A detailed look at the Rand Paul spending bill

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 27, 2011 11:06 AM GMT
    http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/01/detailed-look-rand-paul-spending-bill

    Want to save $500 billion this year? Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., has a way to do it.

    Is it realistic? Maybe not every part of it, but have a look below and judge for yourself. I don't think his total removal of rental subsidies is unreasonable -- the fact that Section 8 is a total failure doesn't justify dumping its beneficiaries into oblivion. But there's also no reason every agency has to see its budget increase every year, and a lot of these cuts really do make sense. Most of them simply represent a return to 2008 levels of spending -- remember that a 30 percent cut is less than it seems when an agency's budget been increasing by 40 percent over the last few years.

    Why fund NASA at traditional levels if President Obama has scaled back its mission? Why not let Indian tribes manage their own trust funds, especially considering the federal mismanagement? Why not realign our military bases abroad, sell unused federal buildings (something Obama has already begun doing), transfer some national parks to the states, and end the wasteful corporate subsidies that come out of the Departments of Energy and Commerce?

    Of course, even this bill would only cut this year's record deficit by one-third. But if you can bring discretionary spending down a notch with something like it, then cut Defense further as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq wind down, you've gotten to the point where you can look Americans in the eye and tell them you've done everything you can, and it's time to do something about Social Security and Medicare to save the nation from long-term financial collapse.


    Read the rest here: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/01/detailed-look-rand-paul-spending-bill

    Bill here: http://www.randpaul2010.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Overview-500-billion-cuts-2.pdf
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 27, 2011 2:28 PM GMT
    Well, thank God that doesn't have a snow ball's chance in hell of passing. Literally, so dumb as to make Paul Ryan's plan look like the New Deal.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 27, 2011 3:44 PM GMT
    This is an awesome bill from what I've seen. Need more people like him in office.

    And of course Christian, you would think that. You would never ever think of cutting anything, only introducing new programs and raising taxes. icon_smile.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 27, 2011 4:08 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidThis is an awesome bill from what I've seen. Need more people like him in office.

    And of course Christian, you would think that. You would never ever think of cutting anything, only introducing new programs and raising taxes. icon_smile.gif


    No. I'm fine with cutting anything unnecessary, redundant, antiquated, or that isn't performing. In fact, there are certain things in here that I think should be cut.

    But this plan is driven entirely by ideology, full of lies and inaccuracies, and would jeopardize the welfare of the American people.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 27, 2011 5:18 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 saidWell, thank God that doesn't have a snow ball's chance in hell of passing. Literally, so dumb as to make Paul Ryan's plan look like the New Deal.


    Of course you're right... because Democrats still hold the Presidency and Senate.

    They are incapable - due to the way their DNA is written - of actually cutting spending.


    I'm glad you're not trying to defend this tripe. It's not about Dems being unable to cut spending; it's about a minority ideology that would damage our country.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 27, 2011 5:34 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 saidWell, thank God that doesn't have a snow ball's chance in hell of passing. Literally, so dumb as to make Paul Ryan's plan look like the New Deal.


    Of course you're right... because Democrats still hold the Presidency and Senate.

    They are incapable - due to the way their DNA is written - of actually cutting spending.


    I'm glad you're not trying to defend this tripe. It's not about Dems being unable to cut spending; it's about a minority ideology that would damage our country.


    Damage our country... Ha! icon_biggrin.gif


    Yes, slashing the CDC in an era of rising hospital-acquired infections, slashing the FDA is an era of lax regulation of pharmaceuticals and near constant food recalls; cutting Amtrak at a time when investment in our infrastructure is critical, are just three examples of how Paul's budget would harm our citizens and the country's long-term competitiveness.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 27, 2011 6:01 PM GMT
    Christian, there's no damage being done, it's just taking the responsibility out of the hands of taxpayers and allowing those things to continue or discontinue without government intervention.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 27, 2011 6:16 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidChristian, there's no damage being done, it's just taking the responsibility out of the hands of taxpayers and allowing those things to continue or discontinue without government intervention.


    I think your opinion could change very fast if some of your family was poisoned with E coli from tainted foods, or caught MRSA and died of it. icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 27, 2011 6:18 PM GMT
    Mock, I think you should visit tongun18's topic about nationstates, use the link , and then create a country where you can see the applied results of your philosophies.

    -Doug

    You were invited by tongun, you know.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 27, 2011 6:39 PM GMT
    lol, it's entirely possible the cuts to CDC and FDA will result in lawsuits that will use up any monies saved by said cuts, should said cuts result in undue risk to the public and there are deaths and permanent injuries that result from said cuts.



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 27, 2011 6:41 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 saidWell, thank God that doesn't have a snow ball's chance in hell of passing. Literally, so dumb as to make Paul Ryan's plan look like the New Deal.


    Of course you're right... because Democrats still hold the Presidency and Senate.

    They are incapable - due to the way their DNA is written - of actually cutting spending.


    I'm glad you're not trying to defend this tripe. It's not about Dems being unable to cut spending; it's about a minority ideology that would damage our country.


    Damage our country... Ha! icon_biggrin.gif


    Yes, slashing the CDC in an era of rising hospital-acquired infections, slashing the FDA is an era of lax regulation of pharmaceuticals and near constant food recalls; cutting Amtrak at a time when investment in our infrastructure is critical, are just three examples of how Paul's budget would harm our citizens and the country's long-term competitiveness.


    All good candidates for cuts, yes!



    I say we dissolve the FAA. Just let planes fly wherever and see what happens.

    As meninlove said, you wouldn't be so blithe about this if it was something that effected you. But, then again, you're proven time and again that you're not interested in what's best for the country but only what you believe is best for you no matter how ill-informed your positions are. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 27, 2011 6:51 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    I say we dissolve the FAA.


    I agree. Just privatize it.




    Christian73 said
    As meninlove said, you wouldn't be so blithe about this if it was something that effected you. But, then again, you're proven time and again that you're not interested in what's best for the country but only what you believe is best for you no matter how ill-informed your positions are. icon_rolleyes.gif


    And once again the old "you are heartless and selfish" attack by a liberal on anyone who doesn't agree with them that "government is the answer." icon_rolleyes.gif


    Re: FAA - Sure. Despite the fact that privatizing industries has never once saved the tax payers a single penny, and usually costing far more for far less. And who would pay for the "private" FAA?


    Re: Selfish and heartless. I'm not calling you selfish and heartless, though you are, so much as I'm suggesting you're not terribly bright and blinded by an ideology that puts you in a tiny minority of American people.
  • TrentGrad

    Posts: 1541

    Jan 27, 2011 7:30 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 saidWell, thank God that doesn't have a snow ball's chance in hell of passing. Literally, so dumb as to make Paul Ryan's plan look like the New Deal.


    Of course you're right... because Democrats still hold the Presidency and Senate.

    They are incapable - due to the way their DNA is written - of actually cutting spending.


    I'm glad you're not trying to defend this tripe. It's not about Dems being unable to cut spending; it's about a minority ideology that would damage our country.


    Indeed, before Obama, wasn't the last Democratic President (Clinton) rolling up huge surpluses? Then came Dubya...and the era of deficit spending rolled back with a vengence.

    Not to say that Obama is handling the deficit well...he needs to do something a bit more dramatic to cut the deficits.

    I do have to admit...I was astonished that the Tea Party even opened the door to the idea of cutting defense spending!!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 27, 2011 7:37 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    Re: FAA - Sure. Despite the fact that privatizing industries has never once saved the tax payers a single penny, and usually costing far more for far less. And who would pay for the "private" FAA?


    Same way airports are funded... with PFCs. And please don't make such sweeping, false statements that "privatizing industries has never once saved the tax payers a single penny, and usually costing far more for far less."




    Christian73 said
    Re: Selfish and heartless. I'm not calling you selfish and heartless, though you are...


    There, you did it again! icon_wink.gif




    Christian73 said
    you're not terribly bright and blinded by an ideology that puts you in a tiny minority of American people.


    I proudly count myself in the "non-Democrat" camp, which far outnumbers Democrats.


    Re: Privatizing government programs. If you can point to a single federal program that has been privatized and where costs were kept the same or lowered while the quality and quantity of services remained the same, I'll stop saying that.

    In terms of heartlessness, I actually cannot remember a single time where you have ever expressed empathy or sympathy for a single person, even putting politics aside. So it's not a liberal trope that I'm throwing out here, it's very specific to how you present yourself on RJ.

    Independents are now the largest block and you're not one.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 27, 2011 8:46 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 saidRe: Privatizing government programs. If you can point to a single federal program that has been privatized and where costs were kept the same or lowered while the quality and quantity of services remained the same, I'll stop saying that.


    You're the one that made the sweeping, false statement that "privatizing industries has never once saved the tax payers a single penny, and usually costing far more for far less."

    I called you out on it and of course, you dodge and turn it back on me.





    Christian73 said
    In terms of heartlessness, I actually cannot remember a single time where you have ever expressed empathy or sympathy for a single person, even putting politics aside. So it's not a liberal trope that I'm throwing out here, it's very specific to how you present yourself on RJ. .


    Not a bleeding heart = heartless, huh?





    Christian73 said

    Independents are now the largest block and you're not one.


    Wrong again. I am a registered independent.


    Re: Privatizing. I'm confident that is the case and I have boundless examples (e.g. privatizing food service in government hospitals, which was eventually reversed; use of military contractors in Afghanistan and Iraq; having JP Morgan manage debit cards for welfare recipients, etc.), and I'm just asking you for one. Just one that would make my "sweeping generalization" inaccurate.

    Re: Heartless. Nope. You can be empathic without being a bleeding heart. In fact, I'm not a bleeding heart at all.

    Re: Independent. I could register tomorrow as a member of the Libertarian Party but that wouldn't make me a libertarian.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 27, 2011 8:48 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    mocktwinkie saidChristian, there's no damage being done, it's just taking the responsibility out of the hands of taxpayers and allowing those things to continue or discontinue without government intervention.


    I think your opinion could change very fast if some of your family was poisoned with E coli from tainted foods, or caught MRSA and died of it. icon_wink.gif


    Bad things happen even with all of the regulation and people still die. There's no one more interested in making sure the products are safe than the ones selling them, because if something happens they are to blame and business gets annihilated.

    You have serious comprehension gaps when it comes to these things.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 27, 2011 9:08 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 saidWell, thank God that doesn't have a snow ball's chance in hell of passing. Literally, so dumb as to make Paul Ryan's plan look like the New Deal.


    Of course you're right... because Democrats still hold the Presidency and Senate.

    They are incapable - due to the way their DNA is written - of actually cutting spending.





    lol
    That's a complete lie.
    And it will be proven untrue repeatedly over the next few years.

    Let's remember, SB - the actual TRUTH about what the two parties have done.
    Since 1948, the Republican Presidents have increased the National Debt at an annual rate of 9.2%, while the Democratic Presidents have increased the National Debt at an annual rate of only 3.2%.
    So, the REPUBLICAN Presidents have outspent and outborrowed the Democratic Presidents by nearly a 3 to 1 ratio.

    Contrary to the lies and BS we hear from the right-wing spin machine.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 27, 2011 9:12 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    meninlove said
    mocktwinkie saidChristian, there's no damage being done, it's just taking the responsibility out of the hands of taxpayers and allowing those things to continue or discontinue without government intervention.


    I think your opinion could change very fast if some of your family was poisoned with E coli from tainted foods, or caught MRSA and died of it. icon_wink.gif


    Bad things happen even with all of the regulation and people still die. There's no one more interested in making sure the products are safe than the ones selling them, because if something happens they are to blame and business gets annihilated.


    The businesses motive is profit, not the safety of the consumer. There are countless examples of businesses evading even the regulations that do exist (and do save lives) in order to reduce costs.

    And, there are many industries (nuclear, biotech, pharma, tobacco) where the effects of negligence are not readily apparent to those impacted.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 27, 2011 9:15 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie said
    meninlove said
    mocktwinkie saidChristian, there's no damage being done, it's just taking the responsibility out of the hands of taxpayers and allowing those things to continue or discontinue without government intervention.


    I think your opinion could change very fast if some of your family was poisoned with E coli from tainted foods, or caught MRSA and died of it. icon_wink.gif


    Bad things happen even with all of the regulation and people still die. There's no one more interested in making sure the products are safe than the ones selling them, because if something happens they are to blame and business gets annihilated.


    The businesses motive is profit, not the safety of the consumer. There are countless examples of businesses evading even the regulations that do exist (and do save lives) in order to reduce costs.

    And, there are many industries (nuclear, biotech, pharma, tobacco) where the effects of negligence are not readily apparent to those impacted.





    Plus, the big corporations have plenty of money to spend on lawsuits and lobbying the govt. and on influencing judges.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 27, 2011 9:19 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie said
    meninlove said
    mocktwinkie saidChristian, there's no damage being done, it's just taking the responsibility out of the hands of taxpayers and allowing those things to continue or discontinue without government intervention.


    I think your opinion could change very fast if some of your family was poisoned with E coli from tainted foods, or caught MRSA and died of it. icon_wink.gif


    Bad things happen even with all of the regulation and people still die. There's no one more interested in making sure the products are safe than the ones selling them, because if something happens they are to blame and business gets annihilated.


    The businesses motive is profit, not the safety of the consumer. There are countless examples of businesses evading even the regulations that do exist (and do save lives) in order to reduce costs.

    And, there are many industries (nuclear, biotech, pharma, tobacco) where the effects of negligence are not readily apparent to those impacted.



    I think you're exaggerating. Making a profit is usually contingent on making sure that the relative safety of the consumer is included. We do have laws you know to protect people. When someone ends up injured there is the law that has to be dealt with at some point in time and consequences for malpractice or deception. If they are found to have broken these laws they are punished and in some cases will go out of business just from bad publicity.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 27, 2011 9:31 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    rickrick91 saidlol
    That's a complete lie.
    And it will be proven untrue repeatedly over the next few years.

    Let's remember, SB - the actual TRUTH about what the two parties have done.
    Since 1948, the Republican Presidents have increased the National Debt at an annual rate of 9.2%, while the Democratic Presidents have increased the National Debt at an annual rate of only 3.2%.
    So, the REPUBLICAN Presidents have outspent and outborrowed the Democratic Presidents by nearly a 3 to 1 ratio.

    Contrary to the lies and BS we hear from the right-wing spin machine.



    Oh, that's interesting RickRick.

    Since you have access to all this information, please tell me what the percentages are of a Democrat-controlled Congress. I suspect the story will be quite different. icon_wink.gif




    There's no such thing as a "Democrat-controlled Congress", any more than there's such a thing as a Republic-controlled Congress.

    Please have the common decency to get the name of the DEMOCRATIC party correct.
    Maybe then, you won't seem like such a bitterly partisan REPUBLICAN.
    Maybe then, you'll be able to fool a few people into believing that you're the "Independent" you claim to be.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 27, 2011 9:51 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    meninlove said
    mocktwinkie saidChristian, there's no damage being done, it's just taking the responsibility out of the hands of taxpayers and allowing those things to continue or discontinue without government intervention.


    I think your opinion could change very fast if some of your family was poisoned with E coli from tainted foods, or caught MRSA and died of it. icon_wink.gif


    Bad things happen even with all of the regulation and people still die. There's no one more interested in making sure the products are safe than the ones selling them, because if something happens they are to blame and business gets annihilated.

    You have serious comprehension gaps when it comes to these things.



    So you think. Of course, all these countries are wrong but Mock is right.

    *giggles*

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_manufacturing_practice

    ..and in spite of the military wars still happen, so disband your military. icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 27, 2011 10:50 PM GMT
    Trust SB to not get it. My reply was designed to be as intelligent as the 'let's get rid of consumer safety' chorus.

    You're amazingly easy to toy with. icon_wink.gif

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 27, 2011 11:28 PM GMT
    lol, SB you need to have this conversation with Mock. I'm all for consumer safety; an ounce of prevention is a pound of cure.

    Mock feels that people should die first, THEN go after the company with a lawsuit. Quick now, who has more money for lawyers, the family of the dead or the multinational?

    If he only knew how many goods from outside your country, and mine, that are stopped by gov't inspection agencies because they either are laced with DDT and I could go on but you get the picture.

    I have a friend in the CFIA and the of the reports I've read would curl your hair.


    As well, when another country sees the following they think twice about adding melamine to rice protein powder that Americans consume. Too bad about the pets, though.

    http://articles.cnn.com/2007-04-24/health/food.melamine_1_wheat-gluten-menu-foods-pet-food?_s=PM:HEALTH

    The culprit was in China. So how you gonna sue?

    What did Mock say? Something about the company being annihilated? How you gonna check when said co can simply operate under a different name or number overseas?

    Common sense seems to be not so common.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 27, 2011 11:30 PM GMT
    meninlove said lol, SB you need to have this conversation with Mock. I'm all for consumer safety; an ounce of prevention is a pound of cure.

    Mock feels that people should die first, THEN go after the company with a lawsuit. Quick now, who has more money for lawyers, the family of the dead or the multinational?

    If he only knew how many goods from outside your country, and mine, that are stopped by gov't inspection agencies because they either are laced with DDT and I could go on but you get the picture.

    I have a friend in the CFIA and the of the reports I've read would curl your hair.


    As well, when another country sees the following they think twice about adding melamine to rice protein powder that Americans consume. Too bad about the pets, though.

    http://articles.cnn.com/2007-04-24/health/food.melamine_1_wheat-gluten-menu-foods-pet-food?_s=PM:HEALTH

    The culprit was in China. So how you gonna sue?

    What did Mock say? Something about the company being annihilated? How you gonna check when said co can simply operate under a different name or number overseas?

    Common sense seems to be not so common.



    Oh yes, it's a breeze for companies to just change their names dozens of times with no reporters looking for a juicy story.

    You also keep trying to avoid the fact that despite bad things from happening, it is generally in a business' best interest to make sure that what they are selling is more or less safe for the consumer -- at least in terms of immediate effect.