Sen.-elect Paul: GOP must consider military cuts

[Onceler]

We still have a cold war military budget. National security is currently much more related to fiscal health & the economy than to military strength.

Dixie needs to look at a pie chart of gov't spending; no one is suggesting that the military is the only place to cut, but you can't have a meaningful discussion about cutting expenditures without the military in the conversation.

They were asking one of the Tea Party winners on Tuesday where they were going to start cutting, and they trotted out the ol' "National Endowment for the Arts." They don't get it.

 

[Don Quixote]

But the idea is to provide a basic standard of living. This is the difference between the government helping and the government interfering. When it is ascertained a certain amount of money is required the government helps by ensuring each individual receives that amount. How the people budget that money should not be the government's business. It doesn't cost the government any more regardless of how a person spends the money.

and if they have kids and decide to buy drugs instead of food?

I feel the interference results in not only higher costs but we have to consider one person may feel despondent having to wear second hand clothes while another person couldn't care less.

The idea of government help should be to interfere as little as possible in an individual's lifestyle. For example, some people prefer to eat well and live in a modest dwelling while others prefer the image of a better dwelling and cut back on the food they eat as others do not see that.

Being on government assistance is a major adjustment for an individual. It just seems to make sense each individual should be able to budget as they see fit. Assistance without interference.

unfortunately, some people are able to make sensible decisions

now, if they can (usually with counseling regarding) manage the money provided, then give them more personal freedom in gradations

 

[Damocles]

We still have a cold war military budget. National security is currently much more related to fiscal health & the economy than to military strength.

Dixie needs to look at a pie chart of gov't spending; no one is suggesting that the military is the only place to cut, but you can't have a meaningful discussion about cutting expenditures without the military in the conversation.

They were asking one of the Tea Party winners on Tuesday where they were going to start cutting, and they trotted out the ol' "National Endowment for the Arts." They don't get it.

The Endowment for the Arts is one of the things that should be cut entirely, however that is not where discussion needs to start.

We should begin with an urgent agreement that we will curtail it all, then we can get into which we'll cut less than others. After we've got the entirety of the budget (including military spending) under control then we can start thinking about getting rid of worthless things like the NEA. Art is not so valuable in itself that we should exempt artists from competition and the need to produce what their audience actually wants.

 

[Onceler]

The Endowment for the Arts is one of the things that should be cut entirely, however that is not where discussion needs to start.

We should begin with an urgent agreement that we will curtail it all, then we can get into which we'll cut less than others. After we've got the entirety of the budget (including military spending) under control then we can start thinking about getting rid of worthless things like the NEA. Art is not so valuable in itself that we should exempt artists from competition and the need to produce what their audience actually wants.

I don't really have a problem with cutting the NEA. But it's symbolic peanuts, and for someone who was just elected on a platform of basically being serious about cutting gov't spending to bring that up as the prime example of where they would start is laughable.

 

[Damocles]

I don't really have a problem with cutting the NEA. But it's symbolic peanuts, and for someone who was just elected on a platform of basically being serious about cutting gov't spending to bring that up as the prime example of where they would start is laughable.

We agree. Again, the NEA is something that goes, but not even close to where we should begin the discussion.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Well said.

I can't get a single Tea Bagger to tell me which programs they want cut, or the amount of spending reduction they think would be necessary to balance the budget.

I'm beginning to suspect that most of them have no idea what the government actually does or how federal spending works.

They just hate Obama and like chanting the slogans.

You've noticed that too? I've also noticed that any program that benefits them is a good program but any other program that doesn't is evil socialism.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Mr. Paul. duck and cover, sir, incoming!

Yea no shit. I'll be surprized if by tomorrow he doesn't come back and say...."Well what I really meant was...." and if he doesn't, more power to him!

 

[Mott the Hoople]

That is not entirely true. While in many cases lowering taxes does boost tax revenue (as during the Reagan years), raising taxes does not inevitably result in less revenue. The threshold is somewhere around 50%. I'm not saying higher taxes are a positive thing, but it will be necessary to pull ourselves out of this mess. Unless you have a better idea to close a $1.4 trillion budget deficit?

Not entirely true? Voltaire you sound more English than French. He's completely fucking wrong and doesn't have that first clue what he's talking about. In fact, the opposite is true. It's the regressive tax cuts, which they claim would increase government revenues , but do not.

The fact is, we presently have historical tax low rates. If we cannot cut spending to sustainable levels then we will need to increase taxes on a progressive basis. Period! We either all need to learn to do with less or be willing to pay more for services.

Or as it used to say on the back of my van...Ass, gas or grass....no one rides for free!

 

[Damocles]

You've noticed that too? I've also noticed that any program that benefits them is a good program but any other program that doesn't is evil socialism.

Wow. What a weak post, I'd say it was beneath you, but it seems common for you lately. We've spent this thread talking about just such an area, as well as others. To see this post now in the middle of the very discussion you say you never have is weak.

 

[Don Quixote]

I don't really have a problem with cutting the NEA. But it's symbolic peanuts, and for someone who was just elected on a platform of basically being serious about cutting gov't spending to bring that up as the prime example of where they would start is laughable.

the nea's budget is less than 0.01% of the national budget

feel free to check this as the actual amount is likely less than 0.001%

or the proverbial drop in the bucket

 

[Mott the Hoople]

We're at the end of the line, imo. Liberals have to realize that growing deficits & poor fiscal health will end up hurting programs they hold dear. Conservatives have to realize that you can't have a meaningful discussion about getting the fiscal house in order without talking about significant (if not drastic) cuts to the military budget, and that poor fiscal health is more endangering to our national security than anything those cuts would do to our military strength (see: Soviet Union).

Put a compromise bill together that privatizes Social Security & cuts 30% off the military budget. That would be a good start.

Privatizing social security is about the stupidest thing you could say. I have no problems in making pro business tax decisions but not on the backs of the people. Social Security is the least problematic of the three pillars. A modest increast in the payroll tax cap solves that problem indefinately. That leaves medicate/medicaid and the military. 30% cuts is a good start, phased in over 10 years. Just like Bush 1 originally planned on doing for what was called back then, "The Peace Divident" after we won the Cold War.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

So, you're a Tea Bagger?

You want to cut Defense, Social Security, Medicare, Homeland Security, everything?

By how much? A percentage?

first, by totally eliminating agencies that have no constitutional basis, like ATF, FBI, and DOEducation. Then 20% of whats left.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

i don't understand the republican position when it comes to preserving tax cuts for those who make over 250K....i work with people who make over 250K and they all support the tax cuts expiring....if i made over 250K i am not sure the additional taxes would inhibit my spending or desire to earn more income by any marginal amount....

i've read up on the issue and the arguments for letting the tax cuts expire seem to have more merit

In general I concur, that is, unless we can make the co-requeset spending cuts that would justify keeping the lower tax rates. To be honest, I have no problem keeping the Bush tax cuts under the following conditions.

#1. Non-military spending is cut back to pre-bailout/stimulus levels.
#2. Seriously reduce or eliminate our military involvements in Iraq (all ready happening) and Afghanistan.
#3. Reduce military spending to pre 911 levels. Then agree to phase in further cuts.
#4. Give pay-go real teeth.
#5. Raise the cap on the pay roll tax to $165,000.
#6. Prohibit ear marks
#7. Reduce non-military discretionary spending by 100 billion.

 

[Onceler]

Privatizing social security is about the stupidest thing you could say. I have no problems in making pro business tax decisions but not on the backs of the people. Social Security is the least problematic of the three pillars. A modest increast in the payroll tax cap solves that problem indefinately. That leaves medicate/medicaid and the military. 30% cuts is a good start, phased in over 10 years. Just like Bush 1 originally planned on doing for what was called back then, "The Peace Divident" after we won the Cold War.

It's been discussed at length, but I don't understand how anyone rational can be against privatization.

It wouldn't be "on the backs of the people." Privatization benefits everyone. There is virtually no way that seniors would not see better checks than what they have now, and certainly better than what retirees will see in 30-40 years time.

It's an unsustainable program.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

first, by totally eliminating agencies that have no constitutional basis, like ATF, FBI, and DOEducation. Then 20% of whats left.

and in all that would account for about 1% of the budget. Get real dude.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

and in all that would account for about 1% of the budget. Get real dude.

so what you're trying to say is that our government is 'too big to fail'?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Motthead, you should spend more time actually READING the thread, instead of knee-jerk responding. You are making an absolute idiot of yourself here, because you've failed to READ the entire thread. One sentence someone says, jumps out at you, and you're off on a jackass tear, posting one stupid uninformed thing after another, like some kind of retard.

FYI, there have been dozens of suggestions on what to cut and eliminate. INCLUDING the military budget. And also, Mottbrain... If you cut the budget 20% across the board, you've reduced it by more than 1% I think. Oh yeah, almost forgot, you are totally wrong about increasing revenues through increasing tax on top marginal rates. Every time it has been done, the revenue for the current year increases, but every subsequent tax year, there is a decrease in revenues as a percentage of GDP. You REDUCE the revenues you would have otherwise had.

 

[zappasguitar]

How about you crawl back in your asshole and die? That way, we wouldn't have to endure the agony of listening to your stupidity, and the environment would be spared your repulsively putrid breath and hot air.

Food Stamps-- stop funding the program and eliminate it. Take the people who are currently receiving a free handout from government, and put their asses to work in a Soup Kitchen, and if you're hungry, you can go there and eat some soup. If someone needs clothes, go to the Salvation Army or Goodwill. ...Let the military use Rahm Emanuel for target practice.... it's time technology replace liberal pinheads, we can really do without YOU!

Ah, good ol Dicks...ever the living and breathing heart and soul of Conservative Compassion for the less fortunate!

Such callousness to the plight of the less fortunate coming from one who regularly proclaims his "spirituality"...kinda worms the cockles of your heart during this Holiday season, doesn't it?

I guess "spirituality" has nothing to do with caring about those less fortunate than yourself, right Dicks?

 

[Damocles]

STY says:

first, by totally eliminating agencies that have no constitutional basis, like ATF, FBI, and DOEducation. Then 20% of whats left.

To which you answer:

and in all that would account for about 1% of the budget. Get real dude.

What? Eliminating specific stuff and then 20% of what's left is only 1%, in what world? The magical universe where 1/3 doesn't exist? Come on, first you interrupt a good discussion of specific programs that can be cut with a statement that is made false by the very discussion you interrupted, then you magically think that cutting specific agencies then cutting 20 percent across the board after would only be 1%? You aren't making sense. In all it would account for more than 20% of the Budget.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Ah, good ol Dicks...ever the living and breathing heart and soul of Conservative Compassion for the less fortunate!

Such callousness to the plight of the less fortunate coming from one who regularly proclaims his "spirituality"...kinda worms the cockles of your heart during this Holiday season, doesn't it?

I guess "spirituality" has nothing to do with caring about those less fortunate than yourself, right Dicks?

At least my approach actually helps people instead of keeping them shackled in poverty. And you need to go "worm" the cockles of your brain, fuckwit!