Rand Paul: We Should Let Dems Raise Taxes And Then Let Them Own It

[Oddball]

Every time I ask myself "Is rderp really that stupid?" the answer has always come back a resounding "yes".

 

[Paulie]

That wasn't me, you flaming turd sandwich.

OOPS!

 

[Jroc]

Supplyside Lives!!!!

Not true, they (tax cuts) decimate revenue. But growth plods upward and eventually we get a bigger number, nominally, not accounting for inflation.

Case in point, this past stupidity (Bush Tax Cuts, 1 and 2): revenue tanks, and it takes 4.5 years for it to return to number it was at prior to the cut, nominally, not even accounting for inflation. Meanwhile, spending, which also grows with the population and inflation, keeps plodding upward, too; about 3% a year sans any new spending programs. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is where suplus turns into Record Deficit!!! Wahadaya know.

But back in Rightie Retard Land, lower rates to 1%, wait 300 years, and let the revenue number get bigger than it is today, and sing, YIPPEE!!! The cuts increased revenue!!!

Spending decimates revenue.

Chimpola McShrub expanded spending in his first six years dramatically faster than did his "liberal" predecessor....And much of that spending came via Ted Kennedy's NCLB bill, Medicare D (which lolberals had been whining about for decades), bloated ag and transportation appropriations, etcetera, that progressive/socialists like you deem to be the things that make America great.

I know that's an inconvenient little factoid that socialist central planners like to paper over over, but that's the fact, Jack.

But spending pissed away on the Iraq war couldn't possibly decimate revenue or you would have mentioned it!

CON$ never tell the whole truth, and reveal what is most important by what they leave out!
Thank you.

Paul would let your guys raise taxes all they want Eddie and you still argue? You should be happy, but your not. That says something....

Under Clinton, federal spending averaged 19.8% of GDP. In contrast, spending under Obama over the past four years has averaged 24.4% of GDP

Obama Should Return To Clinton-Era Spending Levels, Not Tax Rates - Investors.com

 

[Koios]

Spending decimates revenue.

Chimpola McShrub expanded spending in his first six years dramatically faster than did his "liberal" predecessor....And much of that spending came via Ted Kennedy's NCLB bill, Medicare D (which lolberals had been whining about for decades), bloated ag and transportation appropriations, etcetera, that progressive/socialists like you deem to be the things that make America great.

I know that's an inconvenient little factoid that socialist central planners like to paper over over, but that's the fact, Jack.

But spending pissed away on the Iraq war couldn't possibly decimate revenue or you would have mentioned it!

CON$ never tell the whole truth, and reveal what is most important by what they leave out!
Thank you.

Paul would let your guys raise taxes all they want Eddie and you still argue? You should be happy, but your not. That says something....

Under Clinton, federal spending averaged 19.8% of GDP. In contrast, spending under Obama over the past four years has averaged 24.4% of GDP

Obama Should Return To Clinton-Era Spending Levels, Not Tax Rates - Investors.com

Easy. Eliminate all Bush era enacted programs. No Medicare Part D, no wars (let them swim home), close down Home Land Security, whack fences along the border, default on interest for the debt accrued during Bush's tenure ...

No problemo.

 

[Jroc]

But spending pissed away on the Iraq war couldn't possibly decimate revenue or you would have mentioned it!

CON$ never tell the whole truth, and reveal what is most important by what they leave out!
Thank you.

Paul would let your guys raise taxes all they want Eddie and you still argue? You should be happy, but your not. That says something....

Under Clinton, federal spending averaged 19.8% of GDP. In contrast, spending under Obama over the past four years has averaged 24.4% of GDP

Obama Should Return To Clinton-Era Spending Levels, Not Tax Rates - Investors.com

Easy. Eliminate all Bush era enacted programs. No Medicare Part D, no wars (let them swim home), close down Home Land Security, whack fences along the border, default on interest for the debt accrued during Bush's tenure ...

No problemo.

Wow you're brilliant Obama's stupid class warfare bullshit does nothing and goes nowhere in solving our deficit. Spending levels as a percentage of GDP are way to high spending has to be cut

 

[Jroc]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYdfquHXXic]Rand Paul: We Should Let Dems Raise Taxes And Then Let Them Own It - CNBC's Kudlow Report 12/06/2012 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[GoneBezerk]

Yes, it is fucking idiotic to fight them on this issue when Obamination will just let the tax rates go up on all workers.

The GOP is run by a bunch of idiots if they think average taxpayers support their own taxes going up to protect 2% of the taxpayers.

This is not like past deals, there is a GURANTEED tax increase on everyone if the GOP doesn't give in this time.

 

[Koios]

Paul would let your guys raise taxes all they want Eddie and you still argue? You should be happy, but your not. That says something....




Obama Should Return To Clinton-Era Spending Levels, Not Tax Rates - Investors.com

Easy. Eliminate all Bush era enacted programs. No Medicare Part D, no wars (let them swim home), close down Home Land Security, whack fences along the border, default on interest for the debt accrued during Bush's tenure ...

No problemo.

Wow you're brilliant Obama's stupid class warfare bullshit does nothing and goes nowhere in solving our deficit. Spending levels as a percentage of GDP are way to high spending has to be cut

Which of the Bush era spending programs, which you quoted, can we eliminate in order to return to Clinton era spending levels, if that, as Righties have now grabbed onto, is the new end all solution? And as an aside, imagine the Right wanting us to emulate Clinton's success!

Laugh

My

Ass

Off!

 

[Avorysuds]

See Democrats did it right back in 2006. They allowed Bush to destroy the Republican party because the Democrats didn't do a single thing they claimed they would, like end wars and spending. Voters in the US are too stupid to even understand what congress is, they only see "party ___ won a majority in the ____" YAyayayay!!!! People only see the President because most Americans are too stupid to think for themselves these days and many wouldn’t mind a king. In fact many people would be existed at the idea that the US would have giant royal weddings in the future.

 

[Jroc]

Easy. Eliminate all Bush era enacted programs. No Medicare Part D, no wars (let them swim home), close down Home Land Security, whack fences along the border, default on interest for the debt accrued during Bush's tenure ...

No problemo.

Wow you're brilliant Obama's stupid class warfare bullshit does nothing and goes nowhere in solving our deficit. Spending levels as a percentage of GDP are way to high spending has to be cut

Which of the Bush era spending programs, which you quoted, can we eliminate in order to return to Clinton era spending levels, if that, as Righties have now grabbed onto, is the new end all solution? And as an aside, imagine the Right wanting us to emulate Clinton's success!

Laugh

My

Ass

Off!

We cut spending everywhere genus..Anything else?

 

[eflatminor]

Which of the...spending programs...can we eliminate...

The Mack Penny Plan, balances the budget in 8 years:

1. 1% cut of every federal dollar spent for six year
2. Cap spending at 18% of GDP beginning in the seventh year.

THEN we could begin to address the actual debt.

 

[Koios]

Which of the...spending programs...can we eliminate...

The Mack Penny Plan, balances the budget in 8 years:

1. 1% cut of every federal dollar spent for six year
2. Cap spending at 18% of GDP beginning in the seventh year.

THEN we could begin to address the actual debt.

That's where to go, and not how to get there.

So once again: what are the goal steps? Any imbecile can state a goal. Getting there is the tricky part.

 

[eflatminor]

Which of the...spending programs...can we eliminate...

The Mack Penny Plan, balances the budget in 8 years:

1. 1% cut of every federal dollar spent for six year
2. Cap spending at 18% of GDP beginning in the seventh year.

THEN we could begin to address the actual debt.

That's where to go, and not how to get there.

So once again: what are the goal steps? Any imbecile can state a goal. Getting there is the tricky part.

Not sure what you mean Koios. Mack Penny would require a 1% cut in overall spending and if Congress fails to make the necessary cuts, the plan triggers automatic, across-the-board cuts to meet the yearly caps. That's EXACTLY the way we get there.

 

[Koios]

The Mack Penny Plan, balances the budget in 8 years:

1. 1% cut of every federal dollar spent for six year
2. Cap spending at 18% of GDP beginning in the seventh year.

THEN we could begin to address the actual debt.

That's where to go, and not how to get there.

So once again: what are the goal steps? Any imbecile can state a goal. Getting there is the tricky part.

Not sure what you mean Koios. Mack Penny would require a 1% cut in overall spending and if Congress fails to make the necessary cuts, the plan triggers automatic, across-the-board cuts to meet the yearly caps. That's EXACTLY the way we get there.

Then listen up. How in the fuck do we cut payments for interest on the debt? Or criminal justice costs, which are merely budget items, and actual is driven by the reality that follows? Etc., etc.?

So because meeting goals requires some goal steps, let me ask a third time: how do we get there? What are the steps? The goal is folly without the steps to achieve it.

 

[eflatminor]

That's where to go, and not how to get there.

So once again: what are the goal steps? Any imbecile can state a goal. Getting there is the tricky part.

Not sure what you mean Koios. Mack Penny would require a 1% cut in overall spending and if Congress fails to make the necessary cuts, the plan triggers automatic, across-the-board cuts to meet the yearly caps. That's EXACTLY the way we get there.

Then listen up. How in the fuck do we cut payments for interest on the debt? Or criminal justice costs, which are merely budget items, and actual is driven by the reality that follows? Etc., etc.?

So because meeting goals requires some goal steps, let me ask a third time: how do we get there? What are the steps? The goal is folly without the steps to achieve it.

I disagree. There is NO WAY you'll get Congress to agree beforehand exactly which programs should be trimmed or cut. They must be FORCED to go it with a law that will cut everything across the board if they don't identify cuts that total up to a 1% reduction in overall spending.

Interest on the debt is not a program, it something that must be paid first if you want to avoid default...ACTUAL default, not the fear mongering threat of it. Of course, we have plenty of revenue to cover the interest payments.

The Mack Penny plan does not cut interest payments but would cut every other expenditure by 1% if Congress doesn't meet the goal of reducing overall spending. That would include the justice system...so it's incumbent on Congress to find ways to reduce spending elsewhere to avoid that. Of course, if you really want to save money on the justice system, end the stupid war on drugs. There are all kinds of ways to save money when we're forced to do so.

Bottom line, I believe it's folly to think Congress can put a plan into place with specific cuts and steps along the way. For one thing, today's Congress CANNOT bind future Congresses with their spending wishes. Only a law can do that. Mack Penny is that law. A threat of a 1% across the board cut is the only motivational factor that will get Congress of their ass and into fiscal reality.

 

[Koios]

Not sure what you mean Koios. Mack Penny would require a 1% cut in overall spending and if Congress fails to make the necessary cuts, the plan triggers automatic, across-the-board cuts to meet the yearly caps. That's EXACTLY the way we get there.

Then listen up. How in the fuck do we cut payments for interest on the debt? Or criminal justice costs, which are merely budget items, and actual is driven by the reality that follows? Etc., etc.?

So because meeting goals requires some goal steps, let me ask a third time: how do we get there? What are the steps? The goal is folly without the steps to achieve it.

I disagree. (A)There is NO WAY you'll get Congress to agree beforehand exactly which programs should be trimmed or cut. (B)They must be FORCED to go it with a law that will cut everything across the board if they don't identify cuts that total up to a 1% reduction in overall spending.

Interest on the debt is not a program, it something that must be paid first if you want to avoid default...ACTUAL default, not the fear mongering threat of it. Of course, we have plenty of revenue to cover the interest payments.

The Mack Penny plan does not cut interest payments but would cut every other expenditure by 1% if Congress doesn't meet the goal of reducing overall spending. That would include the justice system...so it's incumbent on Congress to find ways to reduce spending elsewhere to avoid that. Of course, if you really want to save money on the justice system, end the stupid war on drugs. There are all kinds of ways to save money when we're forced to do so.

Bottom line, I believe it's folly to think Congress can put a plan into place with specific cuts and steps along the way. For one thing, today's Congress CANNOT bind future Congresses with their spending wishes. Only a law can do that. Mack Penny is that law. A threat of a 1% across the board cut is the only motivational factor that will get Congress of their ass and into fiscal reality.

Without A, achieving B is folly.

Sorry to disappoint. You cannot make the journey without taking the steps to get there.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Turd sandwich strikes again.

 

[G.T.]

Wanting ideas not to work (hurting Country) to look good politically?

Not Country first, by any means.

 

[Paulie]

Then listen up. How in the fuck do we cut payments for interest on the debt? Or criminal justice costs, which are merely budget items, and actual is driven by the reality that follows? Etc., etc.?

So because meeting goals requires some goal steps, let me ask a third time: how do we get there? What are the steps? The goal is folly without the steps to achieve it.

I disagree. (A)There is NO WAY you'll get Congress to agree beforehand exactly which programs should be trimmed or cut. (B)They must be FORCED to go it with a law that will cut everything across the board if they don't identify cuts that total up to a 1% reduction in overall spending.

Interest on the debt is not a program, it something that must be paid first if you want to avoid default...ACTUAL default, not the fear mongering threat of it. Of course, we have plenty of revenue to cover the interest payments.

The Mack Penny plan does not cut interest payments but would cut every other expenditure by 1% if Congress doesn't meet the goal of reducing overall spending. That would include the justice system...so it's incumbent on Congress to find ways to reduce spending elsewhere to avoid that. Of course, if you really want to save money on the justice system, end the stupid war on drugs. There are all kinds of ways to save money when we're forced to do so.

Bottom line, I believe it's folly to think Congress can put a plan into place with specific cuts and steps along the way. For one thing, today's Congress CANNOT bind future Congresses with their spending wishes. Only a law can do that. Mack Penny is that law. A threat of a 1% across the board cut is the only motivational factor that will get Congress of their ass and into fiscal reality.

Without A, achieving B is folly.

Sorry to disappoint. You cannot make the journey without taking the steps to get there.

Holy fucking shit, is there anyone on this board more oblivious than you? Or are you intentionally being obtuse?

 

[eflatminor]

Then listen up. How in the fuck do we cut payments for interest on the debt? Or criminal justice costs, which are merely budget items, and actual is driven by the reality that follows? Etc., etc.?

So because meeting goals requires some goal steps, let me ask a third time: how do we get there? What are the steps? The goal is folly without the steps to achieve it.

I disagree. (A)There is NO WAY you'll get Congress to agree beforehand exactly which programs should be trimmed or cut. (B)They must be FORCED to go it with a law that will cut everything across the board if they don't identify cuts that total up to a 1% reduction in overall spending.

Interest on the debt is not a program, it something that must be paid first if you want to avoid default...ACTUAL default, not the fear mongering threat of it. Of course, we have plenty of revenue to cover the interest payments.

The Mack Penny plan does not cut interest payments but would cut every other expenditure by 1% if Congress doesn't meet the goal of reducing overall spending. That would include the justice system...so it's incumbent on Congress to find ways to reduce spending elsewhere to avoid that. Of course, if you really want to save money on the justice system, end the stupid war on drugs. There are all kinds of ways to save money when we're forced to do so.

Bottom line, I believe it's folly to think Congress can put a plan into place with specific cuts and steps along the way. For one thing, today's Congress CANNOT bind future Congresses with their spending wishes. Only a law can do that. Mack Penny is that law. A threat of a 1% across the board cut is the only motivational factor that will get Congress of their ass and into fiscal reality.

Without A, achieving B is folly.

Sorry to disappoint. You cannot make the journey without taking the steps to get there.

It sounds like you're suggesting today's Congress must outline the specific cuts to be made today and in the future. Is that right?

Then how do you overcome the fact that today's Congress cannot bind future Congresses? If there is no law in place dictating an across the board cut, what makes you think the NEXT Congress will go along with suggested cuts when there is nothing forcing them to do so?

How many times have we heard about a "promise" of future spending cuts that never happen?

Lastly, the Mack Penny Plan DOES TAKE THE STEPS TO GET THERE by forcing today's Congress and future Congresses to make spending cuts or face across-the-board cuts. Those ARE the steps needed!