Paul Ryan, Rand Paul Clash Privately Over Budget

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Before releasing his budget publicly, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) gave Senate Republicans a private briefing about the plan in early April. During that meeting, Sen. Rand Paul, a Tea Party-backed freshman from Kentucky, challenged Ryan in front of the rest of their party, according to two GOP aides briefed on the meeting.

Sen. Paul said Rep. Ryan's plan did not do enough to cut spending and relied on too much deficit spending for too long, according to the aides.

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.

 

[The Infidel]

Before releasing his budget publicly, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) gave Senate Republicans a private briefing about the plan in early April. During that meeting, Sen. Rand Paul, a Tea Party-backed freshman from Kentucky, challenged Ryan in front of the rest of their party, according to two GOP aides briefed on the meeting.

Sen. Paul said Rep. Ryan's plan did not do enough to cut spending and relied on too much deficit spending for too long, according to the aides.

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.

As long as they are bickering about it not being enough... Im cool with it.
CUT CUT CUT...!

 

[The T]

Before releasing his budget publicly, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) gave Senate Republicans a private briefing about the plan in early April. During that meeting, Sen. Rand Paul, a Tea Party-backed freshman from Kentucky, challenged Ryan in front of the rest of their party, according to two GOP aides briefed on the meeting.

Sen. Paul said Rep. Ryan's plan did not do enough to cut spending and relied on too much deficit spending for too long, according to the aides.

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.

As long as they are bickering about it not being enough... Im cool with it.
CUT CUT CUT...!

CUT before the exodus off the cliff and this Republic becomes like the EU that is trying to backtrack from their errant ways...

 

[Oddball]

As long as they are bickering about it not being enough... Im cool with it.
CUT CUT CUT...!

My sentiments exactly.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

Exactly, and that means it won't balance the budget at all, because he can't control what future congresses are going to do.

 

[auditor0007]

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.

 

[Bern80]

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.

Agree 100%. But addressing the rest of the budget is going to take the same fundamental change in philosophy.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[auditor0007]

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.

Agree 100%. But addressing the rest of the budget is going to take the same fundamental change in philosophy.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Triton]

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

 

[William Joyce]

Both Rand Paul and Paul Ryan have 8 letters.
Both have four letters in the first name and four letters in the last name.
Both have "Paul."
Both have names starting with "P" and "R".
Both have "a" in the middle of both names.
Only 2 letters are unique to each man's name: Y and D.

 

[Mad Scientist]

We have plenty of money, we just need to get out of the "Federal Reserve Box" as Ron Paul calls it, and get out from under the crushing debt that they're signed us on for.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

Actually you can look at where to start cutting the way Rand has by proposing a budget that cuts $500 billion, which is obviously just a start, from discretionary spending. So that's the place to start, and then I'd focus on military spending but ultimately entitlements are going to have to see some cuts. Tax increases aren't necessary.

 

[BolshevikHunter]

Then you got the empty suit Boehner saying that he isn't "married" to the joke for a spending cut bill of Ryan's. Typical gutlless Liberal GOP. Same old sell outs. ~BH

 

[The T]

Then you got the empty suit Boehner saying that he isn't "married" to the joke for a spending cut bill of Ryan's. Typical gutlless Liberal GOP. Same old sell outs. ~BH

I am having my doubts about Boehner...He's under pressure from the Blue-Bloods/Old Guard GOP...and the NEW Guard that is the face of the TEA party...

I think Boehner should man-up and tell the Blue-Bloods to take a hike and take up the cause of the Tea-Party Representives since they more closely reflect the will of the people...while keeping in mind that the GOP still is on probation, and the ONLY reason he's speaker now is because of the TEA Party. (People)

 

[The T]

We have plenty of money, we just need to get out of the "Federal Reserve Box" as Ron Paul calls it, and get out from under the crushing debt that they're signed us on for.

Yep. The F/R needs to be abolished.

 

[BolshevikHunter]

Then you got the empty suit Boehner saying that he isn't "married" to the joke for a spending cut bill of Ryan's. Typical gutlless Liberal GOP. Same old sell outs. ~BH

I am having my doubts about Boehner...He's under pressure from the Blue-Bloods/Old Guard GOP...and the NEW Guard that is the face of the TEA party...

I think Boehner should man-up and tell the Blue-Bloods to take a hike and take up the cause of the Tea-Party Representives since they more closely reflect the will of the people...while keeping in mind that the GOP still is on probation, and the ONLY reason he's speaker now is because of the TEA Party. (People)

Yeah, Those Country Club Republicans don't represent the Tea Party bro. Bachmann? LMAO! Career politician. Same old story. ~BH