Sen.-elect Paul: GOP must consider military cuts

[Rationalist]

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican Sen.-elect Rand Paul says GOP lawmakers must be open to cutting military spending as Congress tries to reduce government spending.

The tea party favorite from Kentucky says compromise with Democrats over where to cut spending must include the military as well as social programs. Paul says all government spending must be "on the table."

Paul tells ABC's "This Week" that he supports are a constitutional amendment calling for a balanced budget.

http://bit.ly/aJWnI0

It's about time we have a Republican in the Senate who is at least open to the idea of cutting military spending. The fact of the matter is, deep, painful cuts will be necessary across the board in order to close the budget deficit. Federal spending must be slashed by at least 7% for 4 years in a row and taxes on the highest earners will have to be increased. Stimulus spending must be halted and the recently passed health care legislation will have to be gutted. Privatizing Social Security (at least partially) should also be on the table.

In other words, serious sacrifice will be needed if we're going to pull ourselves out of this mess. Unfortunately, Democrats object to any cut in spending (well, except the military) while Republicans won't even consider allowing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans to expire. Both sides want to have their cake and eat it, too.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

Another Paul attempting to steal my heart.

 

[Zurt]

Well said.

I can't get a single Tea Bagger to tell me which programs they want cut, or the amount of spending reduction they think would be necessary to balance the budget.

I'm beginning to suspect that most of them have no idea what the government actually does or how federal spending works.

They just hate Obama and like chanting the slogans.

 

[Zurt]

Another Paul attempting to steal my heart.

The first one was Ru Paul, wasn't it?

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

Hope you took my advice Voltaire about the ignore list.

 

[Damocles]

It seems like the Paul family is full of very intelligent leaders willing to do what is necessary to get our spending in alignment with reality.

 

[Zurt]

So what government spending should be eliminated?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Here's the thing guys, if you are going to entertain liberal ideas on what should be done, then you may as well give up the fight and become a liberal. From military cuts to taxing the rich, I see some of you wanting to give credence to the mantra of liberalism, in some lame attempt at "compromise" with people who are not even remotely interested in compromising. Apparently, you just don't get that. Even after McCain's defeat, and the ousting of moderate Republicans in the most recent elections, you still think there is credibility in adopting this 'compromise' posture. It's really stunning to me.

I don't have a problem with including modest cuts in military spending, but to just concede that before you even sit down at the table and begin to talk about anything else, is foolish and shows a total lack of understanding for what liberals want to do. Raising income taxes on "the rich" is just an inept understanding of economics and taxation. Every time we have EVER raised the top marginal tax rates, it has resulted in LESS revenue, not MORE! The reason being, wealthy people do not HAVE to earn an income! Tax them more, and they will earn less, that is ALWAYS the case. Subsequently, if you reduce their taxes, they spend more and make more, and the actual revenue you receive is INCREASED as a result. If we need more money, the logical way to get more, is to DECREASE their taxes, not INCREASE them!

I'm for this idea... For every percent decrease in military budget, we decrease the same amount in the entitlement social programs area. 10% across the board cuts? FINE! Let's do it! But to just go ahead and capitulate on military cuts right off the bat, you guys may as well hang a (D) beside your name and become bleeding-heart liberals.

 

[Zurt]

Here's the thing guys, if you are going to entertain liberal ideas on what should be done, then you may as well give up the fight and become a liberal. From military cuts to taxing the rich, I see some of you wanting to give credence to the mantra of liberalism, in some lame attempt at "compromise" with people who are not even remotely interested in compromising. Apparently, you just don't get that. Even after McCain's defeat, and the ousting of moderate Republicans in the most recent elections, you still think there is credibility in adopting this 'compromise' posture. It's really stunning to me.

I don't have a problem with including modest cuts in military spending, but to just concede that before you even sit down at the table and begin to talk about anything else, is foolish and shows a total lack of understanding for what liberals want to do. Raising income taxes on "the rich" is just an inept understanding of economics and taxation. Every time we have EVER raised the top marginal tax rates, it has resulted in LESS revenue, not MORE! The reason being, wealthy people do not HAVE to earn an income! Tax them more, and they will earn less, that is ALWAYS the case. Subsequently, if you reduce their taxes, they spend more and make more, and the actual revenue you receive is INCREASED as a result. If we need more money, the logical way to get more, is to DECREASE their taxes, not INCREASE them!

I'm for this idea... For every percent decrease in military budget, we decrease the same amount in the entitlement social programs area. 10% across the board cuts? FINE! Let's do it! But to just go ahead and capitulate on military cuts right off the bat, you guys may as well hang a (D) beside your name and become bleeding-heart liberals.

So, identical, proportionate across-the-board cuts in all federal spending is your suggestion?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Well said.

I can't get a single Tea Bagger to tell me which programs they want cut, or the amount of spending reduction they think would be necessary to balance the budget.

i've continually said 'across the board'.

 

[Zurt]

i've continually said 'across the board'.

So, you're a Tea Bagger?

You want to cut Defense, Social Security, Medicare, Homeland Security, everything?

By how much? A percentage?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

So, identical, proportionate across-the-board cuts in all federal spending is your suggestion?

Yes, I would favor that. Personally, I think entire departments and programs can be eliminated from the Federal government, and would like to see that happen first, but I don't believe it will. At some point, we are going to have to accept the fact that we've bitten off more than we can chew, and we have to cut some things out. I know Democrats don't want to face this reality, but inevitably, they will have to face it. In the meantime, I believe the only way to fairly implement a budget cut, is to cut things across the board, that way everyone is giving up something, the sacrifice is equally distributed.

 

[Damocles]

So what government spending should be eliminated?

Eliminated? Why must it be eliminated instead of streamlined?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

To balance the budget you would need some pretty ridiculous spending cuts. You wouldn't need a cut to the military, you'd need to get rid of it.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

So, identical, proportionate across-the-board cuts in all federal spending is your suggestion?

Pretty much only because it's easy to say, not because it's the most rational and cost effective choice. Obviously cuts to some departments aren't going to hurt much and cuts to others are going to be disastrous.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Eliminated? Why must it be eliminated instead of streamlined?

What does "streamlined" even mean here? It's just a meaningless buzzword. Just admit that you have no idea.

 

[Damocles]

What does "streamlined" even mean here? It's just a meaningless buzzword. Just admit that you have no idea.

That has to be the most cripplingly foolish thing I have seen you write, and that is saying much after all the posts about killing conservatives.

Streamline: cutting across the board, not eliminating, while cutting some less important areas more than the more important ones thus lowering overall. Nothing is sacrosanct, all areas must be cut.

 

[Zurt]

It does seem a meaningless buzzword.

When you cut spending, when you shut down programs, you eliminate jobs, don't you?

Let's have some specifics.

Heres the Budget: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/tables.pdf

So tell me, who gets laid off?

Not just government workers, but those who depend on them in the private economy.

 

[Bonestorm]

It seems like the Paul family is full of very intelligent leaders willing to do what is necessary to get our spending in alignment with reality.

My god you're a cheap date. It isn't too tough to say that the military should be cut. That's the easy part. I cannot wait to see what you will say if he actually does it.

 

[Damocles]

My god you're a cheap date. It isn't too tough to say that the military should be cut. That's the easy part. I cannot wait to see what you will say if he actually does it.

I will cheer. So long as it is aligned with cuts elsewhere. I've said we should even shut down some of our overseas bases several hundred times since we've known each other and suggested military cuts...

Maybe finally getting somebody to agree feels kinda good? Neh?