The rebuttal speech few saw

[dblack]

I have the weirdest reaction to Rand when he speaks. Even though I agree with most of what he's saying, he just comes off as sleazy politician. And some of what he says isn't appealing and smacks of pandering.

Anyway, if I had to pick an ideal leader of a libertarian revolution, it wouldn't be Rand Paul. But I'll continue to keep an open mind. His supporters would have me believe he's working 'the system' from the inside - and obligated to 'play the game' to gain momentum. We'll see. I'd like to believe it.

 

[Dreamy]

Rand Paul is inconsequential.

I guess we'll see.

He had the right, of course, to issue a response to the SOTU.......but he got the amount of attention that he deserves.

You're still allowed to discuss the ideas he put forth.

I'll go first. I like the Mack Penny Plan. You?

Spending reductions are warranted but not sure how this could be accomplished with programs like SS.

 

[eflatminor]

Rand Paul is inconsequential.

I guess we'll see.

He had the right, of course, to issue a response to the SOTU.......but he got the amount of attention that he deserves.

You're still allowed to discuss the ideas he put forth.

I'll go first. I like the Mack Penny Plan. You?

Spending reductions are warranted but not sure how this could be accomplished with programs like SS.

One of two ways (or a combination): Either means test the most affluent pensioners, probably the richest 10% and/or cut spending in other areas sufficiently to keep SS as is while still achieving the 1% overall reduction in spending.

The Mack Penny plan is the only one I've seen that actually reduces spending. The others are nothing more than a slight decrease in the planned rate of increased spending. This "baseline budget" nonsense is killing us. The government should not AUTOMATICALLY grow at 7.5% per year. That's well in excess of the rate of inflation or population growth.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Rand Paul is inconsequential.

I guess we'll see.

He had the right, of course, to issue a response to the SOTU.......but he got the amount of attention that he deserves.

You're still allowed to discuss the ideas he put forth.

I'll go first. I like the Mack Penny Plan. You?

Great simple math problem. When Mack outlines the cuts in detail, get back to me.

 

[eflatminor]

Rand Paul is inconsequential.

I guess we'll see.

He had the right, of course, to issue a response to the SOTU.......but he got the amount of attention that he deserves.

You're still allowed to discuss the ideas he put forth.

I'll go first. I like the Mack Penny Plan. You?

Great simple math problem. When Mack outlines the cuts in detail, get back to me.

You miss the point. Nobody has to outline the cuts because the law would require an across-the-board 1% cut if Congress fails to identify the specific areas to cut that total a 1% decrease in spending.

Easy.

 

[GeoLaureate8]

"The President offers you free stuff, but his policies keep you poor."
-- Rand Paul (SOTA address)

He demolished Obama with that line.


.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I guess we'll see.



You're still allowed to discuss the ideas he put forth.

I'll go first. I like the Mack Penny Plan. You?

Great simple math problem. When Mack outlines the cuts in detail, get back to me.

You miss the point. Nobody has to outline the cuts because the law would require an across-the-board 1% cut if Congress fails to identify the specific areas to cut that total a 1% decrease in spending.

Easy.

Not possible. This it will not be taken seriously. Easy buttons are a popular item in whimsical TV commercials.

17% flat taxes, 999 plans..... the one cent solution.......all so simple. Not effective when addressing complex problems.

 

[eflatminor]

Great simple math problem. When Mack outlines the cuts in detail, get back to me.

You miss the point. Nobody has to outline the cuts because the law would require an across-the-board 1% cut if Congress fails to identify the specific areas to cut that total a 1% decrease in spending.

Easy.

Not possible. This it will not be taken seriously. Easy buttons are a popular item in whimsical TV commercials.

17% flat taxes, 999 plans..... the one cent solution.......all so simple. Not effective when addressing complex problems.

If it's the law, it would have to taken seriously. That's the point of it...come up with strategic cuts or face an across-the-board cut of every federal expenditure.

I'm not sure how you can call a plan "not effective" when no such plan has ever been tried, but tell us, how would you propose we deal with our debt?

 

[LoneLaugher]

You miss the point. Nobody has to outline the cuts because the law would require an across-the-board 1% cut if Congress fails to identify the specific areas to cut that total a 1% decrease in spending.

Easy.

Not possible. This it will not be taken seriously. Easy buttons are a popular item in whimsical TV commercials.

17% flat taxes, 999 plans..... the one cent solution.......all so simple. Not effective when addressing complex problems.

If it's the law, it would have to taken seriously. That's the point of it...come up with strategic cuts or face an across-the-board cut of every federal expenditure.

I'm not sure how you can call a plan "not effective" when no such plan has ever been tried, but tell us, how would you propose we deal with our debt?

By not freaking out about it.....and understanding monetary policy in the world we live in. We have no spending problem.....we have a growth problem. The American dollar has survived thirty trillion being created out of thin air.......for the bank bailouts...with no inflation. That tell you something? As long as this nation remains a leader in tech and production........and remains stable politically......we need not concern ourselves with our debt. Provided spending is geared toward investment......we have limitless funds.

Complicated stuff.......my guess is you ain't gonna like it much.

Start by telling me why our debt is still virtually interest free?

 

[eflatminor]

Not possible. This it will not be taken seriously. Easy buttons are a popular item in whimsical TV commercials.

17% flat taxes, 999 plans..... the one cent solution.......all so simple. Not effective when addressing complex problems.

If it's the law, it would have to taken seriously. That's the point of it...come up with strategic cuts or face an across-the-board cut of every federal expenditure.

I'm not sure how you can call a plan "not effective" when no such plan has ever been tried, but tell us, how would you propose we deal with our debt?

We have no spending problem...

Anything else you have to say after that I find difficult to take seriously. You think we can grow our way out of $16 trillion of debt and rising fast? No frickin' way.

I think your willingness to burden those yet to be born with the debt of our largess to be downright immoral.

 

[LoneLaugher]

If it's the law, it would have to taken seriously. That's the point of it...come up with strategic cuts or face an across-the-board cut of every federal expenditure.

I'm not sure how you can call a plan "not effective" when no such plan has ever been tried, but tell us, how would you propose we deal with our debt?

We have no spending problem...

Anything else you have to say after that I find difficult to take seriously. You think we can grow our way out of $16 trillion of debt and rising fast? No frickin' way.

I think your willingness to burden those yet to be born with the debt of our largess to be downright immoral.

Of course you won't take it seriously. You want a simple answer. You will scoff at ideas that youbcan't relate to kitchen table economics.

We are no longer on the gold standard......there is no reason to act like we are.

Please read this entire monetary policy primer.

Modern Monetary Theory Primer - New Economic Perspectives


Best regards.

 

[eflatminor]

We have no spending problem...

Anything else you have to say after that I find difficult to take seriously. You think we can grow our way out of $16 trillion of debt and rising fast? No frickin' way.

I think your willingness to burden those yet to be born with the debt of our largess to be downright immoral.

Of course you won't take it seriously. You want a simple answer. You will scoff at ideas that youbcan't relate to kitchen table economics.

No, just a reasonable one. "We don't have a problem" is not a reasonable answer.

We are no longer on the gold standard..

Too bad. We should be.

....there is no reason to act like we are.

Right, because $122 trillion of unfunded promises is nothing to worry about...

Pease read this entire monetary policy primer.

Modern Monetary Theory Primer - New Economic Perspectives

I've read it. MMT is nothing more than Marxist nonsense. MMT makes sense in a centrally planned economy. It has no place where freedom reigns and is a poor, poor substitute for individual freedom and choice. The author claims it is a theory based on "the world in which we actually live". Unfortunately, he sees that world from the eyes of a collectivist nanny stater.

Pass. Sorry, I don't buy it, not for a second.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I wonder if our resident big government folks on either side of the aisle are willing to listen to an alternative voice?

One of the few guys to talk straight about the issues we face. Sure to piss off Ds and Rs.

Rand Paul Gives The Tea Party Response To The President's State of the Union Address - 2/12/2013 - YouTube

He should have stuck with his ol' gig....


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xn1VkmD_U_8]The B-52's - Love Shack 1989 Video stereo widescreen - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[eflatminor]

He should have stuck with his ol' gig

Very helpful...

 

[LoneLaugher]

You read that already?

Impressive.

You are clearly too smart for me. Please find a more intelligent liberal to debate.

 

[eflatminor]

You read that already?

Impressive.

You are clearly too smart for me. Please find a more intelligent liberal to debate.

MMT is not a new concept. Keynes referred to it for heaven's sake!

 

[dblack]

You read that already?

Impressive.

You are clearly too smart for me. Please find a more intelligent liberal to debate.

MMT is not a new concept. Keynes referred to it for heaven's sake!

Well, there ya go!

 

[LoneLaugher]

You read that already?

Impressive.

You are clearly too smart for me. Please find a more intelligent liberal to debate.

MMT is not a new concept. Keynes referred to it for heaven's sake!

Listen.....that primer is a year old. It contains A SHITLOAD of new info. If youndon't have time to read it, I understand.

It is MUCH simpler to call for a flat tax. Keep on keeping' on.

 

[eflatminor]

You read that already?

Impressive.

You are clearly too smart for me. Please find a more intelligent liberal to debate.

MMT is not a new concept. Keynes referred to it for heaven's sake!

Listen.....that primer is a year old. It contains A SHITLOAD of new info. If youndon't have time to read it, I understand.

It is MUCH simpler to call for a flat tax. Keep on keeping' on.

Fine, I'll look at it again but from what I saw, it's EXACTLY as I understood MMT. Not impressed.

Flat tax? Where talking about spending, not revenue.

 

[eflatminor]

You read that already?

Impressive.

You are clearly too smart for me. Please find a more intelligent liberal to debate.

MMT is not a new concept. Keynes referred to it for heaven's sake!

Well, there ya go!

Keynes got it wrong. He's a blessing to those that want to wage wars and implement social programs without paying for it and he's loved by those that seek central control. But for those that must deal with the fallout of such immoral spending and meddling, he's only aided history's tyrants.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Where-Keynes-Went-Wrong-Governments/dp/1604190442]Where Keynes Went Wrong: And Why World Governments Keep Creating Inflation, Bubbles, and Busts: Hunter Lewis: 9781604190441: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]