Sen.-elect Paul: GOP must consider military cuts

[Mike Mitrosky]

And I'm going to warn you Libertarian Conservative types, this stupidity of agreeing with Liberals about cutting the military, is the WRONG approach, and you'll pay for that. The second you agreed with them on this, they started dreaming up new ways to spend that money on some new government entitlement that they will claim is a "savings" to us in the long run! You are idiots, absolute moronic fuckwitted idiots, who just don't get it yet! You can't, for one second, agree with these socialist fools, or you'll have us so wrapped up in new Liberal spending programs it will make your head spin! That's ALL THE FUCK THEY NEEDED TO HEAR!

Im a libertarian conservative type... and I dont think theres any reason we really need to have a world empire out there costing us upwards of $1 trillion a year...

cold war has been over for decades.. time to bring the troops home from places like Germany, Japan, Italy, etc... enough is enough.

Get rid of the federal reserve, get rid of the income tax.. cut out enough spending to make up the difference and watch the economy take off.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The Republicans held the Presidency and a majority in the House and Senate at the time. They passed that monstrosity by their own accord.

EXACTLY! Because fuckwit moderates like you, entertained the socialist notion to begin with! IF republicans had stuck to their principles of conservatism, that would never have happened. It was the entertaining of the idiot liberals idea during the campaign season before, which lead to the Pill Bill! And the same goddamn thing will happen again, with regard to military budget cuts! You fucktards just don't ever learn, it's the same trick! Stop falling for it!

Not at all. I am for cutting military spending only if everything else will be cut, too. Like I said, across the board.

And I am too! I've said, I don't have a problem cutting military spending by whatever percent we're cutting everything else! But that isn't what the liberals hear at all, the minute you admit you're willing to cut military spending, they are coming up with something to spend that money on, which they will "claim" is going to "save" money, and counts as "cutting" something. In other words, you'll end up getting military budget cuts, AND getting new massive government entitlement programs! All because you capitulated on this! We need to cut waste FIRST! Eliminate some things we don't need, FIRST! And come up with 10-20% across the board cuts in social spending programs, FIRST! ...THEN and only THEN, should we even consider cutting military spending. Think of it as a pinhead reward, IF they go along with the other stuff FIRST!

Incorrect. By that flawed logic, cutting taxes down to 1% would result in increased revenue. The threshold at which a tax results in decreased revenue is somewhere around 50%, or even as high as 70% according to some economists.

There is no flawed logic. You are now talking about the Laffer curve, and I understand, there is a point of diminishing returns... we're nowhere near that point right now. As I said, go check out the GAO and IRS figures on it, if you doubt what I stated, every time we've reduced the top marginal rates, it resulted in a gain of revenues as a percentage of GDP, and every time we've increased it, the opposite happened.

You'd have to eliminate at least $2 trillion of the Federal budget in order to erase the deficit, pay the interest on the debt, and pay down the national debt at a snail's pace. So essentially you'd need to slash Federal spending by 60%,which is a lot easier said than done. Where would you start? Care to provide some specifics?

No, sorry, even under Spendaholic Obama, the deficit is not growing at $2 trillion per year, it's more along the lines of $1 trillion. Obamacare accounts for a good chunk of that, and there are plenty of programs that can be trimmed down, to bring the budget into balance. Bill Clinton did it, so it can be done. If we can balance the budget, and we eliminate cap gains taxation, and slightly reduce top marginal rates to stimulate growth in the economy, we can grow enough (GDP) to pay down the national debt over time. But the key to that is balancing the budget, and that isn't going to ever happen, until we have an Amendment to the Constitution requiring it. And Democrats aren't ever going to support that.

Military budget cuts? Fine, but that should be done AFTER other things are cut, and the spending is stopped. It shouldn't be a precursor for discussion with Liberals, because that is asinine and stupid, and the same exact ploy they utilized to get the Pill Bill, as well as Obamacare! You want more of that shit?--Go ahead and cede the idea of military budget cuts before you even sit down at the table, FOOLS!

 

[Mike Mitrosky]

bill clinton never balanced the budget.. he got the deficit down real low.. REAL low.. like $13 billion one year or so.. but he never balanced the budget.. dont even blame him though... i blame the federal reserve... fuck those guys

 

[Damocles]

And I'm going to warn you Libertarian Conservative types, this stupidity of agreeing with Liberals about cutting the military, is the WRONG approach, and you'll pay for that. The second you agreed with them on this, they started dreaming up new ways to spend that money on some new government entitlement that they will claim is a "savings" to us in the long run! You are idiots, absolute moronic fuckwitted idiots, who just don't get it yet! You can't, for one second, agree with these socialist fools, or you'll have us so wrapped up in new Liberal spending programs it will make your head spin! That's ALL THE FUCK THEY NEEDED TO HEAR!

Right. So we should take every dollar we can possibly take and SPEND it on the military because every dollar spent on an overbloated military is a dollar taken away from the plans of the left to say pass "stimulus" or "health care"... We can prove that by the fact that they never passed any of that stuff because they thought there was already enough debt...

Dix, this is dumb. It isn't "agreeing" with liberals to point out reality. You may not like it, but it is time to cut absolutely everything.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Right. So we should take every dollar we can possibly take and SPEND it on the military because every dollar spent on an overbloated military is a dollar taken away from the plans of the left to say pass "stimulus" or "health care"... We can prove that by the fact that they never passed any of that stuff because they thought there was already enough debt...

Dix, this is dumb. It isn't "agreeing" with liberals to point out reality. You may not like it, but it is time to cut absolutely everything.

Well Damo, you, me, and Senator Paul, can believe that we need to cut military spending along with everything else, but the minute you let a liberal know this card is in your hand, the game will be turned on you. It seems that you would have realized this by now, how do you think we got the Pill Bill? Why are Republicans now in the position of having to repeal Obamacare, only IF they can replace it with something else the Constitution doesn't even call for? The Federal Government doesn't have any business being involved in our health care! Yet, here we are... prepared to give in on that, if we can get rid of Obamacare! Liberals are sneaky snakes, Damo! The SECOND Rand Paul made that comment, the wheels started turning in their little pinheads, on how they could spend those windfalls from gutting the military, and it will undoubtedly be, on some liberal load of shit they convince gullible fools like you, is actually SAVING us money! They're not going to cut a damn bit of social funding, you should know that! They scream and holler at the mere suggestion we not afford the annual cost of living increases built into all this shit! You'll get your military cuts, because you're already on record cheerleading that! But the rest of their precious social spending, they will find a way to wiggle out of cutting ANY of it! Watch and see! It's happened over and over, and it appears it's going to happen again, because certain republican types are just morons who don't get it!

 

[Onceler]

Dixie, you're displaying the kind of attitude that will guarantee that nothing meaningful ever gets done when it comes to reducing our expenditures.

A liberal could just as easily say that once you give conservatives the green light to cut programs, they'll take advantage of it and never stop. And they can add a bunch of exclamation points as well.

There is a lot of compromise to be had here: you cut this, and we'll cut that. You cut the military, and we'll privatize SS. Etc.

The thinking has to change - both from the kind of paranoid "our side has to win" mentality that you embody, to the idea that any of these issues are conservative or liberal. If America doesn't get its fiscal house in order, both sides lose....

 

[Damocles]

If we start with the agreement that everything gets cut, then we can start arguing sacred cow. To cut less into whatever precious program you have... I like that argument, either way the program has cuts. Once we get there, we can start diving into killing off worthless "programs" like the Endowment for the Arts.

 

[Bonestorm]

If we start with the agreement that everything gets cut, then we can start arguing sacred cow. To cut less into whatever precious program you have... I like that argument, either way the program has cuts. Once we get there, we can start diving into killing off worthless "programs" like the Endowment for the Arts.

Yeah, killing of the National Endowment for the Arts will really make a huge budgetary impact. You're really thinking big here, Damo. I like it.

 

[Damocles]

Yeah, killing of the National Endowment for the Arts will really make a huge budgetary impact. You're really thinking big here, Damo. I like it.

It's almost like you avoid actually reading what I wrote and start into something stupid in an attempt to distract from the fact that FIRST we'd be CUTTING EVERYTHING before we started talking about worthless programs like the Endowment for the Arts. I don't think it is because you are stupid, so it must be that you have what we'll start calling Mott's Syndrome where you are incapable of reading about the rest of what somebody said so you can stupidly pretend that the only thing mentioned was something you think you can mock.

The problem, Nigel, is nobody except you two seem to have it. So you can either participate in the conversation or you will be consistently reminded how you are incapable of reading due to your Mott's syndrome.

Seriously, I don't like calling a post "stupid" but really, repeating this nonsense is as worthless as the program itself.

 

[Onceler]

Yeah, killing of the National Endowment for the Arts will really make a huge budgetary impact. You're really thinking big here, Damo. I like it.

To be fair to Damo, I brought up the NEA earlier (one of the TEA fools had brought it up on election night as an area to cut). I think that's the only reason he mentioned it.

If they NEA is such a huge one for them, I'm happy to make that the first compromise: you cut the military budget 30%, and we'll get rid of the NEA. Everybody wins...

 

[Damocles]

To be fair to Damo, I brought up the NEA earlier (one of the TEA fools had brought it up on election night as an area to cut). I think that's the only reason he mentioned it.

If they NEA is such a huge one for them, I'm happy to make that the first compromise: you cut the military budget 30%, and we'll get rid of the NEA. Everybody wins...

Nah, this would be more like, "You cut out the money given to religious charities and we'll cut the NEA" type of compromise. Cutting the Military will take a cut into one of the left's sacred cows.

 

[Damocles]

Anyway, the reality is worthless little programs will add up, we need to cut them all rather than continue to allow growth creep in the Federal Government. If you want your state to buy bad art that nobody wants, then by all means vote for that and pay extra in state taxes for it.

 

[Bonestorm]

Nah, this would be more like, "You cut out the money given to religious charities and we'll cut the NEA" type of compromise. Cutting the Military will take a cut into one of the left's sacred cows.

That's hilarious. So 50% of the discretionary budget is completely off limits unless there are cuts to "one of the left's sacred cows." Why does that makes any sense at all?

For a so-called deficit hawk you have some fucked up priorities.

 

[Bonestorm]

Anyway, the reality is worthless little programs will add up, we need to cut them all rather than continue to allow growth creep in the Federal Government. If you want your state to buy bad art that nobody wants, then by all means vote for that and pay extra in state taxes for it.

Actually, they don't really add up to much at all. You're talking about trying to save the Titanic by bailing water with a thimble. Christ, the NEA has spent like $5 billion total since its inception in the 1960s. By comparison, the DoD spent more than three times that amount in a single day last year, not including war costs.

 

[Damocles]

That's hilarious. So 50% of the discretionary budget is completely off limits unless there are cuts to "one of the left's sacred cows." Why does that makes any sense at all?

For a so-called deficit hawk you have some fucked up priorities.

Again, you didn't read what I said and started into foolishness. Another sign of Motts Syndrome. The NEA wouldn't be enough to cut into that sacred cow and you know it.

Again. I'll type slowly for those with Mott's Syndrome.

EVERYTHING. NEEDS. TO. HAVE. CUTS.

The argument should be "how much" from each area of the Budget. We can all argue to try to protect our sacred cows as much as possible, but know that they all will be cut. That is the place to begin the argument.

 

[Damocles]

Actually, they don't really add up to much at all. You're talking about trying to save the Titanic by bailing water with a thimble. Christ, the NEA has spent like $5 billion total since its inception in the 1960s. By comparison, the DoD spent more than three times that amount in a single day last year, not including war costs.

Every cut would count, if all the worthless programs were cut it would be a significant number. Even if you think the savings are "not enough"... It's only because you ignore the rest of what I said and go off into imaginary land where that was the only thing that anybody has talked about. I regret that Onceler mentioned the NEA and I used it later in the conversation because you can't get past your stupid and into the conversation.

 

[Bonestorm]

Again, you didn't read what I said and started into foolishness. Another sign of Motts Syndrome. The NEA wouldn't be enough to cut into that sacred cow and you know it.

Again. I'll type slowly for those with Mott's Syndrome.

EVERYTHING. NEEDS. TO. HAVE. CUTS.

The argument should be "how much" from each area of the Budget. We can all argue to try to protect our sacred cows as much as possible, but know that they all will be cut. That is the place to begin the argument.

Your position is stupid, though. Let's assume for the moment that I agree that everything has to be cut, why should the cut be based on nonsensical horsetrading that has nothing to do with the value of the program being cut?

I mean, we're talking about Fantasyland anyway so why not have the Fantasyland make actual sense?

 

[Damocles]

Your position is stupid, though. Let's assume for the moment that I agree that everything has to be cut, why should the cut be based on nonsensical horsetrading that has nothing to do with the value of the program being cut?

I mean, we're talking about Fantasyland anyway so why not have the Fantasyland make actual sense?

Because there is a reality that compromise will need to be reached in order to get this done.

Stupid ignores reality and pretends the conversation is about the NEA.

And during the argument where we work on "how much" each area gets cut we'll definitely get into why each of the sacred cow programs "needs" less cuts than the other, if it should exist at all, etc. It is time to be responsible to our future generations and pay the piper for the largesse of our parents.

Now, can you move past the magical land where 1/3 doesn't exist and 20% cuts in everything after getting rid of specific programs means less than 1% of the budget and into the land where we are talking about cuts in the government, how it can get done, and how we think it best to start?

 

[Bonestorm]

Every cut would count, if all the worthless programs were cut it would be a significant number. Even if you think the savings are "not enough"... It's only because you ignore the rest of what I said and go off into imaginary land where that was the only thing that anybody has talked about. I regret that Onceler mentioned the NEA and I used it later in the conversation because you can't get past your stupid and into the conversation.

Yes, I'm sorry that you used the NEA too, because it's fucking stupid. Tell you what, why don't you name the "worthless programs" that you want to have cut and we can talk about those.

 

[Onceler]

Your position is stupid, though. Let's assume for the moment that I agree that everything has to be cut, why should the cut be based on nonsensical horsetrading that has nothing to do with the value of the program being cut?

I mean, we're talking about Fantasyland anyway so why not have the Fantasyland make actual sense?

Let's face it; politicians are basically idiots. I think Dixie's last few posts probably embody what many of them feel, though with a lower degree of lunacy.

Cutting the NEA would be a show of "good faith." Symbolism is very important to the idiots; just the fact that a TEA guy brought up the NEA on election night (and nothing else) shows what it means to the right. No one is suggesting that's an intelligent position; it just is what it is.

Clearly, the defense budget has to be cut & cut in a big way if anyone is serious about reducing the deficit. It that takes a few symbolic gestures along the way to achieve a form of compromise, so be it....