fight for a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution before we raise the debt ceiling. My legislation takes the possibility of default off the table so we can continue to push for fiscal restraint. There is no reason the government would – or should – responsibly consider the idea of default,” Sen. Paul said.

Senator Paul has the wrong idea here when it comes to the national debt. He buys into the idea that the debt of the U.S. government belongs to the “public” i.e. every single person in the United States. This falsely equates private debt – where a person willingly takes on a debt and signs a contract to pay it back in a set amount of time with an agreed upon interest rate – with public debt. Conversely, the debts of the United States government are not contractually agreed to by anyone, and will not be paid through honest means. Instead, they will be paid through continued coercive taxation of the public.

Continue Reading

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Not necessarily. It doesn't

Not necessarily.

It doesn't have to be default today. But creditors must know that the money train will not keep flowing and that they must renegotiate debt if they want any hope of getting any return at all. Prioritizing debt servicing does not curtail scans back the debt - rather it continues the scam.

Why do you or I and everyone else owe $20 Billion perpetual for a debt we never asked for or agreed to?

Government does not have to default; it can cut back on spending drastically and and signal to creditors that interest will not be further paid until the debts are renegotiated.

If you keep feeding them, it only encourages more of the same bad behavior.

Default is inevitable , but further deejaying and propping up of the system will only make a future uncontrolled default even worse.

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

What makes you think...

I am "attacking" Rand? Are we not allowed to criticize someone because their last name is Paul?

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

Michael Nystrom's picture

Thank you for your contribution to the discussion

You are correct. Discussion is not "attack." At this point Rand is running for president. Everything he does must be viewed through that lens: How do his actions work towards that goal? Sponsoring bills, attacking Hillary - it is all part of the Show. The Show really is for the PTB, not really so much for us.

I think it is imperative to pay attention to how the race proceeds. Are these political tactics more effective than the tactics used by his father? This is really the meta story behind Rand's actions.

To be mean is never excusable, but there is some merit in knowing that one is; the most irreparable of vices is to do evil out of stupidity. - C.B.

Rand Paul Destroyed what was left of the 2012

Liberty campaign by endorsing Romney. The money bombs dryed up and Ron Conceided defeat. I was like the rest of you not privy to the reasons behind these events along with Jesse Bentons money bomb killing events but In my opinion you are with us all the way or not. There is no time for compromise. There is no turning back. There is no chance of change short of chaos and civil war. We are tired of the rederic. I will be watching closely the workings of the Oath Keepers. The republican party is dead.

All part of a show?

I know it is imperative to LEARN from Rand and ans to become part of the race, not a mere spectator sowing seeds of doubt, posting negative comments in the name of discussion.

A disscussion might have been asking a innocent question, not a loaded one and then defending the off topics.

You can tell a Rand hater, but you can't tell them much.

"Wait and see", is just another way of saying, KEEP THE GOP AS IT IS.

No thanks.

have a good posting day!

You're losing me, Granger

As I stated earlier we regularly *praise* Rand as well when he is right.

Is anything short of blind support regardless of whether I hold an opinion contrary the only acceptable viewpoint? Anything else is just considered "hating"?

I didn't ask any question innocent, loaded or otherwise, I merely stated my view which differs from that of Rand.

If people in the liberty movement can't criticize their "leaders", what exactly are we even fighting for?

Wasn't it freedom?

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

You've lost me MarcMadness

I don't collect people, nor do I fancy being collected.. do you mean you don't understand what I am saying?

Are there people on DP who support Rand Paul? Whether it is blind support, in your opinion or not, can you admit that there are people here who have made the decision that Rand Paul is the best the GOP has to offer as president to date, and they are learning from Rand, and bringing Rand's political stands to their committees and educating them? Are you opposed to people learning from Rand's politcal moves and educating their committees?

Do you respect them? Or do you feel that, blind support is unrespectable, and thereby it's ok for you to issue contrary opinion (food for fodder), that they witness as an attack, because to you, (who are better than them, because you do not engage in "blind support"?), can call it discussion.. and continue to disrespect their position?

You made your contrary opinion of Rand, and when you received intelligent response, you protest. Is that because you do not like Rand or the GOP, and this is what's more inportant to you than any debate, for (You can tell who doesn't like Rand, but you can't tell them much")?

I am not part of any so called Liberty Movement. I do not have a good opinion of the so called Liberty Movement. I do not make top posts on my opinions about the Liberty Movement because I respect the fact there are many people here who think the Liberty Movement is worthy. I would not bait them, and call it a disscussion KNOWING, I have no respect for the Liberty Movement, but rather, I tolerate it. I respect the indiviuals, not the collective.

I am learning from Rand, as I had to learn from Ron Paul. I did NOT agree with Ron Paul 100% when I decided to toss my energy behind Ron Paul's shot for president in 07/08. I had a lot of reading, studying, and I had questions.. but I also had HOPE. Ron Paul cured my apathy.

I am sure I am not alone in those who Rand has shocked and awed. He continues to make me think and study. He takes a learning curve and I want to learn. I am very open to discussing what Rand does.

Innitially, I did not appreciate his endorsing Romney. How could he? It took awhile, but I owe Rand, and so does Ron, because what Rand did was wake up delegates like me, that the GOP would purge us for breaking our loyalty oaths. I was thinking I could be like Ron Paul and vote for who I wanted, how I wanted. But Rand woke me up.. Do I actually think a party that has lied, cheated, stolen is going to respect the privacy of my vote, when I must sign the envelope? I'm elected, so my ballot goes to the county clerk who knows me. How hard is it to not look at my vote? How much could they have been paid to look? Did I want to vote for Romney? No. Did Rand? I doubt it. But once one has an elected posiiton, the name of the game becomes staying IN.. and while that has created many problems.. it is not staying out that resolves the problem.

So for those of us who followed Ron Paul into the GOP, took seats, offices.. Rand is the senior GOP of our rEVOLution. He is our leader, and I surely appreciate discussion; However, I do not appreciate contrary questions with an objective to create doubt, rather than educate.

Those of us in the GOP rEVOLution have a candidate: RAND PAUL.

Those in the Liberty Movement have no party, no candidate, and tons of doubt, apathy, excuses, and lame responses to keep the powers that be in contriol, by "waiting and watching". That's what vultures do.

I judge them by their actions.. Rand is fighting for our liberty and while you may not appreciate it.. you also have nothing to offer.. no candidate we can discuss.

I surely look foreward to the day you have that candidate.. and if it's Republican wearing a Libertarian Party pin.. you've already lost, IMO.

So let us educate each other in discussion rather than find ways to be contrary for the sake of sowing seeds of apathy, doubt and hurting those we don't respect. Let us tolerate each other with HOPE.

PEACE BE WITH YOU.

Thanks Michael

It's true that in some ways I believe Rand should get closer scrutiny on some issues, as after all he is representing the "liberty" movement in a very purposeful way.

Many of Rand's moves may be good for him politically, but do they properly represent liberty?

When they do , we praise him. Heck if you just scroll down our site a little bit you'll see an article praising Rand's bill to fight Obama's Executive Orders on guns.

But he should not be shield from criticism, and in many ways should be held to a higher standard. No. I'm not shocked when Lindsey Graham supports sanctions against Iran so I don't feel the need to point it out.

When Rand Paul does I do, as he is representing the "liberty" movement, and it concerns me that things like sanctions on Iran and "paying off public debt" are being associated with "liberty".

Good politics? Maybe.

But liberty? No way.

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

Michael Nystrom's picture

Exactly

We needn't be naive, we needn't make excuses. There is nothing wrong with discussion. In fact, thoughtful discussion is the best path forward on the search for truth.

Kudos to you.

To be mean is never excusable, but there is some merit in knowing that one is; the most irreparable of vices is to do evil out of stupidity. - C.B.

Exactly

It's upsetting to see the knee-jerk reactions by many people to any criticism of anything "Paul" related. The son is not the father, and to bring up a very valid point, backed by Rothbard, to be discussed is something that should be embraced. Not down-voted as so many people do as soon as they see ANYTHING that questions the Paul brand. We take ample time to (rightly) mock blind Obama supporters, yet many people here show the EXACT SAME blind, unquestioning devotion to Rand Paul, despite his sometimes questionable actions in Congress. Everything should be questioned, examined and discussed, and I think Marc is dead on with this article.

Did you read the article?

The author does not even mention Iceland in the article.

It seems from your comments that you endorse the propping up of a broken system until it comes crashing down around us. Rand would do much better for liberty to just vote no on raising the debt ceiling and give a speech condemning the current system. The system is so beyond broken. It cannot be reformed and made to work and even if it could, it is immoral.

Are you arguing that stealing is morally acceptable. Taxation is theft. Inflation is theft. He woulde do much more for the cause of liberty to spend his time arguing in favor of competition in money. It would be nice to have a working system in place when the dollar loses it's reserve status and our financial system comes crashing down.

I agree with the author, why would you want to aid a coercive force with their contiued destruction of liberty.

Rand is 100 times better than most politicians. But these cute little bills accomplish nothing. We need bold, radical ideas. Unless you are happy continuing with the status quo.

Think Iceland

was brought into discussion with the bottom comment :

True that!!

True that!!

*edit*

*edit*

Like Iceland, the US needs to

Like Iceland, the US needs to default. wipe the slate clean and rebuild from within.

“Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy.”
― Ron Paul