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

[eflatminor]

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.

There has never been a similar law like Mack Penny put into place. Nothing close...not once, not ever. Therefore, there is no single "cream puff" (whatever the heck that means), to prove Mack Penny would work. I'm saying it's the best idea to get spending under control I've yet come across.

New ideas are sometimes just that...new!

Now, you've stated clearly that a law requiring cuts like Mack Penny won't work. I have to ask "Do you have a better idea?"

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The LOLberal wants you to show him where something that was never done before worked in the past.


It's like debating with TruthMatters. A waste of time like no other.

 

[Koios]

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.

There has never been a similar law like Mack Penny put into place. Nothing close...not once, not ever. Therefore, there is no single "cream puff" (whatever the heck that means), to prove Mack Penny would work. I'm saying it's the best idea to get spending under control I've yet come across.

New ideas are sometimes just that...new!

Now, you've stated clearly that a law requiring cuts like Mack Penny won't work. I have to ask "Do you have a better idea?"

Really? Debt "ceiling" seems pretty fucking definitive, to me. You know; this and no more. Hahahahahaha.

How's it workin' out?

 

[Koios]

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.

There has never been a similar law like Mack Penny put into place. Nothing close...not once, not ever. Therefore, there is no single "cream puff" (whatever the heck that means), to prove Mack Penny would work. I'm saying it's the best idea to get spending under control I've yet come across.

New ideas are sometimes just that...new!

Now, you've stated clearly that a law requiring cuts like Mack Penny won't work. I have to ask "Do you have a better idea?"

Yeah; imagine that.

Here's an idea: let's stop paying Big Oil to search for crude under PUBLIC LANDS and then sell it to them at below market value. Eliminate the program, entirely.

Let's revise provisions in Medicare Part D, which bar our government from bidding on precription drugs, as other countires can and do with remarkable savings success.

Let's take Visa merchant discount fees out of the loop on Food Assistance, and administer the program ourselves (vis a vis our government)

Let's extend Medicare to all age groups, and enjoy the 15% or so cost saving on health insurance in America, a $3 Trillion cost, annually, which shows up in the cost everything we buy and is a finacial burden to all businesses that provide, some by mandate, health insurance to employees.

To name a few.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

 

[Koios]

Atta boy, TASB. Keep buzzing around like a fly, irritating people, for no apparent reason.

Or evolve into a higher lifeform, metaphorically-speaking. Your call.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

SO your better idea is basically that you're a better central planner than the current central planners. I've heard this story before....by every closet dick tater central planner that ever was.

 

[Koios]

SO your better idea is basically that you're a better central planner than the current central planners. I've heard this story before....by every closet dick tater central planner that ever was.

Sure if it saves money, as in $10s of Billions, annually, while sustaining and/or improving on the benefit that the spending program was created, originally, in service of.

 

[eflatminor]

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.

There has never been a similar law like Mack Penny put into place. Nothing close...not once, not ever. Therefore, there is no single "cream puff" (whatever the heck that means), to prove Mack Penny would work. I'm saying it's the best idea to get spending under control I've yet come across.

New ideas are sometimes just that...new!

Now, you've stated clearly that a law requiring cuts like Mack Penny won't work. I have to ask "Do you have a better idea?"

Really? Debt "ceiling" seems pretty fucking definitive, to me. You know; this and no more. Hahahahahaha.

How's it workin' out?

It may seem that way to you, but the debt ceiling is far from "definitive" when it comes to reducing federal spending. The debt ceiling forces Congress to formally announce it will be spending more, which they're always happy to do, but does nothing to cut spending. It's never been about "This an no more". The debt ceiling is working out exactly as it was intended - to let everyone know we're planning on spending more. That's about the extent of it's impact.

They're two completely different ideas. Mack Penny has nothing to do with the debt ceiling. Mack Penny forces cuts. The debt ceiling does not.

 

[eflatminor]

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.

There has never been a similar law like Mack Penny put into place. Nothing close...not once, not ever. Therefore, there is no single "cream puff" (whatever the heck that means), to prove Mack Penny would work. I'm saying it's the best idea to get spending under control I've yet come across.

New ideas are sometimes just that...new!

Now, you've stated clearly that a law requiring cuts like Mack Penny won't work. I have to ask "Do you have a better idea?"

Yeah; imagine that.

Here's an idea: let's stop paying Big Oil to search for crude under PUBLIC LANDS and then sell it to them at below market value. Eliminate the program, entirely.

Let's revise provisions in Medicare Part D, which bar our government from bidding on precription drugs, as other countires can and do with remarkable savings success.

Let's take Visa merchant discount fees out of the loop on Food Assistance, and administer the program ourselves (vis a vis our government)

Let's extend Medicare to all age groups, and enjoy the 15% or so cost saving on health insurance in America, a $3 Trillion cost, annually, which shows up in the cost everything we buy and is a finacial burden to all businesses that provide, some by mandate, health insurance to employees.

To name a few.

And you're 100% sure that would result in a balanced budget? Even if you're sure about that, what happens when a majority of lawmakers disagree with your idea of what should be cut and what should be expanded? Nothing happens, that's the problem.

Under Mack Penny, you are free to argue for those cuts. If however, you are not successful in convincing the other lawmakers your cuts are the ones to follow, cuts across the board happen anyway. That's the point of Mack Penny, which your plan does not address.

 

[Paulie]

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.

What's the last spending reduction legislation that's been passed?

You're asking for something that doesn't even exist.

 

[Koios]

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.

What's the last spending reduction legislation that's been passed?

You're asking for something that doesn't even exist.

Federal Family Education Loan Program ... a whopper, only, it fucked over folks / families who can ill-afford higher education.

But on the upside, Exxon Mobile is still getting tax Dollars, it doesn't need.

So sleep tight. Not all is being whacked.

Hahahahahahahahahaha. Godbless the USA!!!!

 

[Koios]

There has never been a similar law like Mack Penny put into place. Nothing close...not once, not ever. Therefore, there is no single "cream puff" (whatever the heck that means), to prove Mack Penny would work. I'm saying it's the best idea to get spending under control I've yet come across.

New ideas are sometimes just that...new!

Now, you've stated clearly that a law requiring cuts like Mack Penny won't work. I have to ask "Do you have a better idea?"

Yeah; imagine that.

Here's an idea: let's stop paying Big Oil to search for crude under PUBLIC LANDS and then sell it to them at below market value. Eliminate the program, entirely.

Let's revise provisions in Medicare Part D, which bar our government from bidding on precription drugs, as other countires can and do with remarkable savings success.

Let's take Visa merchant discount fees out of the loop on Food Assistance, and administer the program ourselves (vis a vis our government)

Let's extend Medicare to all age groups, and enjoy the 15% or so cost saving on health insurance in America, a $3 Trillion cost, annually, which shows up in the cost everything we buy and is a finacial burden to all businesses that provide, some by mandate, health insurance to employees.

To name a few.

And you're 100% sure that would result in a balanced budget? Even if you're sure about that, what happens when a majority of lawmakers disagree with your idea of what should be cut and what should be expanded? Nothing happens, that's the problem.

Under Mack Penny, you are free to argue for those cuts. If however, you are not successful in convincing the other lawmakers your cuts are the ones to follow, cuts across the board happen anyway. That's the point of Mack Penny, which your plan does not address.

Nope. I'm just a 100% sure I never claimed it would.

 

[eflatminor]

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.

What's the last spending reduction legislation that's been passed?

You're asking for something that doesn't even exist.

Federal Family Education Loan Program ... a whopper, only, it fucked over folks / families who can ill-afford higher education.

But on the upside, Exxon Mobile is still getting tax Dollars, it doesn't need.

So sleep tight. Not all is being whacked.

Hahahahahahahahahaha. Godbless the USA!!!!

While I think this is way off topic from our discussion on the Mack Penny plan, it is worth noting that while the FFELP may have been eliminated, it was absorbed into an even bigger spending program federal program, the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.

President Obama called for an end to the FFEL program, calling it a wasteful and inefficient system of "taxpayers...paying banks a premium to act as middlemen—a premium that costs the American people billions of dollars each year....a premium we cannot afford."

So now the feds control the entirety of the student loan market. I find that kind of central planning doomed to skyrocketing costs and crappy results.

I can't say what you think about it, but it is another example of ever higher federal spending that the status quo will not fix.

Enter Mack Penny...

 

[Koios]

What's the last spending reduction legislation that's been passed?

You're asking for something that doesn't even exist.

Federal Family Education Loan Program ... a whopper, only, it fucked over folks / families who can ill-afford higher education.

But on the upside, Exxon Mobile is still getting tax Dollars, it doesn't need.

So sleep tight. Not all is being whacked.

Hahahahahahahahahaha. Godbless the USA!!!!

While I think this is way off topic from our discussion on the Mack Penny plan, it is worth noting that while the FFELP may have been eliminated, it was absorbed into an even bigger spending program federal program, the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.

President Obama called for an end to the FFEL program, calling it a wasteful and inefficient system of "taxpayers...paying banks a premium to act as middlemen—a premium that costs the American people billions of dollars each year....a premium we cannot afford."

So now the feds control the entirety of the student loan market. I find that kind of central planning doomed to skyrocketing costs and crappy results.

I can't say what you think about it, but it is another example of ever higher federal spending that the status quo will not fix.

Enter Mack Penny...

Nothing like whining about going OT on somthin' that's OT. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ...

Cut it out you guys. Jesus. I'm about to pop some fucking stitches.

 

[eflatminor]

Yeah; imagine that.

Here's an idea: let's stop paying Big Oil to search for crude under PUBLIC LANDS and then sell it to them at below market value. Eliminate the program, entirely.

Let's revise provisions in Medicare Part D, which bar our government from bidding on precription drugs, as other countires can and do with remarkable savings success.

Let's take Visa merchant discount fees out of the loop on Food Assistance, and administer the program ourselves (vis a vis our government)

Let's extend Medicare to all age groups, and enjoy the 15% or so cost saving on health insurance in America, a $3 Trillion cost, annually, which shows up in the cost everything we buy and is a finacial burden to all businesses that provide, some by mandate, health insurance to employees.

To name a few.

And you're 100% sure that would result in a balanced budget? Even if you're sure about that, what happens when a majority of lawmakers disagree with your idea of what should be cut and what should be expanded? Nothing happens, that's the problem.

Under Mack Penny, you are free to argue for those cuts. If however, you are not successful in convincing the other lawmakers your cuts are the ones to follow, cuts across the board happen anyway. That's the point of Mack Penny, which your plan does not address.

Nope. I'm just a 100% sure I never claimed it would.

Right. The point is, your plan has no teeth if you are unable to convince lawmakers to embrace such wonderful, cost saving ideas. The Mack Penny plan accounts for this oversight with automatic across-the-board cuts.

I claim the Mack Penny plan will balance the budget. You expressed doubt and when asked for your plan, you offer something you admit won't balance the budget. Would you like to try again...or are you just against balancing the budget? If that's the case, you could have saved us all time.

 

[Koios]

President Obama called for an end to the FFEL program

Sure; and thus it was folded into Obamacare, which is lame, at best.

But as for Obama's comments on the merits of FFEL, that there'd be lying ass shit from, in that instance, a sucker of Satan's cock, IMO.

But it helps me cope when dumbfuck Righties call Obama the most socialist prez we're ever had. Nothing like rolling on the floor laughing to get over being pissed about shit.

Ya feel me?

 

[Koios]

And you're 100% sure that would result in a balanced budget? Even if you're sure about that, what happens when a majority of lawmakers disagree with your idea of what should be cut and what should be expanded? Nothing happens, that's the problem.

Under Mack Penny, you are free to argue for those cuts. If however, you are not successful in convincing the other lawmakers your cuts are the ones to follow, cuts across the board happen anyway. That's the point of Mack Penny, which your plan does not address.

Nope. I'm just a 100% sure I never claimed it would.

Right. The point is, your plan has no teeth if you are unable to convince lawmakers to embrace such wonderful, cost saving ideas. The Mack Penny plan accounts for this oversight with automatic across-the-board cuts.

I claim the Mack Penny plan will balance the budget. You expressed doubt and when asked for your plan, you offer something you admit won't balance the budget. Would you like to try again...or are you just against balancing the budget? If that's the case, you could have saved us all time.

That seems a popular sentiment: Fuckit; probably won't get us to balance, so let's just keep funding the shit. Fucking brilliant.

Ever consider running for Congress? You'd fit right in!!!

 

[eflatminor]

Federal Family Education Loan Program ... a whopper, only, it fucked over folks / families who can ill-afford higher education.

But on the upside, Exxon Mobile is still getting tax Dollars, it doesn't need.

So sleep tight. Not all is being whacked.

Hahahahahahahahahaha. Godbless the USA!!!!

While I think this is way off topic from our discussion on the Mack Penny plan, it is worth noting that while the FFELP may have been eliminated, it was absorbed into an even bigger spending program federal program, the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.

President Obama called for an end to the FFEL program, calling it a wasteful and inefficient system of "taxpayers...paying banks a premium to act as middlemen—a premium that costs the American people billions of dollars each year....a premium we cannot afford."

So now the feds control the entirety of the student loan market. I find that kind of central planning doomed to skyrocketing costs and crappy results.

I can't say what you think about it, but it is another example of ever higher federal spending that the status quo will not fix.

Enter Mack Penny...

Nothing like whining about going OT on somthin' that's OT. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ...

Cut it out you guys. Jesus. I'm about to pop some fucking stitches.

I'm not sure why you find our country's fiscal predicament humorous, but the fact remains, you called ending the FFEL an example of legislation that reduced spending, when in fact, the program was absorbed into an even larger spending bill.

Now, if you'd like to get back on topic...

 

[eflatminor]

President Obama called for an end to the FFEL program

Sure; and thus it was folded into Obamacare, which is lame, at best.

But as for Obama's comments on the merits of FFEL, that there'd be lying ass shit from, in that instance, a sucker of Satan's cock, IMO.

But it helps me cope when dumbfuck Righties call Obama the most socialist prez we're ever had. Nothing like rolling on the floor laughing to get over being pissed about shit.

Ya feel me?

Not really. I made so such comments. And I'm not a "Rightie".

Anyway, can we get back on topic?