Rand Paul: GOP Should Compromise On Military Spending, Democrats on Entitlements


#1

Sen. Paul says Republicans should agree to cut military spending and Democrats should compromise on entitlements.

Jebby’s take: Not all military spending is defense and not all military spending is wise. There’s a huge amount of waste in the DoD budget that could be axed. Not a single penny should be cut from true national defense, but a lot can be cut from the military.


#2

“There’s a huge amount of waste in the [entitlement] budget that could be axed”. Not saying we should let the very poor suffer, but a good portion of those who classify themselves as such abuse the system. We need strict policies and more regulation in welfare system, not defense or economy or any other vital department. Give the poor only the basic necessities of life and you’ve got yourself a balance budget and a more efficient government. Republicans shouldn’t compromise. That’s just a libertarian thing.


#3

It’s for this reason and others that I believe that helping the poor shouldn’t be handled by the government at all, especially at the federal level. Local government and especially the local private community are in the best position to know and care about both the needs of the people in the community and the stewardship of the resources donated.


#4

This is a good strategic argument.

Yeah, Obama, we will compromise by cutting the military budget. But because we are already compromising you can’t raise taxes.


#5

[quote=“Red_Kuba, post:2, topic:37309”]
Give the poor only the basic necessities of life and you’ve got yourself a balance budget and a more efficient government.
[/quote]Except of course, that wouldn’t balance the budget at all. %13 of federal spending is on welfare. And you’re not even suggesting eliminating it, just reducing it to “basic necessities of life” which as far as I can see, would be basically what it is now. Over three quarters of that is in the form of tax rebates, SCHIP and food stamps(food stamp average is $110 per month, per person).

The only way we get to a balanced budget is by broadly cutting spending and raising taxes. That means welfare, that means education, that means military, Medicare and discretionary. Social Security is the only thing that should be left alone.


#6

Retirement age should be raised gradually to 70 and perhaps even means test benefits.


#7

Nice ideal. Unfortunately, “policies” or even “regulations / laws” are often ignored by liberals who have the job of enforcing such policies, regulations, laws.

I have had first hand knowledge of watching them being ignored. Government is the uncontrollable billion pound gorilla.

.


#8

[quote=“CWolf, post:5, topic:37309”]
The only way we get to a balanced budget is by broadly cutting spending and raising taxes.
[/quote]The cutting spending part is where I’m going to enjoy seeing BHO squirm, though it’s just as much a possibility that the sleezebag will squirm out of doing any spending cuts completely . . . and I’m NOT going to enjoy it if that happens.

And if that happens, my lack of enjoyment will be minor compared to the damage it will do to the USA.


#9

[quote=“Jebby, post:6, topic:37309”]
Retirement age should be raised gradually to 70 and perhaps even means test benefits.
[/quote]No, we should not means test it and turn it into a welfare program.

The only way I would consider raising the retirement age is if we split workers into groups of active and inactive. IE work on feet = active, work on ass = inactive. We could and perhaps should raise retirement age for office workers. But 65 years is plenty to be working full time on your feet. Those people die earlier, anyway.

Stuff like the chained CPI is total crap and should absolutely not happen.

Recall that SS was originally looking at a %35 shortfall that has now decreased to %25. I’m not all that inclined to think it will even be that, but we’ll see. Some changes may be called for, but I’m hearing nothing out of Washington I like. It can wait until 2016.


#10

[quote=“CWolf, post:9, topic:37309”]
The only way I would consider raising the retirement age is if we split workers into groups of active and inactive. IE work on feet = active, work on ass = inactive.
[/quote]While I’m not disagreeing with the concept, the practical part of it seems to be the hurdle.

IOW, who would determine the people that are sitting on their ass, and HOW would that be determined?

Anecdotally, we all know there are likely substantial frauds, but anecdotal evidence would not seem to be sufficient for a serious determination.

Would you use the unemployment entitlement guidelines (i.e. “you must demonstrate that you’ve looked for work this week, and have a valid reason for turning work down”, which can be scammed BTW) to make the determination, or something else?


#11

You can pretty easily classify 4/5 of jobs without needing to know nuances. Beyond that, you could just contact their employer and ask. Could it be abused? Probably a bit, but there is no perfect system.
Farmer = active
Computer Programmer = inactive
Mechanic = active
Accountant = inactive
Nurse = active
Translator = inactive
Etc.

Most jobs are pretty well active/inactive defined. There are some complicated professions like a truck driver, but most shouldn’t be difficult.


#12

Wait a minute . . . wait a minute.

I thought that when you referred to “work on ass” you were talking about frauds, not literally people whose work actually involves sitting.

That’s a whole 'nother circumstance.

Now my question is, why consider those kinds of people less deserving? Work is work, no matter how it’s performed, sitting or standing. Indeed, I can easily see how an accountant might legitimately claim he/she works harder, more hours than, and is worth more than a mechanic.

It seems like you’ve established these categories on whether or not work is performed with physical activity. Are you discounting mental activity? A lot of times, cerebral pursuits are just as difficult and exhausting, sometimes moreso, than physical labor.

Why create categories for this based on physical labor?


#13

It’s often tough to even make it to 65 doing a job where you’re on your feet and moving all day. You cannot expect those people to clear 70 and keep at their jobs. Life expectancy may be growing, but that doesn’t mean we’ve added that many more years to how much abuse your body can take. For most people, their body wears out before their mind. If I break my hip, I can still do math. But I can’t climb a ladder.


#14

[quote=“CWolf, post:13, topic:37309”]
It’s often tough to even make it to 65 doing a job where you’re on your feet and moving all day.
[/quote]While I don’t necessarily disagree with that, it’s also tough sometimes not to avoid obesity related diseases, heart attack, etc, if your work environment involves sitting all day,

Perhaps even moreso when the sedentary worker tries to go up on the roof on the weekends and make a “honeydo” repair.

You could even make a good argument that workers in a physical work environment are in much much better shape than sedentary workers.

Nevertheless, things like disability claims probably are more predominant in a physical work environment, though I’m not sure by how much. In fact, my daughter works in the Disability Insurance division of Prudential. I’ll have to ask her about this. Should be an interesting response.

In that same arena, I once asked her what her biggest failure was. Without hesitation, she said that her Enron account was. When employees realize a company is going to go belly up, typically there’s a flood of disability claims (dubious of course.) Prudential lost big time on that one.


#15

An obese person can do a desk job just as well as someone with a perfect BMI. By the time you’re rounding 65, your joints are about shot. And as I said, people who work manual labor jobs, die about 3 years earlier on average anyway.

I’m not open to raising it to 70 for either.


#16

Year of Birth
Full Retirement Age

1937 or Earlier 65 1943-1954 66
1938 65 & 2 months 1955 66 & 2 months
1939 65 & 4 months 1956 66 & 4 months
1940 65 & 6 months 1957 66 & 6 months
1941 65 & 8 months 1958 66 & 8 months
1942 65 & 10 months 1959 66 & 10 months
1960 & later 67
Social Security Age

The fact of the matter retirement age for full retirement has gone up


#17

Which prompted my decision to become a part-time consultant for several years after I semi-retire. If I can actually do that thanks to Obama.


#18

Well, well, well, just remember this. You have 4 years of Obama and his keyensian policies. Where do you think the entitlement state will be in four years of this? We can sit here at our keyboards and pontificate on fiscal issues pulling charts and graphs, waxing philosophical, but in four years the damage will so extensive I doubt it can be repaired. Thanks to all who voted on principle>


#19

I held my nose and voted for Romney. A lot of good that it did, huh?


#20

but a lot didn’t. That’s the difference. Well, the spilt milk syndrome prevails. All we can do at this point is squeal and render our personal bacon. We’ll be a lot thinner in four years, you can bet.