Sen. Rand Paul (R, Ky.) admits his recently introduced budget-cut legislation may seem extreme...


Sen. Rand Paul (R, Ky.) admits his recently introduced budget-cut legislation may seem extreme to some, but he sees axing $500B in spending in a single year as 'a necessary first step toward ending our fiscal crisis.' (Read Paul's WSJ op-ed)
Comments (29)
  • bbro
    , contributor
    Comments (11217) | Send Message
     
    Until Rand Paul announces the federal cuts he is willing to see happen in Kentucky ..... he is just grandstanding....
    7 Feb 2011, 11:24 AM Reply Like
  • ehempel
    , contributor
    Comments (106) | Send Message
     
    You somehow think that axing the entire department of education wouldn't impact Kentucky?
    7 Feb 2011, 11:36 AM Reply Like
  • Swass
    , contributor
    Comments (419) | Send Message
     
    ehempel, it probably would, but in a good way!
    7 Feb 2011, 11:44 AM Reply Like
  • bbro
    , contributor
    Comments (11217) | Send Message
     
    As long as entitlements are off the table....Rand Paul is just
    another politician....58% of the people over 65 in Kentucky,,,voted for Rand Paul...
    he is just protecting his constituency...Kentucky recieves 1.51 for every dollar it pays in taxes....to put it bluntly...Rand Paul is a fraud....
    7 Feb 2011, 11:47 AM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (4581) | Send Message
     
    Was it not Kentucky that decided its students didn't need to be competitive and elected to teach divine origin rather than evolution? I daresay you are right Swass...
    7 Feb 2011, 01:19 PM Reply Like
  • mike8599
    , contributor
    Comments (588) | Send Message
     
    Kentucky is part of the U.S.

     

    The guy has been in office for less than a month, try to appear objective.
    7 Feb 2011, 01:41 PM Reply Like
  • Econdoc
    , contributor
    Comments (2938) | Send Message
     
    Ran Paul is a complete and utter moron. Almost as bad as his father.

     

    Medicare, Social Security and Defense is what needs to be addressed

     

    The rest is nonsense, it is nothing. Cutting Education is nonsense. The only sensible idea is cutting Agriculture. Yes, eliminate it completely. It serves no purpose. Get rid of ethanol subsidies.

     

    The Tea Party agenda - if this is it - is a hoax.

     

    E
    8 Feb 2011, 01:55 AM Reply Like
  • Leftfield
    , contributor
    Comments (4061) | Send Message
     
    So controversial: Some reality in a Washington DC budget debate.

     

    (Hint: They have a spending problem).
    7 Feb 2011, 11:34 AM Reply Like
  • American in Paris
    , contributor
    Comments (5495) | Send Message
     
    Dumb, dumb, Dumber ...
    7 Feb 2011, 11:35 AM Reply Like
  • doubleguns
    , contributor
    Comments (9651) | Send Message
     
    Yep that is what has happened to our children since the creation of the Dept of Education.
    7 Feb 2011, 11:43 AM Reply Like
  • jguy
    , contributor
    Comments (15) | Send Message
     
    $500B spending cut leaves spending at level that is still $500B higher than 2008

     

    Don't go apoplectic over the idea.
    7 Feb 2011, 11:42 AM Reply Like
  • Joe Morgan
    , contributor
    Comments (1608) | Send Message
     
    I am a Republican...but Paul is out of whack...500B cuts in a year?? That would send the economy through the abyss...

     

    I support cuts in phases....like 50B cuts this year, then 75B next year....etc...
    7 Feb 2011, 11:43 AM Reply Like
  • Swass
    , contributor
    Comments (419) | Send Message
     
    Unfortunately, $500 billion, seen as extreme as Rand Paul puts it, is probably just the tip of the ice burg in terms of what needs to be cut. While this is a great first step (fat chance it'll happen though), it still wouldn't be anywhere close to what needs to be cut in order to prevent further deficits and borrowing.

     

    I certainly hope measures like this take root, but I'm not all too optimistic that anything will change, even with his best efforts. I think it's more probable that the only thing that will change things is when the bond markets say they've had enough with us, and the Federal Government can no longer borrow, forcing what most would call 'extreme' cuts to be made without delay.
    7 Feb 2011, 11:48 AM Reply Like
  • doubleguns
    , contributor
    Comments (9651) | Send Message
     
    Swass "no longer borrow, forcing extreme cuts" I believe entitilements would certainly be included at that point.
    7 Feb 2011, 11:54 AM Reply Like
  • Swass
    , contributor
    Comments (419) | Send Message
     
    Entitlements, under that possibility, would be slashed. They can only be left along so long as there is a possibility to borrow.
    7 Feb 2011, 12:00 PM Reply Like
  • lower98th
    , contributor
    Comments (1411) | Send Message
     
    Might be time for investors to take a look at our so-called businesses that would not survive without bloated government contracts. Free-market capitalism in the US? LOL.
    7 Feb 2011, 11:52 AM Reply Like
  • johnmorrison9
    , contributor
    Comments (190) | Send Message
     
    The feds need to be curbed!
    Taxes are oppressive, and spending is a joke.
    There is no accountability.
    Come on people, if some thing is not done
    the market will do it for us.
    Wake up America.
    7 Feb 2011, 11:54 AM Reply Like
  • Anwar Bhamla
    , contributor
    Comments (100) | Send Message
     
    This liberal Democrat supports Rand Paul's proposals. We have been drunk on borrowing and deficit spending and it is time to dry out.

     

    Unfortunately, the devil is in the details. I want to see where he is proposing his cuts. . If Rand is willing to reduce our spending on defending Western Europe, on staying in Japan and in building multibillion dollar bases in Iraq, I will support him. Also in the name of deficit reduction, is Rand willing to increase taxes on those who benefit most from our society?..those who earn more than $250,000. Is Rand willing to close the loophole that allows multibillionaires to pay only minimal (15%) taxes on their income? Is he willing to save Social Security by modifying the FICA tax so that it is no longer the most regressive tax in the history of economics?

     

    After 10 years, of destroying our children's economic future, it is refreshing to hear Paul Rand's ideas. Just wish he was here 10 years ago when our political leaders told us to go shopping to support 2 unnecessary wars. I would like to see comprehensive proposals from both Democrats and Republicans to get us to balance both on trade and budgets. And yes, if the pain is shared by all, I will support some reductions in services to the most vulnerable members of our society.
    7 Feb 2011, 11:56 AM Reply Like
  • mowjo
    , contributor
    Comments (96) | Send Message
     
    I'm putting my two cents worth with Anwar....
    7 Feb 2011, 12:03 PM Reply Like
  • Swass
    , contributor
    Comments (419) | Send Message
     
    Anwar, you lost me with the raising taxes. Government is not 'society' as you put it. As James Madison put it, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." What you advocate is Government benevolence at the expense of one group of citizens.
    7 Feb 2011, 12:09 PM Reply Like
  • Anwar Bhamla
    , contributor
    Comments (100) | Send Message
     
    Fair enough.. For me Society is the country I live in, to whose government, I pay taxes to and to whom I owe my allegiance. I do not want to live in a society where my countrymen starve while food is plentiful, which prides itself on the best healthcare in the world but denies it to those that cannot afford it and in which the old are left to suffer without societal support. These are necessities of a civil society not any kind of benevolence. I would like to fantasize that these necessities can be provided by private not for profit entities like United Way. We all know this is not going to happen. Which leaves the government. Is it inefficient? Yes! Is there abuse? Yes! I am willing to listen to a reasonable counter proposal.

     

    If we agree that these are necessary requirements of a civil society, who should pay for it? All of us and as Ben Franklin would have put it, the intellectual elite that benefits most from a well functioning civil society should be willing to pay their fair share (which in dollar and % terms will be higher than the average contribution.)
    7 Feb 2011, 02:31 PM Reply Like
  • Swass
    , contributor
    Comments (419) | Send Message
     
    Anwar - I appreciate your thoughtful reply.

     

    I have many liberal friends, and I understand your viewpoint. But I continue to return to the fact that government is not society.

     

    Government has a monopoly on force, in which at it's most basic form, is to repel illegitimate force. This is whether by proper role of the military, by repelling an invading army, or by my most basic right (not given by the government, but by nature's God) to property. If someone takes my property by illegitimate force, the government is there to, by law, force that someone to make me whole again by legitimate force.

     

    Once we ask the government to take from someone what rightfully belongs to them to give to another to whom it does not belong, we have given the power of illegitimate force to the one entity that has a monopoly on it. Aside from the Constitutional crisis this creates, it cannot be seen as any more moral or ethical than your neighbor stealing your wallet because he or she feels they need it more than you.

     

    Likewise, government has never been efficient in doing anything. To make such assumption that if government was not charitable with the money of one group of it's constituents, that no one would be charitable is difficult to swallow. The United States some of the most generous private charitable donations in the entire world, yet most other nations in the world with large, socialist governments, do not. This is because the economic drain from socialistic government policies does not allow many individuals to make such charitable gifts, as they haven't the money to do so.

     

    Lastly, the charitable government acts in it's own interests, not that of the people to whom they have taken that money from. If the government takes my money or that of someone else, for the purposes of benevolence, it has removed from me my freedom to direct money to the charity of my own choosing, or to not be charitable at all. It's the most basic of human rights, not bestowed upon us by government, but, as the founders put it, by nature's God.
    7 Feb 2011, 05:50 PM Reply Like
  • rkadari
    , contributor
    Comments (81) | Send Message
     
    So the predicted deficit for this year is 1.5 Trillion - and people think cutting 500 Billion in spending - just a 3rd of the deficit - is too extreme? Really??
    Agreed - it is very unlikely to be realized.
    To cut debt - not just deficit - we will have to cut more than 2 Trillion of spending every year - that will mean both entitlement & defense spending.
    Good luck with that - much easier to kick the can down the road. After all both the rich & powerful will survive the hyperinflation that a completely debased currency will unleash one day!
    7 Feb 2011, 12:02 PM Reply Like
  • garveym
    , contributor
    Comments (33) | Send Message
     
    The trouble with this line of thinking is the same as it is in business. You do not simply cut your way to fiscal solvency. This misses a large part of the current problem - revenue. I'm not talking raising taxes - I'm talking about lost revenue due to depressed economic activity.

     

    The paramount challenge here is to restore economic activity. I certainly would agree that we need to spend every dollar as carefully as possible - especially now - but simple cost cutting alone will not address the underlying issues that face us.
    7 Feb 2011, 01:18 PM Reply Like
  • Swass
    , contributor
    Comments (419) | Send Message
     
    Just for curiosity sake, is the negative reaction of so many people because they think inflation rather than default is inevitable, they are very liberal and believe in what the government is spending will save us, or something else?
    7 Feb 2011, 12:20 PM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (4581) | Send Message
     
    It's one guy down thumbing you with multiple accounts.
    7 Feb 2011, 02:46 PM Reply Like
  • Mad_Max_A_Million
    , contributor
    Comments (1175) | Send Message
     
    Swass - Nearly half the people in the U.S. pay no federal income tax. They benefit from government throwing a lot of money around and there is no immediate down side because they never get the bill. On the other hand cutting spending will zap everyone (one way or another) if spending is greatly reduced.

     

    So the gut reaction of most people is: If it ain't broke (Yet) then leave it alone.
    If they truly wanted to take the cure, they would get out the knife, bite the bullet, and start hacking away.
    But, Big O has already put the debt commission back in the barn - Election year is coming.
    7 Feb 2011, 12:45 PM Reply Like
  • Duude
    , contributor
    Comments (3413) | Send Message
     
    One reduction he proposed won't find hardly any support was his proposal to cut aid to Israel. Far too many politicians on both sides of the aisle will reject this out of hand.
    7 Feb 2011, 12:53 PM Reply Like
  • Bouchart
    , contributor
    Comments (1101) | Send Message
     
    So he wants to run a deficit of $1T instead of $1.5T?

     

    CUT TO THE BONE.
    7 Feb 2011, 06:07 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Hub
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs