Rand Paul: We Should Let Dems Raise Taxes And Then Let Them Own It

[Claudette]

I disagree. (A)There is NO WAY you'll get Congress to agree beforehand exactly which programs should be trimmed or cut. (B)They must be FORCED to go it with a law that will cut everything across the board if they don't identify cuts that total up to a 1% reduction in overall spending.

Interest on the debt is not a program, it something that must be paid first if you want to avoid default...ACTUAL default, not the fear mongering threat of it. Of course, we have plenty of revenue to cover the interest payments.

The Mack Penny plan does not cut interest payments but would cut every other expenditure by 1% if Congress doesn't meet the goal of reducing overall spending. That would include the justice system...so it's incumbent on Congress to find ways to reduce spending elsewhere to avoid that. Of course, if you really want to save money on the justice system, end the stupid war on drugs. There are all kinds of ways to save money when we're forced to do so.

Bottom line, I believe it's folly to think Congress can put a plan into place with specific cuts and steps along the way. For one thing, today's Congress CANNOT bind future Congresses with their spending wishes. Only a law can do that. Mack Penny is that law. A threat of a 1% across the board cut is the only motivational factor that will get Congress of their ass and into fiscal reality.

Without A, achieving B is folly.

Sorry to disappoint. You cannot make the journey without taking the steps to get there.

Holy fucking shit, is there anyone on this board more oblivious than you? Or are you intentionally being obtuse?

That he is.

He asks a question and gets a sound answer and he just can't admitt that the question is answered.

Apparantly a box a rocks has got it all over his sorry ass.

 

[Koios]

I disagree. (A)There is NO WAY you'll get Congress to agree beforehand exactly which programs should be trimmed or cut. (B)They must be FORCED to go it with a law that will cut everything across the board if they don't identify cuts that total up to a 1% reduction in overall spending.

Interest on the debt is not a program, it something that must be paid first if you want to avoid default...ACTUAL default, not the fear mongering threat of it. Of course, we have plenty of revenue to cover the interest payments.

The Mack Penny plan does not cut interest payments but would cut every other expenditure by 1% if Congress doesn't meet the goal of reducing overall spending. That would include the justice system...so it's incumbent on Congress to find ways to reduce spending elsewhere to avoid that. Of course, if you really want to save money on the justice system, end the stupid war on drugs. There are all kinds of ways to save money when we're forced to do so.

Bottom line, I believe it's folly to think Congress can put a plan into place with specific cuts and steps along the way. For one thing, today's Congress CANNOT bind future Congresses with their spending wishes. Only a law can do that. Mack Penny is that law. A threat of a 1% across the board cut is the only motivational factor that will get Congress of their ass and into fiscal reality.

Without A, achieving B is folly.

Sorry to disappoint. You cannot make the journey without taking the steps to get there.

Holy fucking shit, is there anyone on this board more oblivious than you? Or are you intentionally being obtuse?

Yes; you.

Case in point: create a debt ceiling!!! That's the ticket!!! Finally; Congress getting spending under control. Priase babyjesus, we'll never again have to pay taxes!!!

How'd it work out? Hahahahahahahaha. I'm fucking rolling.

To actually cut, you need to cut, something, anything. But it's political suicide. None dare, since truth be told, we've already cut to the quick; we're down to shit that hurts, like a motherfucker.

So the Pols dare not mention even one specific. Go back to game-playing that accomplishes shit. -1%!!!! Now we're talking!!! I haven't the foggiest where that's coming from; it'll never fucking happen; but bygod, I voted for it, nay, I authored it!!! Elect me fucking president!!!

Pure

Fucking

Comedy

 

[eflatminor]

...truth be told, we've already cut to the quick

Total federal spending:
2012 $3.8 trillion
2011 $3.6 trillion
2010 $3.5 trillion

We've cut squat...

 

[Koios]

...truth be told, we've already cut to the quick

Total federal spending:
2012 $3.8 trillion
2011 $3.6 trillion
2010 $3.5 trillion

We've cut squat...

Correct. Noodle on that; it'll come to you. Hahahahahahahahaha.

 

[Paulie]

Without A, achieving B is folly.

Sorry to disappoint. You cannot make the journey without taking the steps to get there.

Holy fucking shit, is there anyone on this board more oblivious than you? Or are you intentionally being obtuse?

Yes; you.

Case in point: create a debt ceiling!!! That's the ticket!!! Finally; Congress getting spending under control. Priase babyjesus, we'll never again have to pay taxes!!!

How'd it work out? Hahahahahahahaha. I'm fucking rolling.

To actually cut, you need to cut, something, anything. But it's political suicide. None dare, since truth be told, we've already cut to the quick; we're down to shit that hurts, like a motherfucker.

So the Pols dare not mention even one specific. Go back to game-playing that accomplishes shit. -1%!!!! Now we're talking!!! I haven't the foggiest where that's coming from; it'll never fucking happen; but bygod, I voted for it, nay, I authored it!!! Elect me fucking president!!!

Pure

Fucking

Comedy

What don't you understand about the plan FORCING congress to specify cuts, or take the automatic across the board cut?

 

[eflatminor]

...truth be told, we've already cut to the quick

Total federal spending:
2012 $3.8 trillion
2011 $3.6 trillion
2010 $3.5 trillion

We've cut squat...

Correct. Noodle on that; it'll come to you. Hahahahahahahahaha.

Then why did you say "we've already cut to the quick"?

Anyway, the point is, the Mack Penny Plan, if put into law, forces cuts. You imply that won't work because it doesn't outline exactly what must be cut, now and into the future. That's a logical disconnect. Can you explain exactly why a law like Mack Penny would not work?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Do you really want to go the second 18 holes with KooK on this? If the poster hasn't gotten it by now, I think it's a safe bet to believe it will never happen.

 

[Koios]

Total federal spending:
2012 $3.8 trillion
2011 $3.6 trillion
2010 $3.5 trillion

We've cut squat...

Correct. Noodle on that; it'll come to you. Hahahahahahahahaha.

Then why did you say "we've already cut to the quick"?

Anyway, the point is, the Mack Penny Plan, if put into law, forces cuts. You imply that won't work because it doesn't outline exactly what must be cut, now and into the future. That's a logical disconnect. Can you explain exactly why a law like Mack Penny would not work?

Because not even the most Tea-infused, radical Right, anti-tax functional retards on Capitol Hill dare mention one thing they'd actually cut for fear of fucking earth-shaking blow-back.

Example: farm subsidies are X. Make 'em 80% of X, then run for the fucking city, because the pitchforks are coming to get ya.

 

[Paulie]

Correct. Noodle on that; it'll come to you. Hahahahahahahahaha.

Then why did you say "we've already cut to the quick"?

Anyway, the point is, the Mack Penny Plan, if put into law, forces cuts. You imply that won't work because it doesn't outline exactly what must be cut, now and into the future. That's a logical disconnect. Can you explain exactly why a law like Mack Penny would not work?

Because not even the most Tea-infused, radical Right, anti-tax functional retards on Capitol Hill dare mention one thing they'd actually cut for fear of fucking earth-shaking blow-back.

Example: farm subsidies are X. Make 'em 80% of X, then run for the fucking city, because the pitchforks are coming to get ya.

AGAIN...

This is why the Mack plan works, because either they specify cuts they can live with, or the whole budget takes a hit across the board.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

So then they take the mandated cuts across the board. Is this so difficult for a KooK to grasp?

 

[Koios]

Holy fucking shit, is there anyone on this board more oblivious than you? Or are you intentionally being obtuse?

Yes; you.

Case in point: create a debt ceiling!!! That's the ticket!!! Finally; Congress getting spending under control. Priase babyjesus, we'll never again have to pay taxes!!!

How'd it work out? Hahahahahahahaha. I'm fucking rolling.

To actually cut, you need to cut, something, anything. But it's political suicide. None dare, since truth be told, we've already cut to the quick; we're down to shit that hurts, like a motherfucker.

So the Pols dare not mention even one specific. Go back to game-playing that accomplishes shit. -1%!!!! Now we're talking!!! I haven't the foggiest where that's coming from; it'll never fucking happen; but bygod, I voted for it, nay, I authored it!!! Elect me fucking president!!!

Pure

Fucking

Comedy

What don't you understand about the plan FORCING congress to specify cuts, or take the automatic across the board cut?

What I do understand is a coupla things that are reeeeeeeeeeeal fuckin' different: Budget; Actual.

Read up on it. You might learn something, maybe. Nah; fuck that. You won't, so no point fucking up your daytime TV-watching with reading and shit. Continue on.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Translation: I have no idea WTF is going on. SO, I'm gonna go watch TV.

 

[Paulie]

Yes; you.

Case in point: create a debt ceiling!!! That's the ticket!!! Finally; Congress getting spending under control. Priase babyjesus, we'll never again have to pay taxes!!!

How'd it work out? Hahahahahahahaha. I'm fucking rolling.

To actually cut, you need to cut, something, anything. But it's political suicide. None dare, since truth be told, we've already cut to the quick; we're down to shit that hurts, like a motherfucker.

So the Pols dare not mention even one specific. Go back to game-playing that accomplishes shit. -1%!!!! Now we're talking!!! I haven't the foggiest where that's coming from; it'll never fucking happen; but bygod, I voted for it, nay, I authored it!!! Elect me fucking president!!!

Pure

Fucking

Comedy

What don't you understand about the plan FORCING congress to specify cuts, or take the automatic across the board cut?

What I do understand is a coupla things that are reeeeeeeeeeeal fuckin' different: Budget; Actual.

Read up on it. You might learn something, maybe. Nah; fuck that. You won't, so no point fucking up your daytime TV-watching with reading and shit. Continue on.

Lol what?

 

[eflatminor]

Correct. Noodle on that; it'll come to you. Hahahahahahahahaha.

Then why did you say "we've already cut to the quick"?

Anyway, the point is, the Mack Penny Plan, if put into law, forces cuts. You imply that won't work because it doesn't outline exactly what must be cut, now and into the future. That's a logical disconnect. Can you explain exactly why a law like Mack Penny would not work?

Because not even the most Tea-infused, radical Right, anti-tax functional retards on Capitol Hill dare mention one thing they'd actually cut for fear of fucking earth-shaking blow-back.

Let me get this straight: You say nobody in Washington is willing to cut anything. I say force them to do so with Mack Penny. You repeat nobody in Washington is willing to cut anything.

I've attempted to be civil and straight forward with you but if you're wondering why all the ridicule, that's it.

So, one more time, can you explain why you think Mack Penny would not work to balance the budget?

 

[Koios]

What don't you understand about the plan FORCING congress to specify cuts, or take the automatic across the board cut?

What I do understand is a coupla things that are reeeeeeeeeeeal fuckin' different: Budget; Actual.

Read up on it. You might learn something, maybe. Nah; fuck that. You won't, so no point fucking up your daytime TV-watching with reading and shit. Continue on.

Lol what?

Bingo! You nailed it.

 

[Koios]

Then why did you say "we've already cut to the quick"?

Anyway, the point is, the Mack Penny Plan, if put into law, forces cuts. You imply that won't work because it doesn't outline exactly what must be cut, now and into the future. That's a logical disconnect. Can you explain exactly why a law like Mack Penny would not work?

Because not even the most Tea-infused, radical Right, anti-tax functional retards on Capitol Hill dare mention one thing they'd actually cut for fear of fucking earth-shaking blow-back.

Let me get this straight: You say nobody in Washington is willing to cut anything. I say force them to do so with Mack Penny. You repeat nobody in Washington is willing to cut anything.

I've attempted to be civil and straight forward with you but if you're wondering why all the ridicule, that's it.

So, one more time, can you explain why you think Mack Penny would not work to balance the budget?

If I thought for a second that was within the realm of possibility, I'd have a waking wetdream to an extent I'd need to call SERVPRO(r).

 

[eflatminor]

Because not even the most Tea-infused, radical Right, anti-tax functional retards on Capitol Hill dare mention one thing they'd actually cut for fear of fucking earth-shaking blow-back.

Let me get this straight: You say nobody in Washington is willing to cut anything. I say force them to do so with Mack Penny. You repeat nobody in Washington is willing to cut anything.

I've attempted to be civil and straight forward with you but if you're wondering why all the ridicule, that's it.

So, one more time, can you explain why you think Mack Penny would not work to balance the budget?

If I thought for a second that was within the realm of possibility, I'd have a waking wetdream to an extent I'd need to call SERVPRO(r).

Ah yes, when you can't debate with logic and reason or address a question with specificity, attack the messenger.

Want to try again, sans ad hominem attacks?

 

[Koios]

Let me get this straight: You say nobody in Washington is willing to cut anything. I say force them to do so with Mack Penny. You repeat nobody in Washington is willing to cut anything.

I've attempted to be civil and straight forward with you but if you're wondering why all the ridicule, that's it.

So, one more time, can you explain why you think Mack Penny would not work to balance the budget?

If I thought for a second that was within the realm of possibility, I'd have a waking wetdream to an extent I'd need to call SERVPRO(r).

Ah yes, when you can't debate with logic and reason or address a question with specificity, attack the messenger.

Want to try again, sans ad hominem attacks?

Try not using words you do not understand. Merely a suggestion.

 

[Paulie]

It's like having a discussion with my 5 year old son

 

[eflatminor]

If I thought for a second that was within the realm of possibility, I'd have a waking wetdream to an extent I'd need to call SERVPRO(r).

Ah yes, when you can't debate with logic and reason or address a question with specificity, attack the messenger.

Want to try again, sans ad hominem attacks?

Try not using words you do not understand. Merely a suggestion.

Your unwillingness to engage in civil discourse is noted.

That you have proven unable to articulate your objection to the Mack Penny plan with specificity, logic or reason only strengthens my case for it. So thanks for that.