United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Rand Paul proposes $500 billion in federal budget cuts
Source:
Fox News
URL Source: http://www.fox41.com/story/13911626 ... billion-in-federal-budget-cuts
Published: Jan 26, 2011
Author: staff
Post Date: 2011-01-26 15:34:04 by jwpegler
Keywords: None
Views: 12782
Comments: 28
U.S. Sen. Rand Paul wants to slash numerous federal programs, including food stamps for the poor, to save $500 billion in a single year. A legislative proposal Paul introduced on Tuesday would slash $42 billion from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's food stamp program -- a 30 percent spending reduction. His proposal would eliminate numerous other programs, including the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the National Endowment for the Arts. Paul said the proposal would roll back federal spending to 2008 levels and eliminate what he considers the most wasteful programs. The Kentucky Republican said he hopes his proposal will spark a dialogue within the Senate about how to repair the nation's economy.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
It's good to see that someone gets it.
Yes, cut off programs for the poor so we can preserve tax breaks on income above $250k; for the Goldman traders getting $500k bonuses are the ones creating the jobs and stimulating the economy. We'll know our economy is successful when we double the poverty rate and concentrate more of our wealth in the hands of the top 1%.
Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
He has to know this proposal will go nowhere. Not while .gov is in a printing frenzy. I'm a bit disappointed with the number too. $500 billion ain't squat when the debt is roughly $14 trillion.
Why are there "poor"? Why do they need programs? What did the "poor" do before government decided to give other people's money to them?
How many jobs are created by the poor? Have you ever been hired by a poor man? How many jobs are created by those who refuse to be productive?
It's about 15% of the budget. The U.K. cut 29%. We need to cut about 35% to eliminate the annual deficit. Once the budget is balanced, it will take forever to pay off the debt. He doesn't touch Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid, which need to be reformed for the long haul. He cuts the DOD by $73 billion. That could be doubled by bringing the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan. We'll see where this goes.
Have you ever been hired by a poor man? How many jobs are created by those who refuse to be productive? Exactly right - the goldman traders making millions a year are far more productive members of society then someone like yourself, right?
Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
Have you ever been hired by a poor man? How many jobs are created by those who refuse to be productive? Exactly right - the goldman traders making millions a year are far more productive members of society then someone like yourself, right? Bob Ostertag: Goldman Sachs, Obama, Money Mar 23, 2009 ... Goldman Sachs, Obama, Money - The Huffington Post. ... Goldman Sachs gave Obama four times more than they gave McCain. ... www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-ostertag/g...
Goldman Sacs ran the Clinton Administration. They had huge influence in the Bush administration and now with Obama. The Wall Street people, and especially Goldman Sacs, have too much power and influence in government.
The people in government not only allow it, but welcome it. The US voter is complicit in allowing the people in government to get away with it.
Have you ever been hired by a poor man? How many jobs are created by those who refuse to be productive? Exactly right - the goldman traders making millions a year are far more productive members of society then someone like yourself, right? Myself? Can you discuss an issue without getting your feelings hurt, getting angry and making it personal? If not, I'll move on. My point is, there will always be rich and there will always be poor. You can't control or legislate away human nature and we need all economic levels to make a functioning society. Is a neurosurgeon going to work for the same pay as a dish washer? No. Do we need both? Yes, until someone invents self cleaning dishes and human brains that don't malfunction or get injured. Is a dish washer going to create jobs? No. And you might be surprised to find out that I agree with you about the wall street bonuses, when they're paid with bailout money. And I'm closer to agreement with you about tax cuts for the wealthy than you might think. Has it ever occurred to you that without government handouts of MY MONEY that the poor might have more of an incentive to get an education and work hard?
I'm not sure what you are referring to, I'm agreeing with you that the wealthy are more productive members of society than the poor. Do you not agree? Don't you think that a broker making $1.5 million a year is far more productive and should pay less in taxes then a cop making $30k a year?
Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
Has it ever occurred to you that without government handouts of MY MONEY that the poor might have more of an incentive to get an education and work hard? Sure, that's why we didn't have anyone in poverty before all these "great society" and "new deal" programs were enacted (and like you, I choose to ignore government so-called "data" showing poverty rates were higher among seniors before social security and medicare). It certainly is a lot easier to dismiss these programs out of hand when we dismiss the data we don't like. Agreed?
Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
Why do you ask such stupid questions? Because you are?
How did those poor people survive without government handouts? Can you and your leftist comrades answer that?
go56: Sure, that's why we didn't have anyone in poverty before all these "great society" and "new deal" programs were enacted (and like you, I choose to ignore government so-called "data" showing poverty rates were higher among seniors before social security and medicare). It certainly is a lot easier to dismiss these programs out of hand when we dismiss the data we don't like. Agreed? Translation: NO.
"There will be no more money when the U.S. dollar has no value, until that time we can keep printing more." -- go65, LF's answer to Ben Bernanke --
Do you not agree? Don't you think that a broker making $1.5 million a year is far more productive and should pay less in taxes then a cop making $30k a year? I think you're being dishonest and sarcastic. If you want to have the discussion honestly, I'll be happy to continue. If you're looking for a snide round of oneupmanship, I'm sure there are many folks here which would be happy to engage, but I'm not one of them.
It certainly is a lot easier to dismiss these programs out of hand when we dismiss the data we don't like. Agreed? Look at the lengths you are going to, to keep from having an honest conversation. What are you afraid of?
If you want to have the discussion honestly, I'll be happy to continue. Yes, I am being sarcastic. And yes, I dismiss those arguments that start with 'we ought to give tax breaks on income over $250k because those are the most productive members of our society' And frankly, I don't see how we as a society tackle the problems we face by cutting taxes on upper income earners at the expense of programs for the poor while protecting defense spending. Paul has some good ideas, but he's not willing to go after a $700 billion defense budget.
Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
Why is it necessary for government to provide programs for the "poor"?
People who earn the money should get it. The tax breaks are for the poor. The rich receive none as they pay a higher rate and buy the food for a lot of losers who are to lazy to get a job and work.
I thought so. And yes, I dismiss those arguments that start with 'we ought to give tax breaks on income over $250k because those are the most productive members of our society' That's fine. But.....I never made that argument. Or even insinuated it, or even thought it. And frankly, I don't see how we as a society tackle the problems we face by cutting taxes on upper income earners at the expense of programs for the poor while protecting defense spending. I say we increase taxes on the wealthy, AND cut services to the poor. The debt has to be paid somehow and first and foremost we have to cut spending. Paul has some good ideas, but he's not willing to go after a $700 billion defense budget. You might be right there. I hope not, but I'm afraid so. His father sure would.
Agreed, but I think you are missing part of the equation. It's not just about cutting spending, it's about growing the economy and the tax base. Implement the kinds of cuts that Paul advocates and you'll depress the economy so much that any savings from cuts will be lost by declining tax revenues. We've seen this already play out in Ireland and the UK (which is now back in a recession). We also saw this scenario in the US in 1937. Then what? So IMHO my ideal plan would be as follows: - raise taxes on income above $250k - shrink defense by 10% - revert discretionary spending to 2006 levels and index to inflation - eliminate the income tax system and replace it with a consumption tax (CATO estimates this would massively boost our economy) - institute a single-payer health care plan by expanding access to medicare to all (this would do more to spur business creation in the U.S. than anything else I can think of) - institute a tax on imports that would fund a bank to make loans to support manufacturing (Andy Grove of Intel's idea) So there you have it, a mix of conservative, liberal, and libertarian ideas. Most with a snowball's chance in hell of seeing the light of day.
Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
Wow! I'll say. Interesting. Something to ponder. It's not just about cutting spending, it's about growing the economy and the tax base. Defund the governments largess and the economy and tax base will take care of itself. IMO anyway. All those dollars NOT funneled into government will then be free for citizens to invest as they wish, hopefully in a free market. Our economy would explode. Just in a good way. I'm a bit shocked at your 'mix' of views there. One doesn't see that often. I'm trying to imagine what processes might have led you to those positions. It's hard to imagine how one could couple a reduction in spending with a single payer system.
raise taxes on income above $250k... eliminate the income tax system and replace it with a consumption tax Conflicting statements. Your second point is exactly right. shrink defense by 10% Paul's proposal does that. He cuts $73 billion out of a $700 billion budget. It's not enough. If we did this and brought the troops home from Afghanistan, it would a 24% cut. Bringing the troops home from Europe and Japan would save additional money. revert discretionary spending to 2006 levels and index to inflation Why do we need to index for inflation? single-payer health care plan by expanding access to medicare to all Business might go for it, but it won't control costs without forced rationing and the American people would revolt. Singapore's mandatory health savings accounts with subsidies for the poor is a better solution for us. institute a tax on imports that would fund a bank to make loans to support manufacturing (Andy Grove of Intel's idea) Maybe, it depends on how it's done. So, you'd leave sugar subsidies intact? Mohair subsidies? Grants to study the dating habits of college students? These are mission critical government programs? Really???
You are right, i'm thinking short vs. long. I'm not opposed to that, it's a far better solution then a voucher program. I'd get rid of subsidies for oil, corn, and many others, but I'd expand subsidies for high speed rail in the NE corridor and other areas where it can replace air travel.
Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
On that we'll disagree, a massive austerity program now will put the economy into a tailspin and leave us with the same deficit we have now, but with more poverty, unemployed, and less of a chance of a recovery.
Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
How do you believe a single payer system will benefit us?
"It's very important to remember the law is not simply what powerful people would want others to believe it is." -- Julian Assange
#2. To: jwpegler (#1)
(Edited)
U.S. Sen. Rand Paul wants to slash numerous federal programs, including food stamps for the poor, to save $500 billion in a single year.
#3. To: jwpegler (#0)
The Kentucky Republican said he hopes his proposal will spark a dialogue within the Senate about how to repair the nation's economy....
#4. To: go65 (#2)
Yes, cut off programs for the poor
#5. To: go65 (#2)
for the Goldman traders getting $500k bonuses are the ones creating the jobs and stimulating the economy.
#6. To: We The People (#3)
(Edited)
$500 billion ain't squat when the debt is roughly $14 trillion.
"It's very important to remember the law is not simply what powerful people would want others to believe it is." -- Julian Assange
#7. To: We The People (#5)
How many jobs are created by the poor?
#8. To: go65, All (#7)
How many jobs are created by the poor?
#9. To: Ibluafartsky (#8)
"It's very important to remember the law is not simply what powerful people would want others to believe it is." -- Julian Assange
#10. To: jwpegler (#9)
The Wall Street people, and especially Goldman Sacs, have too much power and influence in government.
#11. To: go65 (#7)
How many jobs are created by the poor?
#12. To: We The People (#11)
Myself? Can you discuss an issue without getting your feelings hurt, getting angry and making it personal? If not, I'll move on.
#13. To: All (#12)
And I'm closer to agreement with you about tax cuts for the wealthy than you might think.
#14. To: go65 (#12)
Don't you think that a broker making $1.5 million a year is far more productive and should pay less in taxes then a cop making $30k a year?
#15. To: go65, All (#13)
that's why we didn't have anyone in poverty before all these "great society"
#16. To: go65, We The People (#13)
We The People: Has it ever occurred to you that without government handouts of MY MONEY that the poor might have more of an incentive to get an education and work hard?
#17. To: go65 (#12)
I'm not sure what you are referring to, I'm agreeing with you that the wealthy are more productive members of society than the poor.
#18. To: go65 (#13)
Sure, that's why we didn't have anyone in poverty before all these "great society" and "new deal" programs were enacted (and like you, I choose to ignore government so-called "data" showing poverty rates were higher among seniors before social security and medicare).
#19. To: We The People (#17)
I think you're being dishonest and sarcastic.
#20. To: go65 (#19)
at the expense of programs for the poor
#21. To: go65 (#2)
Yes, cut off programs for the poor so we can preserve tax breaks on income above $250k; for the Goldman traders getting $500k bonuses are the ones creating the jobs and stimulating the economy. We'll know our economy is successful when we double the poverty rate and concentrate more of our wealth in the hands of the top 1%.
#22. To: go65 (#19)
Yes, I am being sarcastic.
#23. To: We The People (#22)
(Edited)
I say we increase taxes on the wealthy, AND cut services to the poor. The debt has to be paid somehow and first and foremost we have to cut spending.
#24. To: go65 (#23)
So there you have it, a mix of conservative, liberal, and libertarian ideas. Most with a snowball's chance in hell of seeing the light of day.
#25. To: go65 (#23)
(Edited)
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill
#26. To: jwpegler (#25)
Conflicting statements. Your second point is exactly right.
Business might go for it, but it won't control costs without forced rationing and the American people would revolt. Singapore's mandatory health savings accounts with subsidies for the poor is a better solution for us.
So, you'd leave sugar subsidies intact? Mohair subsidies? Grants to study the dating habits of college students? These are mission critical government programs? Really???
#27. To: We The People (#24)
Defund the governments largess and the economy and tax base will take care of itself
#28. To: go65 (#27)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]