| Page: 1 | Rating: Unrated [0] |
(in Your Face Eliot Spitzer.) Rand Paul 'S Cuts
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» basdini replied on Wed Feb 9, 2011 @ 10:55am |
 Coolness: 146145 | By RAND PAUL
After Republicans swept into office in 1994, Bill Clinton famously said in his State of the Union address that the era of big government was over. Nearly $10 trillion of federal debt later, the era of big government is at its zenith. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this will be the third consecutive year in which the federal government is running a deficit near or greater than $1 trillion. The solution to the government's fiscal crisis must begin by cutting spending in all areas, particularly in those that can be better run at the state or local level. Last month I introduced legislation to do just that. And though it seems extreme to some—containing over $500 billion in spending cuts enacted over one year—it is a necessary first step toward ending our fiscal crisis. My proposal would first roll back almost all federal spending to 2008 levels, then initiate reductions at various levels nearly across the board. Cuts to the Departments of Agriculture and Transportation would create over $42 billion in savings each, while cuts to the Departments of Energy and Housing and Urban Development would save about $50 billion each. Removing education from the federal government's jurisdiction would create almost $80 billion in savings alone. Add to that my proposed reductions in international aid, the Departments of Health and Human Services, Homeland Security and other federal agencies, and we arrive at over $500 billion. My proposal, not surprisingly, has been greeted skeptically in Washington, where serious spending cuts are a rarity. But it is a modest proposal when measured against the size of our mounting debt. It would keep 85% of our government funding in place and not touch Social Security or Medicare. But by reducing wasteful spending and shuttering departments that are beyond the constitutional role of the federal government, such as the Department of Education, we can cut nearly 40% of our projected deficit and at the same time remove thousands of big-government bureaucrats who stand in the way of efficiency. Examples of federal waste are more abundant than ever. For example, the Department of Energy's nuclear-weapons activities should be placed under the purview of the Department of Defense. Many of its other activities amount to nothing more than corporate handouts. It provides research grants and subsidies to energy companies for the development of new, cleaner forms of energy. This means nearly all forms of energy development here in the U.S. are subsidized by the federal government, from oil and coal to nuclear, wind, solar and biofuels. These subsidies often go to research and companies that can survive without them. This drives up the cost of energy for all Americans, both as taxpayers and consumers. The Commerce Department is another prime example. Consistently labeled for elimination, specifically by House Republicans during the 1990s, one of Commerce's main functions is delivering corporate welfare to American firms that can compete without it. My proposal would scale back the Commerce Department's spending by 54% and eliminate corporate welfare. My proposal would also cut wasteful spending in the Defense Department. Since 2001, our annual defense budget has increased nearly 120%. Even subtracting the costs of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, spending is up 67%. These levels of spending are unjustifiable and unsustainable. Defense Secretary Robert Gates understands this and has called for spending cuts, saying "We must come to realize that not every defense program is necessary, not every defense dollar is sacred or well-spent, and more of everything is simply not sustainable." For those who take issue with any of the spending cuts I have proposed, I have two requests: First, if you believe a particular program should be exempt from these cuts, I challenge you to find another place in the budget where the same amount can feasibly be cut and we can replace it. Second, consider this: Is any particular program, whatever its merits, worth borrowing billions of dollars from foreign nations to finance programs that could be administered better at the state and local level, or even taken over by the private sector? A real discussion about the budget must begin now—our economy cannot wait any longer. For 19 months, unemployment has hovered over 9%. After a nearly $1 trillion government stimulus and $2 trillion in Federal Reserve stimulus, the Washington establishment still believes that we can solve this problem with more federal spending and the printing of more money. That's ridiculous, and the American people have had enough. Many in Washington think that a one-year, $500 billion spending cut is too bold. But the attendees at the newly formed Senate Tea Party Caucus say, "Bring on the cuts! And then, bring on more!" My Republican colleagues say they want a balanced-budget amendment. But to have any semblance of credibility we must begin to discuss where we will cut once it passes. My proposal is a place to start. Mr. Paul is a Republican senator from Kentucky. [ online.wsj.com ] |
| I'm feeling surly right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» DynV replied on Wed Feb 9, 2011 @ 12:27pm |
 Coolness: 109750 | Am I understanding right? Rand Paul would like to completely cut off public education (in US)? I stopped reading there. |
| I'm feeling <3 sexi_babe_69 right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» databoy replied on Wed Feb 9, 2011 @ 12:37pm |
 Coolness: 107060 | Think small 'stie... before its too late.
Originally Posted By DYNV
Am I understanding right? Rand Paul would like to completely cut off public education (in US)? I stopped reading there. I think he is proposing to push it back to the state or municipal level. Cutting all funds from education would indeed be a really bad move for the future of the U.S.. |
| I'm feeling indifferent right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» basdini replied on Thu Feb 10, 2011 @ 11:37pm |
| Coolness: 146145 | he's not saying schools go un funded he's just saying get rid of the dept of education at the federal level...besides what is it that pays for education in most places, property taxes obviously it should be administered locally... |
| I'm feeling surly right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» databoy replied on Fri Feb 11, 2011 @ 12:20am |
| Coolness: 107060 | The enormous dept in the U.S. came from the army, not from education.
Maybe corporate taxes could finance the military budget. That would make sense. |
| I'm feeling indifferent right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» DynV replied on Fri Feb 11, 2011 @ 12:47am |
| Coolness: 109750 | Originally Posted By DATABOY
The enormous dept in the U.S. came from the army, not from education. Maybe corporate taxes could finance the military budget. That would make sense. my though exactly! but that's a no no. *waving finger* |
| I'm feeling <3 sexi_babe_69 right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» basdini replied on Fri Feb 11, 2011 @ 11:29pm |
| Coolness: 146145 | Originally Posted By DATABOY
The enormous dept in the U.S. came from the army, not from education. Maybe corporate taxes could finance the military budget. That would make sense. ahh no try again it didn't come from the military even if you ended the wars you still wouldn't get more than 3-5% of the shortfall back, the bailouts and the economic stimulation package is what is bankrupting the US along with medicare part D (drug plan for seniors from 07), |
| I'm feeling surly right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» DynV replied on Fri Feb 11, 2011 @ 11:44pm |
| Coolness: 109750 | this look not too bad:
can we get the right-wing seal of approval that about half (perhaps you'd even admit over) of US budget is military? |
| I'm feeling <3 sexi_babe_69 right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» basdini replied on Sat Feb 12, 2011 @ 7:11am |
| Coolness: 146145 | dynv
this look not too bad: can we get the right-wing seal of approval that about half (perhaps you'd even admit over) of US budget is military? no, cause it's not true, as you can see here [ en.wikipedia.org ] so you see only about 18% of the budget goes to the dept of defense, even if we give you homeland security and veteran affairs you can maybe push that up to 22%, so that's the reality of things, but then when did a leftist ever let facts get in the way... even if you ditched the DHS and didn't spend a penny on defense you would still have nearly a trillion dollar hole to fill in to get a balanced budget, so obviously defense spending isn't the only problem here... |
| I'm feeling surly right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» DynV replied on Sat Feb 12, 2011 @ 12:58pm |
| Coolness: 109750 | could it be that this budget is only for internal spending? you know that US is an empire right? it has bases and "interests" all over the world.
also I'm not American (common term), I'm Canadian (by default). I wonder if those policies were implemented and lower-class American people were stopped being fed propaganda (no more false insinuations nor lobbying nor undue influences) knowing they could only rely on themselves, how many of them would continue to work at minimum wage with no social benefit. |
| I'm feeling <3 sexi_babe_69 right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» basdini replied on Tue Feb 15, 2011 @ 9:15am |
| Coolness: 146145 | Originally Posted By DYNV
could it be that this budget is only for internal spending? you know that US is an empire right? it has bases and "interests" all over the world. no because every dollar that gets spent in the US has to be approved by congress in the budget or through supplemental appropriations... anyway i just think that a lot of people who tend to lean left and support socialism need to WAKE THE FUCK UP a little and realize that the answer to everything isn't some massive government program that we can't afford, we have to learn to live within our means, every dollar that we pay in interest on the debt is like burning money and every time we have a budget that is not balanced we are just making things worse. |
| I'm feeling surly right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» databoy replied on Tue Feb 15, 2011 @ 9:42am |
| Coolness: 107060 | Lucien Bouchard, sort de ce corps Update » databoy wrote on Tue Feb 15, 2011 @ 10:50am You may have noticed that the second most expencive "big gouvernment" program is the departement of defence (663.7 billion), the first being social security (695 billion ). The departement of education: $46.7 billion.
One of these socialist programs makes the U.S. the envy of the world, the other make peoples dispised them. The total deficite whent up by 960 billion since 2008. Socialism is good for the economy and for society. |
| I'm feeling indifferent right now.. | |
(in Your Face Eliot Spitzer.) Rand Paul 'S Cuts
| Page: 1 |
[ Top Of Page ] |
Post A Reply |
You must be logged in to post a reply.
[ Top Of Page ] |
