Rand Paul - Don't Raise Taxes, Cut Spending

If Rand Paul is your only hope, then you have no hope. I guess Rand Paul is the RW messiah.

 

Lol...Right-wingers and their graphs- what a hoot.
But yes, let's look at the data.
The transition from a healthy economy to the bankruptcy we face today started with Reagan's trickle-down notions and voodoo economics that lowered the tax rates for the wealthy.
He tried to run the country on the cheap and even tried to classify ketchup as a vegetable in children's school lunches so that he could ladle more money to his wealthy patrons.
You people continue to promote the same asinine nonsense while ignoring all evidence to the contrary that coddling the rich and the corporations does not help to create jobs- at least not in the US.
But those Indian and Chinese peasants who replaced our domestic work force and those bankers in the Caymans and Switzerland who shuffle their profits around to avoid taxes are mighty grateful.

 

Ron Paul has no understanding of basic financial principles. Cutting government spending will lengthen the economic downturn since it will have an adverse effect of the GDP.

 

Versus the Alinskyite in Chief's brilliant idea of raising taxes during an economic downturn.

Only the Economic Illiterati would propose/support such a thing...

 

Okay, Brewskier.....Rand Paul is just like Barack Obama, if you say so.

 

Have you ever read Saul Alinsky's book? Just curious. I find so few who mention him...that ever have, but try to act like they are experts on him.

 

No, I'm the right wing messiah. The reading comprehension of the average user on this board is something to be laughed at. How can you get anything about my hope from my reference to the Republican party as "that party"?

 

Yes, I've read the original community organizer's Rules for Radicals...

 

If you would care to notice the bottom part of the graph. tax revenues over the same period was constant while at the same time we had both recessions and expansions in our economy. Thus, not raising taxes has not been a contributing factor to the state of the economy in the long run, which means your argument is completely bogus.

 

So let's give even more tax breaks to the uber rich so they can stash even more of the nation's wealth in their offshore accounts, and lay off a few million more workers who need and actually spend the money.

Sounds like a briliiant (*)(*)(*)(*)ing plan for the economy.

Conservatives are so transparent. *Every* thing the do is about making the very rich even richer. Because more is never enough.

 

If Rand Paul is so smart then why did the budget he proposed never result in a balanced budget? The CBO projected out Rand Pauls budget to 2040 and even with it's completely unrealistic assumptions (e.g. GDP growth at over 4% that's only happened twice in recent history and then only for one year) it still didn't balance the US budget.

This leads us to a current news story that shows the possible irrationality of Republican thinking:

http://news.yahoo.com/dems-grapple-renewed-gop-debt-limit-threats-193406109--politics.html

Social Security and Medicare have collected more in FICA/Payroll taxes than they've ever spent and they haven't contributed a single dime to either deficits or the national debt but that's the target for Republicans. Why aren't they attacking federal spending that is contributing to the national debt like Defense spending????

Republican economic strategy is like Dick Cheney going hunting for quail. They miss the bird completely and shoot another hunter.

 

So, who will the Libertarian party put up for 2016?

 

BTW I was just researching federal expendatures for another thread and in recent history spending has only been reduced twice. In 1965 the federal government spent less than in 1964 and in 2010 the federal government spent less than in 2009. The only problem is that the combined spending in 1965-66 and 2010-11 averaged more per year than it did in 1964 and 2009 respectively so it was both were really one-year anomalies where federal spending continued to increase on the average.

So basically Paul Rand is calling for something that has never been done under either Republican or Democratic adminstrations in recent history..... and the likelihood of it ever happening is very close to zero. The man is living in a bubble without a clue about how to accomplish anything. His proposals have about the same probablility as the spontaneous generation of life on Mars. Yes, it can happen, about once in a billion years.

 

Personally I'm hoping that Gary Johnson is the candidate again. While he has a lot of libertarian leanings he was relatively new to more pure libertarian political philosophies this year. He was better in most regards than others like Ron Paul that still carries too much Republican baggage but he has a lot still to learn.

I see that Hillary Clinton has a lot of support from many Democrats to run agian in 2016. I haven't heard anything from the Republican side but we can almost rest assured that they will continue their downward spiral that went from Bush, to McCain, and then Romney unless something dramatic happens with the party. I've seen some signs of life from a few Republicans but not enough to have much hope for them in 2016 so far.

 

It went down again in 2012 from 2011. Twice in three years. First time that's happened in six decades.

http://cbo.gov/publication/43698

Totally ignored by the conservative press which wants to portray Obama as a big spender as well as the lame stream media.

 

No. He is for spending cuts. IF the money is going to be spent anyways its his job to get as much of it as he can for Kentucky...

You guys still dont know what earmarks are....

 

the T-Party sure knows how to pick em - LOL

 

Not according to the White House and 2012 is only an estimate. From Table 1.1 on the White House website:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/

The last time I checked $3,795,547 million (the 2012 estimate) was more than $3,603,061 million (the 2011 actual) by over $190 billion.

 

I wouldn't consider it wrong if Rand Paul or the minority view could support their contention that we are spending too much. We don't know, is our spending bigger'n a breadbox? No context. There IS a spending level that boosts GDP and another spending level that begins to choke off GDP. Tell Rand to take out his 12c and tell us what it is.

 

The problem is your data is out of date from the last time you checked. You're using old estimates. My CBO link shows that actuals.

The last time I checked $3,538 billion (the 2012 actual) was less than $3,599 billion (the 2011 actual) by $61 billion.[/QUOTE]

 

Libs understand even less.

You cannot keep spending and borrowing or we will wind up like Greece.

Sooner or later deadbeat Obama voters are going to have to take a haircut.

 

We understand it just fine.

Libs weren't the ones who slashed tax revenues to run up trillions more debt, and Libs aren't the ones fighting against increasing taxes on the rich to raise revenues.

Cons understand even less.

You cannot keep cutting tax revenues and borrowing or we will wind up like Greece.

Sooner or later deadbeat Republican voters are going to have to suck it up.

 

Taxes paid to the federal government went up since the Bush tax cuts.

Unfortunately government spending went up even faster.

Particularly since Pelosi and Obama came to power.

 

Taxes paid relative to GDP have gone way down.

The Govt spends proportionately less today than it did in some Reagan years.
Unfortunately, revenues have gone down faster.

Bush and the Republicans increased spending far faster than Obama could have even dreamed of.

 

Brilliant or not, it's not like the dumb (*)(*)(*)(*)s is Washington ever come to that conclusion. Welfare, corporate and otherwise, and bombing brown people are their first priority, no matter what the cost.