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

[Koios]

Let me get this straight: You say nobody in Washington is willing to cut anything. I say force them to do so with Mack Penny. You repeat nobody in Washington is willing to cut anything.

I've attempted to be civil and straight forward with you but if you're wondering why all the ridicule, that's it.

So, one more time, can you explain why you think Mack Penny would not work to balance the budget?

If I thought for a second that was within the realm of possibility, I'd have a waking wetdream to an extent I'd need to call SERVPRO(r).

Ah yes, when you can't debate with logic and reason or address a question with specificity, attack the messenger.

Want to try again, sans ad hominem attacks?

Now then, Children, once again: we've had feel-good benchmarks most of our adult lives; how's it workin' out?

Answer: none too well.

So if setting a goal sans a way to achieve it has proven folly, perhaps a new approach is adviseable. Yeah?

Okay; so what? Maybe fences along the border oughta stop at some point. Where is that?

We have X number of folks in federal prision. Who gets out?

Deportations are costing Y. Who stays here?

Them dang military uniforms cost Z. What's not needed? Or maybe, what do we scale back our standing army to? Fewer soldiers? If so, by how much?

I could go on ad nasseum. To have cuts, that actually reduce costs, you need identify where we're actually cutting.

But maybe if none dare say which, what we have is what the People want. If so, just fucking fund it and move on. The will of the People has been served.

Are you seeing? (Of course not.)

 

[eflatminor]

we've had feel-good benchmarks

Mack Penny is not a benchmark. It would be a law with automatic across the board cuts. Very different.

So if setting a goal sans a way to achieve it has proven folly...

Mack Penny provides a way for achieving the goal: across the board cuts if Congress fails to hash out specifics. When each and every federal agency has 1% less to spend next year than this, they'll find a way to work within that framework. They have no other choice.

Okay; so what? Maybe fences along the border oughta stop at some point. Where is that?

We have X number of folks in federal prision. Who gets out?

Deportations are costing Y. Who stays here?

Them dang military uniforms cost Z. What's not needed? Or maybe, what do we scale back our standing army to? Fewer soldiers? If so, by how much?

I could go on ad nasseum. To have cuts, that actually reduce costs, you need identify where we're actually cutting.

Not true. If after Mack Penny were enacted into law, Congress failed to identify where the cuts would come from, the Federal government would get 1% less the following year. THEN they'd have no choice but to spend less.

It's really not that complicated and certainly does not require all spending cuts be identified now, which isn't going to happen, nor should it given that the next Congress need not follow suit. Only a law with automatic, across the board cuts will force Congress to cut spending. Then you can have all the debates you like about WHAT to cut. For if those discussions fail, the cuts come anyway.

 

[Koios]

we've had feel-good benchmarks

Mack Penny is not a benchmark. It would be a law with automatic across the board cuts. Very different.

So if setting a goal sans a way to achieve it has proven folly...

Mack Penny provides a way for achieving the goal: across the board cuts if Congress fails to hash out specifics. When each and every federal agency has 1% less to spend next year than this, they'll find a way to work within that framework. They have no other choice.

Okay; so what? Maybe fences along the border oughta stop at some point. Where is that?

We have X number of folks in federal prision. Who gets out?

Deportations are costing Y. Who stays here?

Them dang military uniforms cost Z. What's not needed? Or maybe, what do we scale back our standing army to? Fewer soldiers? If so, by how much?

I could go on ad nasseum. To have cuts, that actually reduce costs, you need identify where we're actually cutting.

Not true. If after Mack Penny were enacted into law, Congress failed to identify where the cuts would come from, the Federal government would get 1% less the following year. THEN they'd have no choice but to spend less.

It's really not that complicated and certainly does not require all spending cuts be identified now, which isn't going to happen, nor should it given that the next Congress need not follow suit. Only a law with automatic, across the board cuts will force Congress to cut spending. Then you can have all the debates you like about WHAT to cut. For if those discussions fail, the cuts come anyway.

Fine. Keep your fingers crossed that this time some bullshit feel-good goal-setting, sans a map to get there, will bear some fruit. Keep hope alive!

Talk to you next year, and we can see how it worked out. K?

 

[eflatminor]

we've had feel-good benchmarks

Mack Penny is not a benchmark. It would be a law with automatic across the board cuts. Very different.



Mack Penny provides a way for achieving the goal: across the board cuts if Congress fails to hash out specifics. When each and every federal agency has 1% less to spend next year than this, they'll find a way to work within that framework. They have no other choice.

Okay; so what? Maybe fences along the border oughta stop at some point. Where is that?

We have X number of folks in federal prision. Who gets out?

Deportations are costing Y. Who stays here?

Them dang military uniforms cost Z. What's not needed? Or maybe, what do we scale back our standing army to? Fewer soldiers? If so, by how much?

I could go on ad nasseum. To have cuts, that actually reduce costs, you need identify where we're actually cutting.

Not true. If after Mack Penny were enacted into law, Congress failed to identify where the cuts would come from, the Federal government would get 1% less the following year. THEN they'd have no choice but to spend less.

It's really not that complicated and certainly does not require all spending cuts be identified now, which isn't going to happen, nor should it given that the next Congress need not follow suit. Only a law with automatic, across the board cuts will force Congress to cut spending. Then you can have all the debates you like about WHAT to cut. For if those discussions fail, the cuts come anyway.

Fine. Keep your fingers crossed that this time some bullshit feel-good goal-setting, sans a map to get there, will bear some fruit. Keep hope alive!

Talk to you next year, and we can see how it worked out. K?

If Mack Penny was merely a "goal", I'd completely agree with you. It wouldn't happen, for as I've stated, Congress cannot bind a future Congress with their goals. However, a law with automatic across-the-board cuts is a more powerful tool, and one that has never been tried. If Mack Penny becomes law, I'd be happy to talk to you about how it worked out.

 

[Koios]

Mack Penny is not a benchmark. It would be a law with automatic across the board cuts. Very different.



Mack Penny provides a way for achieving the goal: across the board cuts if Congress fails to hash out specifics. When each and every federal agency has 1% less to spend next year than this, they'll find a way to work within that framework. They have no other choice.



Not true. If after Mack Penny were enacted into law, Congress failed to identify where the cuts would come from, the Federal government would get 1% less the following year. THEN they'd have no choice but to spend less.

It's really not that complicated and certainly does not require all spending cuts be identified now, which isn't going to happen, nor should it given that the next Congress need not follow suit. Only a law with automatic, across the board cuts will force Congress to cut spending. Then you can have all the debates you like about WHAT to cut. For if those discussions fail, the cuts come anyway.

Fine. Keep your fingers crossed that this time some bullshit feel-good goal-setting, sans a map to get there, will bear some fruit. Keep hope alive!

Talk to you next year, and we can see how it worked out. K?

If Mack Penny was merely a "goal", I'd completely agree with you. It wouldn't happen, for as I've stated, Congress cannot bind a future Congress with their goals. However, a law with automatic across-the-board cuts is a more powerful tool, and one that has never been tried. If Mack Penny becomes law, I'd be happy to talk to you about how it worked out.

No point in repeating yourself. I read English.

Peace out.

 

[Paulie]

Fine. Keep your fingers crossed that this time some bullshit feel-good goal-setting, sans a map to get there, will bear some fruit. Keep hope alive!

Talk to you next year, and we can see how it worked out. K?

If Mack Penny was merely a "goal", I'd completely agree with you. It wouldn't happen, for as I've stated, Congress cannot bind a future Congress with their goals. However, a law with automatic across-the-board cuts is a more powerful tool, and one that has never been tried. If Mack Penny becomes law, I'd be happy to talk to you about how it worked out.

No point in repeating yourself. I read English.

Peace out.

Victory!

 

[Koios]

Mack Penny is not a benchmark. It would be a law with automatic across the board cuts. Very different.



Mack Penny provides a way for achieving the goal: across the board cuts if Congress fails to hash out specifics. When each and every federal agency has 1% less to spend next year than this, they'll find a way to work within that framework. They have no other choice.



Not true. If after Mack Penny were enacted into law, Congress failed to identify where the cuts would come from, the Federal government would get 1% less the following year. THEN they'd have no choice but to spend less.

It's really not that complicated and certainly does not require all spending cuts be identified now, which isn't going to happen, nor should it given that the next Congress need not follow suit. Only a law with automatic, across the board cuts will force Congress to cut spending. Then you can have all the debates you like about WHAT to cut. For if those discussions fail, the cuts come anyway.

Fine. Keep your fingers crossed that this time some bullshit feel-good goal-setting, sans a map to get there, will bear some fruit. Keep hope alive!

Talk to you next year, and we can see how it worked out. K?

If Mack Penny was merely a "goal", I'd completely agree with you. It wouldn't happen, for as I've stated, Congress cannot bind a future Congress with their goals. However, a law with automatic across-the-board cuts is a more powerful tool, and one that has never been tried. If Mack Penny becomes law, I'd be happy to talk to you about how it worked out.

Ahh; fuckit. School's still in.

BUDGET: wishful thinking.

ACTUAL: what is spent, based on unforeseen dynamics, within budget guidelines, pursuant to the Con, which demands all spending be appropriated, which the Cong does, has always done, and NEVER controlled with wishful thinking.

Now you know.

Peace out. Really: Peace out.

 

[eflatminor]

Fine. Keep your fingers crossed that this time some bullshit feel-good goal-setting, sans a map to get there, will bear some fruit. Keep hope alive!

Talk to you next year, and we can see how it worked out. K?

If Mack Penny was merely a "goal", I'd completely agree with you. It wouldn't happen, for as I've stated, Congress cannot bind a future Congress with their goals. However, a law with automatic across-the-board cuts is a more powerful tool, and one that has never been tried. If Mack Penny becomes law, I'd be happy to talk to you about how it worked out.

Ahh; fuckit. School's still in.

BUDGET: wishful thinking.

ACTUAL: what is spent, based on unforeseen dynamics, within budget guidelines, pursuant to the Con, which demands all spending be appropriated, which the Cong does, has always done, and NEVER controlled with wishful thinking.

Now you know.

Peace out. Really: Peace out.

You're describing the status quo. Fine. However, not even Congress can override a law like that proposed in Mack Penny. The ACTUAL spending would have to be 1% less than the previous year, regardless of "unforeseen dynamics". The only way Congress could spend more under Mack Penny would be to repeal the law.

That's the point, the only "wishful thinking" under a law like Mack Penny is that Congress could find an amicable way to cut 1% of spending. THAT'S wishful thinking! But not to worry, under Mack Penny, the ACTUAL cuts come anyway, across the board.

 

[Koios]

If Mack Penny was merely a "goal", I'd completely agree with you. It wouldn't happen, for as I've stated, Congress cannot bind a future Congress with their goals. However, a law with automatic across-the-board cuts is a more powerful tool, and one that has never been tried. If Mack Penny becomes law, I'd be happy to talk to you about how it worked out.

Ahh; fuckit. School's still in.

BUDGET: wishful thinking.

ACTUAL: what is spent, based on unforeseen dynamics, within budget guidelines, pursuant to the Con, which demands all spending be appropriated, which the Cong does, has always done, and NEVER controlled with wishful thinking.

Now you know.

Peace out. Really: Peace out.

You're describing the status quo. Fine. However, not even Congress can override a law like that proposed in Mack Penny. The ACTUAL spending would have to be 1% less than the previous year, regardless of "unforeseen dynamics". The only way Congress could spend more under Mack Penny would be to repeal the law.

That's the point, the only "wishful thinking" under a law like Mack Penny is that Congress could find an amicable way to cut 1% of spending. THAT'S wishful thinking! But not to worry, under Mack Penny, the ACTUAL cuts come anyway, across the board.

Correct. Problem is: reality is like that. So to abandon, the status quo, in this instance, it can only be achieved, one way: UNREAL THINKING.

In case you're wondering why horseshit in the past, like Mack Penny, has not, nor will ever, CHANGE A FUCKING THING!!!

But it speaks to something: we have what we want. No shit. None dare say take it away, in Congress, which serves majorities in their districts. But no one wants to pay for it, with taxes. I get that; and it's not an epiphany I had this morning. It's been obvious as all get out, going on 30 years.

Maybe, and while a remote possibility, one day you too will have an epiphany. Possible, ya think?

 

[Paulie]

Peace out bro

 

[eflatminor]

So to abandon, the status quo, in this instance, it can only be achieved, one way: UNREAL THINKING.

Sounds like you're saying nothing can ever change. I do not accept that.

In case you're wondering why horseshit in the past, like Mack Penny, has not, nor will ever, CHANGE A FUCKING THING!!!

Nothing remotely close to Mack Penny has even been implemented.

But it speaks to something: we have what we want.

Not necessarily. According to a new poll conducted by Politico/GWU/Battleground, 76 percent of Americans favor "Cutting government spending across the board."

76 Percent Favor 'Cutting Government Spending Across the Board' | The Weekly Standard

None dare say take it away, in Congress, which serves majorities in their districts.

Further evidence the people need to force something like Mack Penny into law.

It's been obvious as all get out, going on 30 years.

True. And the reality of our fiscal situation shows it cannot go on for 30 more.

We either adopt something like Mack Penny or wait for the whole thing go into the toilet with some combination of hyperinflation and/or default.

Maybe, and while a remote possibility, one day you too will have an epiphany. Possible, ya think?

I've not been nasty with you. No need to resort to childish taunts.

 

[Claudette]

Absolutely. Give Obama and the Dems the tax increase on the rich they are after ... go for it. No real cuts to spending? No problem! The tax hike on the rich will make those cuts unnecessary. That's certainly what Obama has implied so I say give them what they want, what they really, really want.

And when it doesn't work they can own every inch of it.

I have yet another thought on how we can fix this. Why don't we let the Democrats pass whatever they want? If they are the party of higher taxes, all the Republicans vote present and let the Democrats raise taxes as high as they want to raise them, let Democrats in the Senate raise taxes, let the president sign it and then make them own the tax increase. And when the economy stalls, when the economy sputters, when people lose their jobs, they know which party to blame, the party of high taxes. Let's don't be the party of just almost as high taxes.

Sen. Rand Paul: We Should Let Dems Raise Taxes And Then Let Them Own It | RealClearPolitics

Yes indeed. I think they should let the Bush tax cuts expire for all. Go back to pre tax cut levels.

I'm sure the economy will take off like a rocket.

At least Barry and his pack of Dem boobs think it will do that with just the Rich paying higher taxes. Just think how fast it will go with the middle class kicking in their fair share as well.

Oh yeah. Like the proverbial rocket.

I've also got some prime swampland down here in Florida for sale real cheap as well.

 

[Koios]

If Mack Penny was merely a "goal", I'd completely agree with you. It wouldn't happen, for as I've stated, Congress cannot bind a future Congress with their goals. However, a law with automatic across-the-board cuts is a more powerful tool, and one that has never been tried. If Mack Penny becomes law, I'd be happy to talk to you about how it worked out.

Ahh; fuckit. School's still in.

BUDGET: wishful thinking.

ACTUAL: what is spent, based on unforeseen dynamics, within budget guidelines, pursuant to the Con, which demands all spending be appropriated, which the Cong does, has always done, and NEVER controlled with wishful thinking.

Now you know.

Peace out. Really: Peace out.

You're describing the status quo. Fine. However, not even Congress can override a law like that proposed in Mack Penny. The ACTUAL spending would have to be 1% less than the previous year, regardless of "unforeseen dynamics". The only way Congress could spend more under Mack Penny would be to repeal the law.

That's the point, the only "wishful thinking" under a law like Mack Penny is that Congress could find an amicable way to cut 1% of spending. THAT'S wishful thinking! But not to worry, under Mack Penny, the ACTUAL cuts come anyway, across the board.

And here; maybe this will help: appropriations, in Congress, pursuant to the Con, DO NOT, effectively, WORK THAT WAY. They want shit, and appropriate funding. Then in the course of achieving it, they come up short. For example: miltitary. They need a plane, or maybe are fighting a war. And shit; cost overruns. Plane takes more time to develop. The war took an unfortunate turn. So the President is at crossroad; money is needed to achieve the goal we thought would cost less. Ergo, a plee for more appropriation, which goes to Congress, a body politic. And since they want keep the cushy leather seat, the staff they've some to know and care about, the paycheck and prestige, THEY ARE LOATE TO RUN FOR RE-ELECTION HAVING FUCKED OUR MEN A WOMEN IN UNIFORM OR ELIMINATED THAT PLANE THAT WILL PROTECT OUR BABIES FROM HAVNG TO SPEAK KOREAN AND PRAY TO THEIR DEAR LEADER IN NORTH KOREA, or wherever.

Are you seeing? It's budgeted; aka WE WANT STUFF, and cannot definitively limit the costs of getting it. Shit happens. More spending is needed to sustain it, to the statifaction of VOTERS!!!

So arbitratry limits, get fucked, in the ass. No one gives a fuck about them, when the chips are down and they'd get in the way of WHAT WE WANT!!!!! (why it was funded, to begin with.)

 

[Truthseeker420]

Absolutely. Give Obama and the Dems the tax increase on the rich they are after ... go for it. No real cuts to spending? No problem! The tax hike on the rich will make those cuts unnecessary. That's certainly what Obama has implied so I say give them what they want, what they really, really want.

And when it doesn't work they can own every inch of it.

I have yet another thought on how we can fix this. Why don't we let the Democrats pass whatever they want? If they are the party of higher taxes, all the Republicans vote present and let the Democrats raise taxes as high as they want to raise them, let Democrats in the Senate raise taxes, let the president sign it and then make them own the tax increase. And when the economy stalls, when the economy sputters, when people lose their jobs, they know which party to blame, the party of high taxes. Let's don't be the party of just almost as high taxes.

Sen. Rand Paul: We Should Let Dems Raise Taxes And Then Let Them Own It | RealClearPolitics

Obama wants to continue the taxes cuts on 98 % of the people and the 2% would still get the tax break on there first $250,000 of income. I don't see this hurting anyone.

 

[eflatminor]

Ahh; fuckit. School's still in.

BUDGET: wishful thinking.

ACTUAL: what is spent, based on unforeseen dynamics, within budget guidelines, pursuant to the Con, which demands all spending be appropriated, which the Cong does, has always done, and NEVER controlled with wishful thinking.

Now you know.

Peace out. Really: Peace out.

You're describing the status quo. Fine. However, not even Congress can override a law like that proposed in Mack Penny. The ACTUAL spending would have to be 1% less than the previous year, regardless of "unforeseen dynamics". The only way Congress could spend more under Mack Penny would be to repeal the law.

That's the point, the only "wishful thinking" under a law like Mack Penny is that Congress could find an amicable way to cut 1% of spending. THAT'S wishful thinking! But not to worry, under Mack Penny, the ACTUAL cuts come anyway, across the board.

And here; maybe this will help: appropriations, in Congress, pursuant to the Con, DO NOT, effectively, WORK THAT WAY. They want shit, and appropriate funding. Then in the course of achieving it, they come up short. For example: miltitary. They need a plane, or maybe are fighting a war. And shit; cost overruns. Plane takes more time to develop. The war took an unfortunate turn. So the President is at crossroad; money is needed to achieve the goal we thought would cost less. Ergo, a plee for more appropriation, which goes to Congress, a body politic. And since they want keep the cushy leather seat, the staff they've some to know and care about, the paycheck and prestige, THEY ARE LOATE TO RUN FOR RE-ELECTION HAVING FUCKED OUR MEN A WOMEN IN UNIFORM NOR ELIMINATE THAT PLANE THAT WILL PROTECT OUR BABIES FROM HAVNG TO SPEAK KOREAN AND PRAY TO THEIR DEAR LEADER IN NORTH KOREA, or wherever.

Are you seeing? It's budgeted; aka WE WANT STUFF, and cannot definitively limit the costs of getting. Shit happens. More spending is needed to sustain it, to the statifaction of VOTERS!!!

So arbitratry limits, get fucked, in the ass. No one gives a fuck about them, when the chips are down and they'd get in the way of WHAT WE WANT!!!!! (why it was funded, to begin with.)

I agree "arbitrary" limits get bypassed. We've seen this with PAYGO, where every dime spent since it's passing has been an "emergency".

However, Mack Penny allows no room for that. In other words, Mack Penny does "definitively limit" overall spending, regardless of what happens with the cost of getting the stuff people want. That's the unique strength of the law - Congress would have to repeal Mack Penny to get more money than they spent last year.

So, if spending on something previously appropriated comes up short (happens), Congress will have to find a way to spend less elsewhere or deal with coming up short on that appropriation. They'd have no other choice in the matter, regardless of how vociferously they plea for more money.

As you've stated, Congress is not going to cut spending voluntarily. Mack Penny forces them, with no wiggle room around it.

 

[Koios]

You're describing the status quo. Fine. However, not even Congress can override a law like that proposed in Mack Penny. The ACTUAL spending would have to be 1% less than the previous year, regardless of "unforeseen dynamics". The only way Congress could spend more under Mack Penny would be to repeal the law.

That's the point, the only "wishful thinking" under a law like Mack Penny is that Congress could find an amicable way to cut 1% of spending. THAT'S wishful thinking! But not to worry, under Mack Penny, the ACTUAL cuts come anyway, across the board.

And here; maybe this will help: appropriations, in Congress, pursuant to the Con, DO NOT, effectively, WORK THAT WAY. They want shit, and appropriate funding. Then in the course of achieving it, they come up short. For example: miltitary. They need a plane, or maybe are fighting a war. And shit; cost overruns. Plane takes more time to develop. The war took an unfortunate turn. So the President is at crossroad; money is needed to achieve the goal we thought would cost less. Ergo, a plee for more appropriation, which goes to Congress, a body politic. And since they want keep the cushy leather seat, the staff they've some to know and care about, the paycheck and prestige, THEY ARE LOATE TO RUN FOR RE-ELECTION HAVING FUCKED OUR MEN A WOMEN IN UNIFORM NOR ELIMINATE THAT PLANE THAT WILL PROTECT OUR BABIES FROM HAVNG TO SPEAK KOREAN AND PRAY TO THEIR DEAR LEADER IN NORTH KOREA, or wherever.

Are you seeing? It's budgeted; aka WE WANT STUFF, and cannot definitively limit the costs of getting. Shit happens. More spending is needed to sustain it, to the statifaction of VOTERS!!!

So arbitratry limits, get fucked, in the ass. No one gives a fuck about them, when the chips are down and they'd get in the way of WHAT WE WANT!!!!! (why it was funded, to begin with.)

I agree "arbitrary" limits get bypassed. We've seen this with PAYGO, where every dime spent since it's passing has been an "emergency".

However, Mack Penny allows no room for that. In other words, Mack Penny does "definitively limit" overall spending, regardless of what happens with the cost of getting the stuff people want. That's the unique strength of the law - Congress would have to repeal Mack Penny to get more money than they spent last year.

So, if spending on something previously appropriated comes up short (happens), Congress will have to find a way to spend less elsewhere or deal with coming up short on that appropriation. They'd have no other choice in the matter, regardless of how vociferously they plea for more money.

As you've stated, Congress is not going to cut spending voluntarily. Mack Penny forces them, with no wiggle room around it.

NONE OF THE LET'S PRETEND WE'RE ACTUALLY DOING SOMETHING EVER DOES!!!!

Then whoops; WE WANT SHIT!!! New bill. New vote. Make-believe nonesense goes where all the other make-believe horseshit, feel-good, pretend we actually did something, went: INTO THE SHITTER!!!!!!

Ergo, you want to cut spending in a meaningful way? OK; fine. Eliminate WHAT SPENDING PROGRAM????????????

 

[eflatminor]

And here; maybe this will help: appropriations, in Congress, pursuant to the Con, DO NOT, effectively, WORK THAT WAY. They want shit, and appropriate funding. Then in the course of achieving it, they come up short. For example: miltitary. They need a plane, or maybe are fighting a war. And shit; cost overruns. Plane takes more time to develop. The war took an unfortunate turn. So the President is at crossroad; money is needed to achieve the goal we thought would cost less. Ergo, a plee for more appropriation, which goes to Congress, a body politic. And since they want keep the cushy leather seat, the staff they've some to know and care about, the paycheck and prestige, THEY ARE LOATE TO RUN FOR RE-ELECTION HAVING FUCKED OUR MEN A WOMEN IN UNIFORM NOR ELIMINATE THAT PLANE THAT WILL PROTECT OUR BABIES FROM HAVNG TO SPEAK KOREAN AND PRAY TO THEIR DEAR LEADER IN NORTH KOREA, or wherever.

Are you seeing? It's budgeted; aka WE WANT STUFF, and cannot definitively limit the costs of getting. Shit happens. More spending is needed to sustain it, to the statifaction of VOTERS!!!

So arbitratry limits, get fucked, in the ass. No one gives a fuck about them, when the chips are down and they'd get in the way of WHAT WE WANT!!!!! (why it was funded, to begin with.)

I agree "arbitrary" limits get bypassed. We've seen this with PAYGO, where every dime spent since it's passing has been an "emergency".

However, Mack Penny allows no room for that. In other words, Mack Penny does "definitively limit" overall spending, regardless of what happens with the cost of getting the stuff people want. That's the unique strength of the law - Congress would have to repeal Mack Penny to get more money than they spent last year.

So, if spending on something previously appropriated comes up short (happens), Congress will have to find a way to spend less elsewhere or deal with coming up short on that appropriation. They'd have no other choice in the matter, regardless of how vociferously they plea for more money.

As you've stated, Congress is not going to cut spending voluntarily. Mack Penny forces them, with no wiggle room around it.

NONE OF THE LET'S PRETEND WE'RE ACTUALLY DOING SOMETHING EVER DOES!!!!

Then whoops; WE WANT SHIT!!! New bill. New vote. Make-believe nonesense goes where all the other make-believe horseshit, feel-good, pretend we actually did something, went: INTO THE SHITTER!!!!!!

Saying a Mack Penny law is "pretend" does not make it so. True, pretending doesn't result in less spending. A law that forces it would.

If the "We want shit" crowd bitches, they'd have to first repeal Mack Penny. If they couldn't repeal, all the complaining in the world wouldn't change what they get to spend.

Ergo, you want to cut spending in a meaningful way? OK; fine. Eliminate WHAT SPENDING PROGRAM????????????

I'd cut a hell of lot more than 1% from last year's spending but my personal list of what I'd like to eliminate is not the point. I'm not suggesting what I want to cut should be law. I know Congress cannot seem to find anything to cut, which is why cutting across the board is the only feasible solution I see. Make it so they'd have NO CHOICE. The Mack Penny plan does just that.

 

[Koios]

I agree "arbitrary" limits get bypassed. We've seen this with PAYGO, where every dime spent since it's passing has been an "emergency".

However, Mack Penny allows no room for that. In other words, Mack Penny does "definitively limit" overall spending, regardless of what happens with the cost of getting the stuff people want. That's the unique strength of the law - Congress would have to repeal Mack Penny to get more money than they spent last year.

So, if spending on something previously appropriated comes up short (happens), Congress will have to find a way to spend less elsewhere or deal with coming up short on that appropriation. They'd have no other choice in the matter, regardless of how vociferously they plea for more money.

As you've stated, Congress is not going to cut spending voluntarily. Mack Penny forces them, with no wiggle room around it.

NONE OF THE LET'S PRETEND WE'RE ACTUALLY DOING SOMETHING EVER DOES!!!!

Then whoops; WE WANT SHIT!!! New bill. New vote. Make-believe nonesense goes where all the other make-believe horseshit, feel-good, pretend we actually did something, went: INTO THE SHITTER!!!!!!

Saying a Mack Penny law is "pretend" does not make it so. True, pretending doesn't result in less spending. A law that forces it would.

If the "We want shit" crowd bitches, they'd have to first repeal Mack Penny. If they couldn't repeal, all the complaining in the world wouldn't change what they get to spend.

Ergo, you want to cut spending in a meaningful way? OK; fine. Eliminate WHAT SPENDING PROGRAM????????????

I'd cut a hell of lot more than 1% from last year's spending but my personal list of what I'd like to eliminate is not the point. I'm not suggesting what I want to cut should be law. I know Congress cannot seem to find anything to cut, which is why cutting across the board is the only feasible solution I see. Make it so they'd have NO CHOICE. The Mack Penny plan does just that.

Correct. A supplimental spending bill it gets in the way of, does. Just wait, for it to pass, if it does, and then see if it does, in the end, alter what happens. It won't.

In short: if it's what we want, within the confines of political reality, it gets funded, come hell or high water, regardless of any bullshit feel-good nonsense that previously passed.

MYGOD!!! Open your window and look out. It's happened that way, EVERY FUCKING TIME!!!!

Tell me when it hasn't? Hmmm?

 

[eflatminor]

NONE OF THE LET'S PRETEND WE'RE ACTUALLY DOING SOMETHING EVER DOES!!!!

Then whoops; WE WANT SHIT!!! New bill. New vote. Make-believe nonesense goes where all the other make-believe horseshit, feel-good, pretend we actually did something, went: INTO THE SHITTER!!!!!!

Saying a Mack Penny law is "pretend" does not make it so. True, pretending doesn't result in less spending. A law that forces it would.

If the "We want shit" crowd bitches, they'd have to first repeal Mack Penny. If they couldn't repeal, all the complaining in the world wouldn't change what they get to spend.

Ergo, you want to cut spending in a meaningful way? OK; fine. Eliminate WHAT SPENDING PROGRAM????????????

I'd cut a hell of lot more than 1% from last year's spending but my personal list of what I'd like to eliminate is not the point. I'm not suggesting what I want to cut should be law. I know Congress cannot seem to find anything to cut, which is why cutting across the board is the only feasible solution I see. Make it so they'd have NO CHOICE. The Mack Penny plan does just that.

Correct. A supplimental spending bill it gets in the way of, does. Just wait, for it to pass, if it does, and then see if it does, in the end, alter what happens. It won't.

In short: if it's what we want, within the confines of political reality, it gets funded, come hell or high water, regardless of any bullshit feel-good nonsense that previously passed.

MYGOD!!! Open your window and look out. It's happened that way, EVERY FUCKING TIME!!!!

Tell me when it hasn't? Hmmm?

Always has, which is why we need a LAW like Mack Penny.

If "political reality" demands something get funded after the passage of Mack Penny, there would be two choices to consider:
1) Find something else to cut to keep overall spending 1% less than the previous year; or
2) Repeal Mack Penny.

No "supplemental spending" bill could override Mack Penny. We've never had such a powerful law. Nothing close.

 

[Koios]

Saying a Mack Penny law is "pretend" does not make it so. True, pretending doesn't result in less spending. A law that forces it would.

If the "We want shit" crowd bitches, they'd have to first repeal Mack Penny. If they couldn't repeal, all the complaining in the world wouldn't change what they get to spend.



I'd cut a hell of lot more than 1% from last year's spending but my personal list of what I'd like to eliminate is not the point. I'm not suggesting what I want to cut should be law. I know Congress cannot seem to find anything to cut, which is why cutting across the board is the only feasible solution I see. Make it so they'd have NO CHOICE. The Mack Penny plan does just that.

Correct. A supplimental spending bill it gets in the way of, does. Just wait, for it to pass, if it does, and then see if it does, in the end, alter what happens. It won't.

In short: if it's what we want, within the confines of political reality, it gets funded, come hell or high water, regardless of any bullshit feel-good nonsense that previously passed.

MYGOD!!! Open your window and look out. It's happened that way, EVERY FUCKING TIME!!!!

Tell me when it hasn't? Hmmm?

Always has, which is why we need a LAW like Mack Penny.

If "political reality" demands something get funded after the passage of Mack Penny, there would be two choices to consider:
1) Find something else to cut to keep overall spending 1% less than the previous year; or
2) Repeal Mack Penny.

No "supplemental spending" bill could override Mack Penny. We've never had such a powerful law. Nothing close.

Here, I'll type slowly ...

When has it (similar new fangled "this will get spending under control!" feel-good bullshit) EVER WORKED???

Just once? Make it easy on yourself. Find a single cream puff that "proves" your thesis. Have a fucking field day.