Rand Paul - Don't Raise Taxes, Cut Spending

[video=youtube;QuLgQ80fY-k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuLgQ80fY-k&feature=youtu.be[/video]

Obama and the Democrats continue to cling to the false belief that raising taxes is a necessary part of any economic plan coming out of Washington. Of course, any sane individual would want to minimize the amount of planning that Washington politicians do, seeing as how generally corrupt and incompetent they are, but I digress...

The fact is giving more money to Washington DC is not going to facilitate SUSTAINABLE wealth creation. Any wealth creation resulting from government spending is artificial and merely temporary; sustainable wealth creation comes from markets and systems of law that are objective and consistent in their protection of individual rights; we KNOW that decentralization and market-based economics are superior to planning- or management-based economics. This country's economic success is the most obvious example of the success of decentralization, but that success is being jeopardized by extremist progressives who want to impose an elitist planning-based technocracy on the masses. Raising taxes is just an excuse for progressives to expand the central government; it will do virtually nothing to address our fiscal problems with entitlements and debt.

By the way, Lou Dobbs missed the point about the Bush tax cuts. Rand was merely referencing how revenues went up after they were cut. Here is the data:

 

"Don't Raise Taxes, Cut Spending"

Gosh, Rand....where DO you come up with these brilliant, DETAILED, ORIGINAL ideas?!?!?!?

 

Considering not that many people are actually big supporters of cutting spending across the board and prefer spending where their personal interests are it is a pretty minority view in the government right now.

 

Yeah Rand Paul, FYI.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/11/08/128837/paul-earmarks-pledg/?mobile=nc
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/09/rand-paul-earmarks-ban_n_780832.html
In a bigger shift from his campaign pledge to end earmarks, he tells me that they are a bad "symbol" of easy spending but that he will fight for Kentucky's share of earmarks and federal pork, as long as it's doled out transparently at the committee level and not parachuted in in the dead of night. "I will advocate for Kentucky's interests," he says.

So long as they don't make cuts in his district, he is all for spending cuts.

 

Actually, he is like his father in that he is against them, will put his state on the list, but votes against them. It's a nuance, sure, but people of a philosophical nature get it.

 

Actually, any intelligent individual will tell you the same thing.

 

i know rite!! Why isn't he explaining in great detail like Obama did when he pushed "Hope and Change" and "Obamacare"! It's not like we had to elect him and pass his plans before we could find out what they were going to look like, right?

 

Yeah, that 70 billion a year in tax revenue is really the crucial part of taking down the 1 trillion dollar deficit.

Oh wait...

 

Actually not.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/exclusive/anti-earmark-tea-party-caucus-takes-1-billion-164309010.html

 

I suppose it has something to do with his understanding of basic financial principles and arithmetic.

 

Yes, it most certainly is the minority view, but that does not make it wrong.

 

If you're going to insert a hit-piece blog while attacking Rand Paul, could you at least find one that shows that mentions him?

 

Rand Paul did not object to spending cuts which would impact his district. Those articles on earmarks have nothing to do with the thread topic. Can't you actually make a real argument?

 

Lol...That's just a start.
Raise taxes across the board.
Tax rates were 90% during the time when America grew into an economic powerhouse.
Only the terminally selfish and greedy think that today's tax rates are an excuse to fire workers and park your money in the Caymans.
Cut defense spending dramatically.
Close all loopholes and get the corporations and whoever else is tax dodging to actually start paying taxes.
Attack corruption and waste vigorously.
The bottom line is that if you want to have a country that isn't a pile of (*)(*)(*)(*), you have to pay for it.

 

Oh, I'm sure you are right...

 

Let's see if Rand inserts some extra money for Fort Knox or Fort Campbell in the next Defense appropriations bill....knows it's going to pass...but votes against it and then goes back to Kentucky to tell the folks how great it is that the fort got a "new rec center thanks to me."

In other words the same conjob his old man used to pull in the House.

 

Because everyone knows raising taxes is good for economic prosperity and growth!

LOL

Yes, the rest of the world was a smoldering pile of ashes, too, but I'm sure that had nothing to do with our economic hegemony following WWII. And nobody actually paid those statutory tax rates, nor did they have any significant impact on the amount of revenues collected by the Federal government:



It would help if you actually looked at the data.

Attack corruption and waste vigorously? Surely you do not mean that because that would require a systematic dismantling of your beloved progressive patronage system.

 

Ah, the Democrat goal. Funny Obama didn't campaign on doing this.

Back when there was no other country in the world set up to have a healthy economy and America was the only game in town. Back before globalization occurred. Feel free to point to a country that has tax rates that high today.

How much extra are you chipping in this year?

Of course, the only cut liberal Democrats ever want to make, which coincides perfectly with their dream of a weaker America, oddly enough.

Like Obama's buddies at GE? Oh wait, I'm sure they are the exception to your rule.

That would force a lot of Democrats off the dole and back into the labor force. You realize that, right?

I could point out quite a few pieces of (*)(*)(*)(*) European countries that took the same "let's build us a welfare state so I won't have to work as much!" position that you advocate for.

 

How is it a con-job to earmark spending for your district? His constituents pay taxes, so why shouldn't they benefit from tax expenditures?

 

It only looks complicated to libs who worship at the alter of big government.

But it's really a very simple idea that the left could never come up with.

 

I agree and would like to see cutting of spending across the board sadly many politicians don't agree and I would like this to change but I can't see this happening anytime soon unless a third party gets more votes in more local and state elections or one of the major party platforms has some serious reform. I'm not holding my breath.

 

Yeah Rand Paul is special.
http://patrick.net/forum/?p=1216301

 

My post wasn't really about him just that the idea of cutting spending across the board isn't that popular in the united states because most politicians have personal interests against this even if they are supposed to be fiscally conservative. The main problem today is that many people want cuts but nobody can agree where so we end up just spending more because people don't like the idea of having to spend more money which doesn't help us.

 

Yeah right, the fact that Rand Paul will advocate for KY by accepting cuts for his district is off topic. Get Real.

 

"...if we don't stand for something, if we're not the party of limited government and lower taxes, then what are we doing here?"

Rand Paul is the Republican party's last chance at relevancy. If he get's the 2016 nomination for president, only then is there any hope for that party.