It appears Rubio gets it also…
So then why does he want to increase military spending without offsetting it? Or better yet, why doesn’t he want to better use what we already spend?
I don’t trust any of them when it comes to the debt with the possible exception of Rand Paul.
I believe in March, Rubio offered an amendment to increase military spending. If I remember correctly, it increased the debt by 180 billion over two years.
Rand Paul, in an effort to stop this, accept Rubio’s premise of increasing military spending, but offered an amendment that would have offset the spending by cutting elsewhere. Rubio opposed it.
And no one likes Rand Paul. Presumably because he will do precisely what need to be done to reign in spending, and people don’t want austerity. Most would prefer to saddle the next generation of kids with massive debt and say to them “go forth child, compete with the world!” while handing them an immediate disadvantage at birth.
If America falters the entire West and dare I say the entire West’s way of life will falter with it. Human misery will escalate, the American Dream will be something for the history books. It is irresponsible to say the least.
Rand Paul is just not a good politician and doesn’t like politics. It’s necessary for a great president to be a great political leader. It’d be nice to see him get the VP choice though.
Defense Department officials offered $283,500 to researchers who could monitor the nests of the California gnatcatcher, a tiny bird that the federal government has deemed “threatened” since 1993.
That’s one example of questionable spending recorded in “Federal Fumbles,” a chronicle of government waste assembled by Senator James Lankford (R., Okla.). “In what universe should DOD spend $283,500 to study the day-to-day life of a tiny bird?” Lankford’s report asks. “How is American national security strengthened by this study? DOD should be in the business of defense, not nature conservancy.”
Not that cutting every single dime of waste would fix the problem but this kind of stuff is just sickening
Of course it would “fix the problem.” The problem is, you’re not looking at the MASSIVE budgets of all those unconstitutional and unnecessary alphabet agencies which can, for the most part, be completely eliminated. Do we REALLY need a million-dollar budget for the National Mohair Board, for example? And what business is it of the feds to interfere in ANY way with our children’s education–either monetarily or by curricula?
From what I understand, given the demographics we will soon not be able afford anything other than “entitlements” and interest on the national debt. Cutting all the fat will not stop the collapse.
It’s not fat one cuts, it’s entitlements which has grown to astronomical proportions. It’s cutting moneys destined to shore up nations who don’t like us, It’s getting rid of many agencies like the IRS, NEA, and other groups Obama incorporated. Its cutting each congressman’s staff by a few who don’t have a whole lot to do anyway. Pulling back grants where we know waste is rampant.
My grandson has been in the army for 6 years and at sergeant, they cut his pay and benefits? he is leaving, which is what Obama wants and we now have a severely depleted military which I doubt can protect themselves.
I know many who now cry “cut, cut,” will then cry “but not mine, but not mine”
“A department-by-department guide to cutting the government’s budget.”
The white papers are good and the chart tool is fun. I encourage folks to check this site out.
When did “welfare” become an “entitlement?” No one is “entitled” to the taxpayer’s money–certainly not anyone whose “entitlement” is based on a blatantly UNCONSTITUTIONAL idea that Congress has the power and authority to redistribute the nation’s wealth according to how THEY perceive who is and who is not “deserving.”
Sorry Dave but it IS entitlement they didn’t earn it, they, for the most part, don’t deserve it. That is the harsh reality. It is nice that politicians got together set up the welfare program and handed out free money for those who don’t have it. Now, why bother working when the freebies keep on coming? as well as an entitlement it is an entrapment.
I think we’re running into semantics. They’re not entitled to it by any sane understanding of the Constitution; but the powers that be are giving it to them anyway, and they think they’re entitled to it. And they’ll scream bloody murder about not getting it when the economy collapses.
It’s not only welfare but also social security and medicare and there will be a lot of people screaming about that too. People think social security is different but it’s not. That money was spent a long time ago.
Actually untrue. Social Security IS different. Each of us pay into Social Security all of our working lives–today, about 14% of our gross incomes, up to a bit under $90,000–and we’re not allowed to access any of that money until we’re almost 70 years old. Assuming we start work at 18, that means that we contribute to Social Security for 52 years. That money, if put into a simple investment account with compound interest would amount to almost $1 MILLION for each of us and very few of us would ever come CLOSE to getting that much back before dying. It is not the fault of those contributing to SS that Congress has stolen that money for their own purposes and bastardized the entire system in order to buy votes. It IS the fault of those who DESIGNED SS that the ONLY way that money could be “invested” once the government got it was to buy T-Bills. Little known is the FACT that the income from the sale of T-Bills becomes part of the general revenue accounts to be spent as Congress decides. In short, the money in the SS “Trust Fund” becomes what amounts to IOU’s. Pretty much the same can be said of Medicare, though that’s only been existence since the early 1960’s.
I see we have one who has no idea what they are talking about but keep opening their mouths anyway.Skeptic, will you please study before you opine through your ignorance? I paid into Social Security probably long before you were born, That IS my money regardless who spent it. MINE, no one else’s. Social Security was a savings account established by the Franklin Roosevelt administration in the late 30’s for the time when the American worker rtired. It originally was voluntary but evolved under various democratic administrations. It had it’s own budget place until Johnson placed in the General Fund where congress raped it. But no matter what the American worker still pays into it and it belongs to the individual who paid into it. Not an entitlement ( which semantically is my definition)
What Papadave said. It may have been spent, but it was supposed to be a sort of trust fund for the taxpayer, being drawn out in some sort of proportion to what was put in.
Mind you, I don’t think it should have been started in the first place, and I think that it and welfare should be tapered off. Not that they will; they’ll just keep doing things as is until the economy collapses. Then everything will stop; including our freedom.
Yes it was said to be a trust fund but the money is spent as soon as it’s received. People shouldn’t cry too much if their social security is threatened though. Most get back more than they put in and the difference is added to the debt.
Again, untrue. Money invested earns INTEREST…even for the government. If I were to take 14% of my gross income and INVEST it in the stock market for 52 years, it would be MASSIVELY larger than what I’ll eventually draw out when retired–and I could pass the remainder on to my heirs–which I CANNOT do with Social Security. The government itself doesn’t stuff all that money from SS under a mattress somewhere…and neither would I (or you.)