Thread: Tea Party fave Rand Paul pushes budget cuts for S.S., Medicare and defense....

A)I like what I'm hearing

b)I can't wait to see the look on the faces of the older generation when they do slash social security and medicare. Way to vote away your interests, all you have to do is look at the budget to realize that cuts are coming to both, and when the GOP ran on cutting entitlements, that was code for social security and medicare. It certainly wasn't code for defense spending.

I agree with Rand Paul.

But will this happen? Not a f*ckin' chance.

And he's "bucking" the GOP leadership? Ha!

The only way to "cut spending" - that political slogan - is the start cutting Medicare and SS!

Yup! they're so patriotic they bluntly say they're not going to work with the Prez. no compromise. If the reps. really wanted to do something to help the economy, cease the bush tax cuts for the richest american's. That would be a good start!

But Nooo, delude the rabble!

Originally Posted by IronAddict

Yup! they're so patriotic they bluntly say they're not going to work with the Prez. no compromise. If the reps. really wanted to do something to help the economy, cease the bush tax cuts for the richest american's. That would be a good start!

But Nooo, delude the rabble!

extending those Bush Tax cuts would add several T to the budget deficit over the next decade. those monies could be better used funding unemployment benefits and increasing tax incentives for small business to expand, hire, etc.

most don't realize all of the long term effects of recessions and the economic scarring that they cause.

Originally Posted by LAM

extending those Bush Tax cuts would add several T to the budget deficit over the next decade. those monies could be better used funding unemployment benefits and increasing tax incentives for small business to expand, hire, etc.

most don't realize all of the long term effects of recessions and the economic scarring that they cause.

Absolutely, the U.S. tax code is so Byzantine.

Now's not the time to raise taxes on anyone, especially the ones we depend on to create jobs (i.e. business owners). No matter how much the leftist ideologues want to sock it to the rich, now's not the time. Until the pork and waste is cut out of the budget, there should be no need to talk about giving the bloated pig an increase. The way this govt spends, we could raise the top tier to 90% and they'd still claim it wasn't enough.

What we do need is the Fair Tax. Your tax burden is proportionate to how much you consume; no loopholes to get out of paying, no need for expensive CPAs & lawyers, no IRS, etc. Unfortunately, too many special interest groups have a vested interest in the tax code remaining convoluted that it'll never happen.

Originally Posted by GearsMcGilf

Now's not the time to raise taxes on anyone, especially the ones we depend on to create jobs (i.e. business owners). No matter how much the leftist ideologues want to sock it to the rich, now's not the time. Until the pork and waste is cut out of the budget, there should be no need to talk about giving the bloated pig an increase. The way this govt spends, we could raise the top tier to 90% and they'd still claim it wasn't enough.

What we do need is the Fair Tax. Your tax burden is proportionate to how much you consume; no loopholes to get out of paying, no need for expensive CPAs & lawyers, no IRS, etc. Unfortunately, too many special interest groups have a vested interest in the tax code remaining convoluted that it'll never happen.

How is raising someone's personal income tax going to affect how much their business spends on new hires? I assume most business owners keep money they intend on reinvesting in to the company separate from what they pay themselves as income, considering it would be foolish to do otherwise.

I am for the fair tax, though. However, democrat or republican, there is no way anyone in washington wants that to happen, it would force them to be effective at doing their job and frugal with our money, which they obviously dislike doing.

Originally Posted by GearsMcGilf

Now's not the time to raise taxes on anyone, especially the ones we depend on to create jobs (i.e. business owners). No matter how much the leftist ideologues want to sock it to the rich, now's not the time. Until the pork and waste is cut out of the budget, there should be no need to talk about giving the bloated pig an increase. The way this govt spends, we could raise the top tier to 90% and they'd still claim it wasn't enough.

What we do need is the Fair Tax. Your tax burden is proportionate to how much you consume; no loopholes to get out of paying, no need for expensive CPAs & lawyers, no IRS, etc. Unfortunately, too many special interest groups have a vested interest in the tax code remaining convoluted that it'll never happen.

The Bush Tax Cuts were there before people started losing their jobs like crazy and have been their hasn't it been long enough for these people to prove that they'd invest it in new hires and expanding business?

Remember the great depression when the rich panicked and started hoarding all the money/gold as a survival instinct....

A. Never said raise taxes. Repeal the bush taxcuts.

B. 90% tax rate, like it was in the fifties, under Eisenhower (R). They don't
speak much of him do they?!

C. yes, a fair tax for all American's, not just some.

Either way, you're talking bout raising taxes. If my tax bracket goes from 25% to 28% next year, that's a tax increase. It'd be better to do that when the economy is back on its feet, if it's determined necessary at that time.

Everyone was hording their shit during the depression, not just those evil greedy rich people. If you went to the bank to withdraw your $ and they told you "you're fucked", you'd stuff whatever gold/cash you had in your mattress also.

Originally Posted by GearsMcGilf

Either way, you're talking bout raising taxes. If my tax bracket goes from 25% to 28% next year, that's a tax increase. It'd be better to do that when the economy is back on its feet, if it's determined necessary at that time.

Everyone was hording their shit during the depression, not just those evil greedy rich people. If you went to the bank to withdraw your $ and they told you "you're fucked", you'd stuff whatever gold/cash you had in your mattress also.

Lol, I'm worth -$42,000 right now. I pray for a total collapse.

Originally Posted by KelJu

Lol, I'm worth -$42,000 right now. I pray for a total collapse.

I spend that much on coffee alone

Remember, Obama increased "defense" spending by 9% this year. The Military Industrial-Complex is very powerful, comprised of the Pentagon (military) and private sector corporations, mentioned a few times before. Together, they always ask for more money, and Presidents give it to them. The MIC is difficult to stand up to.

Medicare: Short, and true.

Cutting SS and causing people to stay in the work force longer will have a ripple effect. many of the GOP proposals call for up to a 50% reduction, that will have devastating effect on the US economy.

Originally Posted by LAM

Cutting SS and causing people to stay in the work force longer will have a ripple effect. many of the GOP proposals call for up to a 50% reduction, that will have devastating effect on the US economy.

How will it devastate the economy?

But keeping SS going at the current age and rate of payments with COLAS, it's having a devastating affect on the economy.

people will have to work much longer so less jobs will be available for HS and college grads. HS grads will not be able to leave the home as early since there will be fewer no skilled jobs available, parents still won't be able to save as much for their retirement, etc..

and that will already be on top of the effects that the current recession will have on reducing wages and lifetime wages earned. all while the dollar continues to decrease in value.

Originally Posted by GearsMcGilf

Now's not the time to raise taxes on anyone, especially the ones we depend on to create jobs (i.e. business owners). No matter how much the leftist ideologues want to sock it to the rich, now's not the time. Until the pork and waste is cut out of the budget, there should be no need to talk about giving the bloated pig an increase. The way this govt spends, we could raise the top tier to 90% and they'd still claim it wasn't enough.

What we do need is the Fair Tax. Your tax burden is proportionate to how much you consume; no loopholes to get out of paying, no need for expensive CPAs & lawyers, no IRS, etc. Unfortunately, too many special interest groups have a vested interest in the tax code remaining convoluted that it'll never happen.

The rich had their chance to create new jobs with those tax cuts. They spout off about how paying those taxes would prevent jobs from being created. Guess what? They haven't created any new jobs. Time to pay the piper.

A flat income tax is what's needed. No loopholes, no deductions, etc.

Originally Posted by Big Smoothy

How will it devastate the economy?

But keeping SS going at the current age and rate of payments with COLAS, it's having a devastating affect on the economy.

Social Security isn't devastating the economy. That's a rallying cry from those who want to privatize it. Put that money in the hands of a few to "invest" while at the same time skimming their ever increasing fees first. Then when there is nothing left they say "Well, that's it. Sorry folks, the market isn't a sure thing and you knew that going into it. Our fees that we received? Well, we needed to be paid that otherwise our top talent wouldn't have been able to lose your money for you. Yes, they got bonuses, too. If we didn't pay those we wouldn't have been able to compete to keep them."

It's the same old lies that they tell time and time again but very few people seem to learn from them. They'll fuck you in the ass dry each time and then they'll sweetly tell you that they'll use lube next time. The American people as a whole have a very short memory.

Originally Posted by GearsMcGilf

Either way, you're talking bout raising taxes. If my tax bracket goes from 25% to 28% next year, that's a tax increase. It'd be better to do that when the economy is back on its feet, if it's determined necessary at that time.

Everyone was hording their shit during the depression, not just those evil greedy rich people. If you went to the bank to withdraw your $ and they told you "you're fucked", you'd stuff whatever gold/cash you had in your mattress also.

So you make over $250k a year? Those making over $250k a year would be paying a little more in taxes.

not many small business owners make 250K after deductions, so that tax increase effects very few people only several percent of the small business owners.

Originally Posted by LAM

not many small business owners make 250K after deductions, so that tax increase effects very few people only several percent of the small business owners.

Exactly. It will affect very few people. Those same people who had YEARS to add to their payrolls but chose not to yet still use that lame excuse that taxing them will kill new jobs.

Originally Posted by Zaphod

Social Security isn't devastating the economy. That's a rallying cry from those who want to privatize it. Put that money in the hands of a few to "invest" while at the same time skimming their ever increasing fees first. Then when there is nothing left they say "Well, that's it. Sorry folks, the market isn't a sure thing and you knew that going into it. Our fees that we received? Well, we needed to be paid that otherwise our top talent wouldn't have been able to lose your money for you. Yes, they got bonuses, too. If we didn't pay those we wouldn't have been able to compete to keep them."

It's the same old lies that they tell time and time again but very few people seem to learn from them. They'll fuck you in the ass dry each time and then they'll sweetly tell you that they'll use lube next time. The American people as a whole have a very short memory.

Uhhh the way SS works right now is fucking retarded. I know a friend whos ex's mom killed herself.. The woman who killed herself was on tenncare and worked for walmart, as her kid and husband. Said kid is getting 900 a month until she is 18 because of SS.

And how exactly does that work with small business owners? What if a company was owned by 3 people and had 10 people contracted on a per needed basis, and grossed 1 million, and each of the owners made around 90k. How would that work with said tax raise?

Originally Posted by dayday87

Uhhh the way SS works right now is fucking retarded. I know a friend whos ex's mom killed herself.. The woman who killed herself was on tenncare and worked for walmart, as her kid and husband. Said kid is getting 900 a month until she is 18 because of SS.

so the child is to suffer because the mother didn't have the best coping skills? 900 dollars a month to raise a child is jack diddly..

Originally Posted by Big Smoothy

Remember, Obama increased "defense" spending by 9% this year. The Military Industrial-Complex is very powerful, comprised of the Pentagon (military) and private sector corporations, mentioned a few times before. Together, they always ask for more money, and Presidents give it to them. The MIC is difficult to stand up to.

Medicare: Short, and true.

Democrats actually spend more on defense than republicans (broken down by congressional control and/or the white house). Bush 40 spent more than Reagan, Clinton spent more than Bush 40, Bush 42 spent more than Clinton, and Obama has spent more than Bush 42. This isn't up for debate...a clear spending pattern as Smoothy has pointed out....but the two parties spend on different defense aspects

Republicans tend to spend more on defense articles (think procurement of BMD, advanced weapon systems, future platforms etc

Democrats generally spend more on benefits for soldiers, services, logistics, dual use technology (ARPA vs DARPA) etc

so the MIC doesn't really get as much when the democrats are in office...at least historically, but most contractors have diversified into the services sector (military health care providers, infrastructure support, IT etc) to hedge against big ticket procurement reductions.


Presidents and Congress stand up to the MIC all the time...its a powerful industry sure, but I can think of several other industries that are equally powerful or more (oil&gas, insurance, banking, tobacco, small arms manufactures, fast food).

And to clarify....in the overwhelming majority of cases, contractors can't just "ask for more money". We respond to a publicly stated requirement, and provide a proposal outlining the provided solution, capability, and cost. There are all types of regulations that contractors must abide by to prevent any financial manipulation/distortion (FAR, capped profit margins, earned value cost recognition, Nunn-McCurdy) and its all audited by the USG (DCAA) and by a major accounting firm depending on the contractor.

Its also important to note, that the MIC employees a very large number of people, not too mention the technology to comes from the sector advances our quality of life and advances us as a species.

These modern techs from the MIC
-Internet
-Microwave
-Rocketry-->space travel
-electronic computing-->semi conductor
-GPS

this list goes on and on...

The spending over runs in the defense sector come from 3 stems IMHO

1. Gov't personnel. The amount of gov't personnel managing these contracts is staggering...I would be surprised if they outnumbered the # of people in the private sector on the other side of the contract. The gov't employees cost more despite having lower salaries...federal benefits and pensions crush benefits in the private sector. The layers of gov't bureaucracy are mind numbing. Contractors protesting awards to competitors only fuels this issue...formal protesting has become the norm and the gov't has to implement a full up (very costly) investigation to see if all was fair.

2. Profit Structuring. Cost Plus contracts and fixed firm contracts provide little to no incentive to improve efficiency to save the tax payer money. In fact, cost plus contracts incentivize the contractor to run the cost up. Fixed firm contracts may allow for a higher profit margin, but once that margin is reached (say 15%+) the USG will force the next production or similar contract for similar defense articles to be priced lower. This is an effort to cap profit margins at 15% so the tax payer isn't fleeced, but it also creates an atmosphere for contractors to NOT improve their processes to save the DoD money....b/c if the contractor does, it will simply be forced to lower its price next time around. If the contractor works harder to make a little improvement and goes past the 15% ceiling...there is no immediate financial reward outside the first year.

3. We buy stuff we don't need and it screws up the overall funding for programs that are desperately needed. Case in point, the presidential helicopter

Obama Suggests Presidential Helicopter Fleet Won't Be Upgraded - washingtonpost.com

Originally Posted by Zaphod

Social Security isn't devastating the economy. That's a rallying cry from those who want to privatize it. Put that money in the hands of a few to "invest" while at the same time skimming their ever increasing fees first. Then when there is nothing left they say "Well, that's it. Sorry folks, the market isn't a sure thing and you knew that going into it. Our fees that we received? Well, we needed to be paid that otherwise our top talent wouldn't have been able to lose your money for you. Yes, they got bonuses, too. If we didn't pay those we wouldn't have been able to compete to keep them."

It's the same old lies that they tell time and time again but very few people seem to learn from them. They'll fuck you in the ass dry each time and then they'll sweetly tell you that they'll use lube next time. The American people as a whole have a very short memory.

Putting SS in the hands of a few banks or fund managers is a terrible idea...instead, let me keep MY money, and I WILL handle it accordingly.

Originally Posted by lnvanry

Putting SS in the hands of a few banks or fund managers is a terrible idea...instead, let me keep MY money, and I WILL handle it accordingly.

the way the "system" is designed only the poor are supposed to rely solely on SS for their old age. higher wage earners not only earn credits towards SS but are supposed to be contributing to other retirement plans like the 401k, 403b, SEPs, etc.

Originally Posted by LAM

so the child is to suffer because the mother didn't have the best coping skills? 900 dollars a month to raise a child is jack diddly..

Are you serious? I was also told the father is getting 1100 dollars a month, but that isnt something I can confirm. I have a 3yr old daughter and im divorced.. I got private insurance for my daughter and I. If I would have let her mother(who applied for tenncare for herself and my daughter and got denied) get tenncare, the state would have went after me. So Im making 18 bucks an hour before taxes and insurance, and you say 900 dollars a month for 15 years isnt diddly squat when I have paid more in taxes rather than the mother who killed herself did? Get real dude, jesus.

You want to take care of every kid that didnt have parents on SS? You do realize that WAY more people paid into this and arent getting the benefits now, compaired to the people that paid basically nothing in it and are getting the same benefits.. And your trying to say there isnt a problem with SS?

Originally Posted by dayday87

Are you serious? I was also told the father is getting 1100 dollars a month, but that isnt something I can confirm. I have a 3yr old daughter and im divorced.. I got private insurance for my daughter and I. If I would have let her mother(who applied for tenncare for herself and my daughter and got denied) get tenncare, the state would have went after me. So Im making 18 bucks an hour before taxes and insurance, and you say 900 dollars a month for 15 years isnt diddly squat when I have paid more in taxes rather than the mother who killed herself did? Get real dude, jesus.

You want to take care of every kid that didnt have parents on SS? You do realize that WAY more people paid into this and arent getting the benefits now, compaired to the people that paid basically nothing in it and are getting the same benefits.. And your trying to say there isnt a problem with SS?

technically the cost incurred to raise a child increase with the household income but that is only logical. so $900 can go a long way depending on the area.

of course there are all sorts of problems with SS and other programs but now is not the time to cut those benefits. eliminating tax breaks and ss benefits for the wealthy and reducing defense spending would solve many problems.