- Joined
- 03 Sep 03
- Moves
- 87628
08 Jan 11
Originally posted by no1marauderPerhaps that is where the cuts in the budget the Pauls are going to propose later this month. They said they are gonna propose one that cuts $500 billion.
A drop in the bucket. Ending US participation in the wars and cutting defense spending in half would probably save close to $500 billion. Then get revenues back in line and we're all set.
At 1:00 in this interview.
08 Jan 11
Originally posted by tmetzlerLOL, Ron Paul is waayyyyyyyyyyy to free market for No1.
Perhaps that is where the cuts in the budget the Pauls are going to propose later this month. They said they are gonna propose one that cuts $500 billion.
At 1:00 in this interview.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZO9KaSrj1sM
08 Jan 11
3 edits
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/gibbs-obama-opposed-raising-debt-ceiling-before-he-was-for-it/
Just so everyone knows, Obama voted against raising the debt ceiling just 4 years ago and declared that there was a lack of leadership in the Bush administration because there failure to reign in federal spending. Hilarious!! 😵
I think that was right after he voted against going to war. You know, the two wars he voted against that he has currently been fighting since he took office.
08 Jan 11
Originally posted by whodeyStill waiting for your proposals for one trillion dollars in spending cuts and/or tax increases by April.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/gibbs-obama-opposed-raising-debt-ceiling-before-he-was-for-it/
Just so everyone knows, Obama voted against raising the debt ceiling 4 years ago and declared that there was a lack of leadership in the Bush administration because there failure to reign in federal spending. Hilarious!! 😵
Why isn't it "hilarious" that 52 Republicans voted to increase the debt ceiling 4 years ago without any of the restrictions on future spending that they are now insisting on?
08 Jan 11
Originally posted by tmetzlerRon, yes; Rand no. During the Republican primary he said that defense spending should increase as a share of total federal spending. Granted, that could be done with really severe cuts in all other spending and less severe, but still sizable cuts in defense spending, but I doubt that's what he'll propose.
I don't know why you would doubt it. Dr. Paul has been proposing just that for years now. Hell he teamed up with Rep. Frank last year to propose large military spending cuts.
- Joined
- 03 Sep 03
- Moves
- 87628
08 Jan 11
Originally posted by no1marauderYes, well the operative word being: "defense" spending, not "offense". He was very careful with how he said such things. And he has always been against us being in Iraq, so "defense cuts" over there would be expected. But we'll see soon enough.
Ron, yes; Rand no. During the Republican primary he said that defense spending should increase as a share of total federal spending. Granted, that could be done with really severe cuts in all other spending and less severe, but still sizable cuts in defense spending, but I doubt that's what he'll propose.
08 Jan 11
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderIt would seem that it does not matter what party is in power. Once they acheive power it seems they feel that if they stop spending, for anything, people will begin dying in the streets. Then, to add insult to injury, they don't think twice about expanding government whether it be "W" or Obama. Again, they feel as though if they don't increase the size of government on a daily basis, people will keep dying in the streets. Perhaps they suffer from delusions of grandeur.
Still waiting for your proposals for one trillion dollars in spending cuts and/or tax increases by April.
Why isn't it "hilarious" that 52 Republicans voted to increase the debt ceiling 4 years ago without any of the restrictions on future spending that they are now insisting on?
As for my proposals, what's the point. Neither side has any intention of doing what needs to be done. You can show me how the Green Party would tackle the problem and I could show you how the Tea Party would tackle the problem but no one in power would agree with either side of the political spectrum. It would appear once in Washington there is only one political spectrum which is fiscal insanity.
08 Jan 11
Originally posted by whodeyI showed you how the Green Party would deal with the situation.
It would seem that it does not matter what party is in power. Once they acheive power it seems they feel that if they stop spending, for anything, people will begin dying in the streets. Then, to add insult to injury, they don't think twice about expanding government whether it be "W" or Obama. Again, they feel as though if they don't increase the size of ...[text shortened]... ld appear once in Washington there is only one political spectrum which is fiscal insanity.
You showed me .................... nothing but hot air.
You made a post opposing raising the debt ceiling in April. That action would require that the US government balance the budget at that time as further borrowing would be illegal. Balancing the budget would require, at a minimum, a trillion dollars in spending cuts and/or revenue increases. So both you and MacSwain have been asked to outline what specific proposals you have to do this. Predictably, you have both dodged, hemmed and hawed with you throwing in a bunch of right wing talking points and propaganda rather than anything substantive.
Pathetic.
08 Jan 11
Originally posted by no1marauderThe bottom line is that it matters little what you cut. No matter what it is you will have people saying that they will be dying in the streets because they cut off their money supply. Additionally, no politician is going to take that criticism, if they want to be re-elected. That is why it is such a devesatating thing to increase the size of government and create new entitlement entities.
I showed you how the Green Party would deal with the situation.
You showed me .................... nothing but hot air.
You made a post opposing raising the debt ceiling in April. That action would require that the US government balance the budget at that time as further borrowing would be illegal. Balancing the bud ...[text shortened]... ing talking points and propaganda rather than anything substantive.
Pathetic.
As for myself, I could care less what they cut. All I would say is spin a wheel and throw darts at it to decide what to cut.