SnyderShrugged Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 Tell you what. I hereby propose that we completely eliminate the Department of Defense, thus bringing government spending down to 2007 levels. Please, tell me you object to this idea, so that I can pretend that you're opposed to reducing spending to 2007 levels. LOL, and if this silly tangent on an otherwise good discussion had any value at all, I might further engage you. But sadly, its fairly inept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 deleted post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 again, please put forth your evidence that he is just grandstanding and not serious about his proposal Well, if he's serious, and put this forth in good faith thinking that it had a snowball's chance in hades, then you're right he's not grandstanding....he's a moron who has an IQ too low to stand trial, much less serve as a United States Senator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted January 30, 2011 Author Share Posted January 30, 2011 The reason that he's talking about discretionary cuts is that *surprise* the Congress (the House specifically) is debating *discretionary cuts*! I don't agree with what the GOP is doing in that debate... they aren't going to cut to a specific number, they are going to let their Budget Committee head make up a number (somehow?) and they are going to vote that the number he comes up with is the lawful number. I have no idea how this works. The GOP has been talking about cutting some programs to 2006 or 2007 levels. This reminds me of the TARP debate, and the tax debates all over. Government proposes cuts (or spending on TARP), people say "if we don't spend $500B there will be huge problems with the economy"; this discretionary spending is worse because people can multiply the number out by 3 years and say "Rand Paul is going to remove $1.5T from the economy!". Is the Federal Government really that important to our "economy"? Our government and our country is afraid to take the step, say "no", and go tumbling over the Niagara Falls barrel. We couldn't do it with TARP, we couldn't do it with the 2010 tax deal, lets just admit it and stop shying away from the problem. If everyone took equally drastic cuts it would have a huge deflationary effect on the economy. I don't think deflation per-se is a bad thing; however deflation will kill the banks... hence policy makers are trying to avoid it at all costs; and have been for 3 years overtly. The other problem is deflation is that we owe so much on our debt that the only way we can pay it back is to continue inflating our currency.... its like some strange global game of "hot potato", I don't know how we're going to pass the potato to the Chinese... everyone knows the only way we can pay our huge $T in national debt is through inflation, China knows that they need us to keep borrowing money from them to keep paying their workers and make them happy... things have gotten ramped up. It wouldn't have been so bad if we had bit the bullet in the 80s or 90s... people say "our children are going to have fewer opportunities than us" maybe they should've actually acted on that instead of continuing the status quo all these years. Long rant, not sure if it'll look foolish in 5-10 years... maybe we can take the national debt to the $30T level... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 Well, if he's serious, and put this forth in good faith thinking that it had a snowball's chance in hades, then you're right he's not grandstanding....he's a moron who has an IQ too low to stand trial, much less serve as a United States Senator. Please permit me to rephrase SS's question: Where the **** do you get this idea that if a Congressman who ran on a platform of "I support X", proposes a bill that says "I support X", then he's done something immoral and evil? What's wrong with actually discussing the proposal, instead of trying to attack the moral character of the person who proposed it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 Please permit me to rephrase SS's question: Where the **** do you get this idea that if a Congressman who ran on a platform of "I support X", proposes a bill that says "I support X", then he's done something immoral and evil? What's wrong with actually discussing the proposal, instead of trying to attack the moral character of the person who proposed it? I did discuss the proposal, I found it lacking, I found that it would never pass not in a million years. And if the only reason he's putting this out there is to say "I support X" then yes....he IS grandstanding. It's truly and attention whore moment. I want Senators and Congressmen/women to bring forth REAL workable solutions not this crap. If he wants to say "I support X" then go on Meet the Press and say it but putting out this type of radical nonsense is a non-starter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 Please permit me to rephrase SS's question: Where the **** do you get this idea that if a Congressman who ran on a platform of "I support X", proposes a bill that says "I support X", then he's done something immoral and evil? What's wrong with actually discussing the proposal, instead of trying to attack the moral character of the person who proposed it? Thank You Larry! Well said. ---------- Post added January-30th-2011 at 08:11 AM ---------- I did discuss the proposal, I found it lacking, I found that it would never pass not in a million years. And if the only reason he's putting this out there is to say "I support X" then yes....he IS grandstanding. It's truly and attention whore moment. I want Senators and Congressmen/women to bring forth REAL workable solutions not this crap. If he wants to say "I support X" then go on Meet the Press and say it but putting out this type of radical nonsense is a non-starter. Still need to understand where you get the idea that his proposed cuts are A) not what he stated he would propose and not workable. What is your basis beyond mere opinion? Your argument could be made regarding any proposal submitted by anybody. Get specific please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 Thank You Larry! Well said. Mind you, the same reasoning should be applied to both the Dems and Obama for both Health Care Reform and the Stimulus... esp. the stimulus which they campaigned on and described in scope and expense almost to the penny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 Mind you, the same reasoning should be applied to both the Dems and Obama for both Health Care Reform and the Stimulus... esp. the stimulus which they campaigned on and described in scope and expense almost to the penny. Oh I'd definitely agree. Right or wrong in terms of approach, they did what they said they would do and I believe they did it with noble motives Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 Oh I'd definitely agree. Right or wrong in terms of approach, they did what they said they would do and I believe they did it with noble motives Yeah, and I think it has had a short term positive result. Like you, I am concerned about the long term result. After all, it wasn't a fix, but a just a pain killer and some pain killers have really nasty side effects. Still, the country is in a better place than two years ago. I just don't know if that's worth the long term price we'll pay. We'll find out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 Yeah, and I think it has had a short term positive result. Like you, I am concerned about the long term result. After all, it wasn't a fix, but a just a pain killer and some pain killers have really nasty side effects. Still, the country is in a better place than two years ago. I just don't know if that's worth the long term price we'll pay. We'll find out. I disagree with that perspective. The key difference between the proposals is that one makes the debt problem worse and one is an attempt to begin to make it better. In both cases, I think its foolish to find fault with their motives. I also think its extra foolish to not make significant moves toward reversing the spending and debt issue before our Federal government is totally overextended and we end up with 10 times the pain some cuts would bring today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 I know. We've disagreed on this a lot. I do think that sometimes you have to break the fever before you can operate on the patient. Economically, the fever's been broken, but all the underlying symptoms and the disease is still there. Worse, we don't know all the long term ramifications from the tactics we used to break the fever. It's sort of like all the people saying that the Gulf is now fine a few months after the oil spill. We can't and won't know the all real effects for a pretty long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 I know. We've disagreed on this a lot. I do think that sometimes you have to break the fever before you can operate on the patient. Economically, the fever's been broken, but all the underlying symptoms and the disease is still there. Worse, we don't know all the long term ramifications from the tactics we used to break the fever. It's sort of like all the people saying that the Gulf is now fine a few months after the oil spill. We can't and won't know the all real effects for a pretty long time. I like my Doctor to control the symptoms while simultaneously treating the root cause of them. I definitely wouldnt treat it with more of what made you sick to begin with. That would be insane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 all all anti-venoms are made from venom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 all all anti-venoms are made from venom. but none are used in a manner that administers double the actual snake bites to the victim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 I disagree with that perspective. The key difference between the proposals is that one makes the debt problem worse and one is an attempt to begin to make it better. Uh, one makes the deficit better. And I'll point out that a lot of the proposals I've seen from the right aren't "attempts to begin to make it better", they're "using a deliberately manufactured crisis as a justification to do what you've wanted to do, all along, but the voters wouldn't stand for it". (Although I have to admit that my own opinion is that Paul is seriously motivated by trying to reduce the deficit, combined with an honest attempt to reduce government. I don't lump them in with the rest of the GOP. I doubt the motives of pretty much the entire GOP, except for those two.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 Uh, one makes the deficit better. And I'll point out that a lot of the proposals I've seen from the right aren't "attempts to begin to make it better", they're "using a deliberately manufactured crisis as a justification to do what you've wanted to do, all along, but the voters wouldn't stand for it". (Although I have to admit that my own opinion is that Paul is seriously motivated by trying to reduce the deficit, combined with an honest attempt to reduce government. I don't lump them in with the rest of the GOP. I doubt the motives of pretty much the entire GOP, except for those two.) I appreciate you perspective on Paul and I agree with much of your perspective on the GOP. (however, I disagree that the Healthcare reform makes the deficit better, but thats a whole different discussion) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 Still need to understand where you get the idea that his proposed cuts are A) not what he stated he would propose and not workable. What is your basis beyond mere opinion? Oh I'm certain he would propose it but that doesn't make it any less a waste of time. How is it not workable? Seriously, you really think that the Department of Education is going to be eliminated on a whim just because the eye doctor wants it to be gone? Your argument could be made regarding any proposal submitted by anybody. Get specific please Please, there are reasonable proposed cuts that have been made and then there is this by Rand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 Please, there are reasonable proposed cuts that have been made and then there is this by Rand. To be fair though, you don't plan a trip to get to the moon by outlining what you need to go on an overnight camping trip. This is his wishlist. This is Rand's Apollo Project. The first step is to risk being ridiculed and being called an unrealistic fool. Paul did that. From there, people can start working. Now, if he proves stubborn and intransigent and says, "No, this is the plan and anything less is unacceptible and anything I didn't include is off the table" then he is a fool and this proposal is worthless. As a kickstarter, it's fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 Oh I'm certain he would propose it but that doesn't make it any less a waste of time. How is it not workable? Seriously, you really think that the Department of Education is going to be eliminated on a whim just because the eye doctor wants it to be gone?Please, there are reasonable proposed cuts that have been made and then there is this by Rand. so in short, you insist on questioning his motives and proposals without any specific reason other than "I believe it is so"? You typically are a great poster and have a good mind for extended thought. Here you have failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 Now, OTOH, SS, Near as I can tell, the biggest "line item" in this budget-cut proposal, the thing with the biggest dollar amount, is his plan to eliminate the Department of Education. Now, near as I can tell from checking numbers from this site, (I love that site. You can get all kinds of numbers on all kinds of areas.), Federal education spending constitutes 17% of our nation's total spending on education. (If you look at their numbers for K-12 , it says the Feds account for 15%.) (If you look at what they call " tertiary ", which I assume is "college", then it's 8%. OTOH, that same category says the feds spent negative dollars on that in 09. What happened? More people paying off student loans than they lent out? I don't get it.) I'm pulling all of those numbers from FY'10 data. Now I don't know about you, but me, personally, I don't think that when we're looking at our deficit, that our first, biggest target should be reducing spending on education, nationwide, by 17%. In fact, I'd feel perfectly justified in labeling anyone who seriously, honestly, advocated it as dangerously insane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 I think the Republicans would be better served by saying let's make the programs we have more effective and work on closing loop holes and eliminating waste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 I think the Republicans would be better served by saying let's make the programs we have more effective and work on closing loop holes and eliminating waste. Thats pretty much what Paul proposed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 Thats pretty much what Paul proposed You owe for a new keyboard for that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 Now, OTOH, SS, Near as I can tell, the biggest "line item" in this budget-cut proposal, the thing with the biggest dollar amount, is his plan to eliminate the Department of Education. Now, near as I can tell from checking numbers from this site, (I love that site. You can get all kinds of numbers on all kinds of areas.), Federal education spending constitutes 17% of our nation's total spending on education. (If you look at their numbers for K-12 , it says the Feds account for 15%.) (If you look at what they call " tertiary ", which I assume is "college", then it's 8%. OTOH, that same category says the feds spent negative dollars on that in 09. What happened? More people paying off student loans than they lent out? I don't get it.) I'm pulling all of those numbers from FY'10 data. Now I don't know about you, but me, personally, I don't think that when we're looking at our deficit, that our first, biggest target should be reducing spending on education, nationwide, by 17%. In fact, I'd feel perfectly justified in labeling anyone who seriously, honestly, advocated it as dangerously insane. Thats a fair discussion Larry. I think its worth working through the ins and outs of each line item within the proposal on its individual merits and affects too. (I also think that Rand has that intent as well) I did want to point out that when he states "eliminate the DOE" he isnt saying totally discard every piece of the items the DOE is connected to. Much of it is restructuring to state and local levels or even transferring details to other federal agencies in some cases. I know that the much needed scholarship programs are one of the big pieces that he specified to keep, but in a different form. ---------- Post added January-30th-2011 at 09:38 AM ---------- You owe for a new keyboard for that one. I take it you havent gotten into the details of his proposals yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.