Ron Paul: "When a cut is not a cut"

Why oh why do we tolerate these games they play in DC ???

Does anyone really think with federal spending projected to be 45.77 Trillion in the next 10 years, that a cut of 2.4 T over 10 years will matter?

And some of the cuts are just smoke and mirrors. Future war spending averted. Interest on the debt saved. Puh-leeze, we've been down this road before.
Promises of spending cuts that never come or aren't real.

Keep the pressure on, conservative folks. This fight ain't over.

.

 

Holy Jeez... it's like I've been quoted by Ron Paul himself!
http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...oehner-clearly-adult-room-21.html#post4261622
/honored

 

From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to selfishness;
From selfishness to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage.

 

http://www.mrctv.org/video/103077 Congressman Mike Kelly goes off.

 

Kellys a hypocrite. He voted for renewing the Patriot Act. He's one of them. He loves big government

 

Maybe Ron Paul comes to politicalforum.com

 

That would be nice, but I'm sure he doesn't have time.

 

There is simply no way our current deficit spending can be sustainable. $2 trillion over ten years is a joke. It's like people don't realize how high interest payments will be when our debt is increasing faster than our GDP. What will happen when our currency collapses? Better stock up on bullets and beer. You'll need it.

 

We weed to hve the books opened to the public so we can see EXACTLY how much money is going where...

 

There are no cuts, just a very small reduction in the rate of spending. It's all smoke and mirrors.

 

And by the time that everybody realizes that the government has not cut spending one bit, now or in the future, most of the members of Congress and the White House will be long gone.

 

A very small reduction in the *increase* of the rate of spending, you mean. According to this agreement, ten years from now the national debt will be 20 trillion dollars instead of the original 23 trillion dollars, and that's only if all the provisions are actually enacted (which they won't).
This is like the guy who's running off a cliff at a hundred miles an hour and the guy who wants to avoid running off the cliff altogether settling on a "compromise" to run off the cliff at ninety miles an hour.
It's a joke, and the rating agencies aren't amused.

 

By the CBO estimates the deficit to be $1.5 trillion. Combined with what we owe, that's $29T minus $2.5T; which is $27.5T.

That's assuming the CBO is correct AND the deficit doesn't grow.

Either way, our debt will be well over $20T in ten years and our interest rates will be a much larger share of our spending.

 

*And* that the prime rate doesn't get readjusted, which is guaranteed to happen now that we've adopted a budget that the credit rating agencies told us wasn't good enough to avoid a downgrade. Even a tiny increase in the prime rate is enough to make interest on the debt our largest expenditure item.

 

What kills me are the people who say we can increase the debt and borrow forever without consequences.

I'm not a maths expert, but there are limitations to how much you can borrow before you default.

 

Yes, that's exactly what I meant. Thanks for the correction.

 

We need to vote out the liars cheats and thieves.

 

Ron Paul is the only one telling the truth. I'd say that is worth a term as president of the USA.

Ron Paul is and always has been on the money. Listen to the man and vote him as the republican candidate against the wishes of the corporate media, PLEASE!!!!!!

 

He's always told the truth. He's gained a lot of stature too.

 

This about sums it all up. Big gov't has been on a tear. How far should we let it spiral, progressives? Shall we quadruple the federal budget over the next 10 years? Sorry, I'm simply not feeling any of the benefits of a doubled budget.. You better believe that they are a self-perpetuating machine that can only be slowed down when the people interfere with their feeding frenzy on freedom.

 

First, I'm no fan of runaway government spending. However, the economic analysis in the OP is misleading. A lot of the increase comes from demographic demands upon the entitlement programs (i.e., the population continues to grow and the population of the elderly is growing even faster (baby boomers)). Even with a fixed payout per recipient in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, the growth in the served population will result in significant increases in spending. To keep spending constant, you would have to reduce SS, Medicare and Medicaid payments proportionate to the demographic growth in the served sector (at the same time as the cost of living and medical care continues to increase). In real buying power, this means actual decreases in covered services.

Such simplistic analysis as that in the OP helps no one. It just gets you pissed about something you don't understand. Study up on the underlying issues and come back with some intelligent analysis, fellas.

 

Tell Obama to have a look at the tank in this graph and compare it to mandatory spending, then ask him about how the Middle East is shaping up and why we should care about overthrowing the leader who the Libyan people support. Such a simple analysis that we should bend over to the acceleration of federal power, especially when it comes to the military and homeland security will not rectify this black hole of debt. Come back with the intelligent realization that Obama is Bush's long lost brother.

 

You're most correct. Lawrence Korb, Assistant Secretary of Defense under Reagan, says we can cut $1 Trillion in defense spending over the next decade without impacting readiness. The question is whether the GOP and their constituents will buy into this.

 

Some of it is, and a lot of it isn't. But thanks for bringing that up.

As I've long said, entitlements are eating us alive. People paid into that system. If it had been isolated and invested seperately, it would be a lot more funded than it is. The pols spent it !!!!

Now we're really screwed trying to pay for it.

 

Just more common sense.