Paul Ryan, Rand Paul Clash Privately Over Budget

Discussion in 'Congress' started by Kevin_Kennedy, Apr 21, 2011.

  1. Kevin_Kennedy
    Offline

    Kevin_Kennedy Defend Liberty

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    Messages:
    17,590
    Thanks Received:
    1,581
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +2,027
    Paul Ryan, Rand Paul Clash Privately Over Budget

    Of course everyone is calling the timid and pointless Ryan budget "radical," which it's not even remotely close to being. If you don't balance the budget now, and cut spending now then you're not serious about either.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. The Infidel
    Offline

    The Infidel EVIL CONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    May 19, 2010
    Messages:
    17,252
    Thanks Received:
    3,170
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    AMERITOPIA
    Ratings:
    +3,173
    As long as they are bickering about it not being enough... Im cool with it.
    CUT CUT CUT...!
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. The T
    Offline

    The T George S. Patton Party Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    48,072
    Thanks Received:
    5,473
    Trophy Points:
    1,773
    Location:
    What USED TO BE A REPUBLIC RUN BY TYRANTS
    Ratings:
    +5,502
    CUT before the exodus off the cliff and this Republic becomes like the EU that is trying to backtrack from their errant ways...
     
  4. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    My sentiments exactly.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. Dont Taz Me Bro
    Offline

    Dont Taz Me Bro USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Messages:
    31,590
    Thanks Received:
    6,682
    Trophy Points:
    1,170
    Location:
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    Ratings:
    +17,465
    I agree with Rand Paul. The Ryan budget doesn't do enough soon enough and it won't even balance the budget for over 20 years. It's not realistic.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. Kevin_Kennedy
    Offline

    Kevin_Kennedy Defend Liberty

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    Messages:
    17,590
    Thanks Received:
    1,581
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +2,027
    Exactly, and that means it won't balance the budget at all, because he can't control what future congresses are going to do.
     
  7. auditor0007
    Offline

    auditor0007 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2008
    Messages:
    12,566
    Thanks Received:
    2,255
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Toledo, OH
    Ratings:
    +3,218
    Here is the problem; voters are not going to support immediate cuts to SS and/or Medicare. I don't care if we are about to go over a cliff, voters are not going to support it. That means cuts must be made in discretionary spending. But again, those cuts are going to be somewhat limited. The only really big cuts that can be made immediately are in Defense spending, and that is going to take a complete change in philosophy as to our role in the world. If we can agree that we can no longer afford to police the entire crazy world, then we can cut defense spending almost in half.

    As for long term spending, Ryan is correct about going after Medicare first. My only problem with his plan is that it is going to leave tens of millions of retirees with little or no healthcare coverage. And the biggest problem with that is that the government will just end up stepping back in to fill the void, so the end savings will be zilch. The only true way to address long term costs in Medicare and SS is to raise the retirement age. And last of all, to reduce the overall deficit now, we have to raise taxes.

    When you really start looking at what can be cut and when, it leads to the simple conclusion that we have to increase revenue. And doing so isn't such a terrible thing when you consider that we have the lowest tax rates in over 60 years. It's time for some realistic discussion or we will never see a balanced budget or anything close to one.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  8. Bern80
    Offline

    Bern80 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,094
    Thanks Received:
    720
    Trophy Points:
    138
    Ratings:
    +726
    Agree 100%. But addressing the rest of the budget is going to take the same fundamental change in philosophy.

    What about grandfathering it out instead? I would apply it to both medicare and SS. If you are x years old you will still get both. If younger people need to understand it is not government job to plan for your future. Then we allow SS and medicare to only be used by those that truly need it. One would be required to show a need just like unemployment insurance now perhaps. Since only those that need it will use it, that ought to reduce the tax burden on everyone else.

    Maybe, I'm just extremely leary about giving government an excuse to take in more money. Everyone knows how government budgeting works. Whatever government budgets for program x, program x better damn well spend or they'll get less next time. Personally I believe it's government that needs to make the biggest sacrafice. I just don't see where the incentive is going to be to spend less if we increase how much money we give them. I don't have much faith that the extra money we would provide is going to go directly to paying down the debt. Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior and paying down the debt has clearly never been a real priority.
     
  9. auditor0007
    Offline

    auditor0007 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2008
    Messages:
    12,566
    Thanks Received:
    2,255
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Toledo, OH
    Ratings:
    +3,218
    While grandfather SS and Medicare out at some point would save the government tons of money, the end result would be the same. We would have tens of millions without adequate health coverage and without enough savings to keep themselves afloat. What is worse is that we then would not have a system set up to bail them out. You can talk about personal responsibility all you want, but people on tight budgets are not going to put 20 to 30 percent or more of their paycheck into a retirement fund, and that is what it will take for most to have any shot at having enough to make it through retirement. With SS and Medicare, the money comes out before anyone sees it. And yes, it does come out to pay for today's retirees, but overall the system actually works pretty well. The biggest problem is that both SS and Medicare are paying out for too long of a time frame. If we raise the retirement age, it will reduce the number of years people will collect. They will have to work longer to survive, plain and simple. And if they are well enough off, they can choose to retire early and pay their own way until they reach the age that they are eligible to collect benefits.
     
  10. Triton
    Offline

    Triton King of the Sea

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2011
    Messages:
    591
    Thanks Received:
    63
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Location:
    Whatever particular body of water suits me at the
    Ratings:
    +63
    If we ended the illegal occupations, not give trillions to banks, and restore the issuance of the currency to the Congress instead of the private federal reserve (which does so with a debt incurred on every citizen) than we would not have to worry about these cuts to social and entitlement programs. People would also have a dollar that had some value if congress issued the fiat currency without interest.

    The 38 billion does nothing but hurt the average citizen, many of which have become dependent on and expect to benefit from these programs. It does nothing to address the national debt. Its a drop in the bucket
     

Share This Page