pmbug
Member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2007
- Messages
- 6,222
[Passed] Cramnibus 2024 - The corrupt, last minute Continuing Resolution
- Thread starter Brian4Liberty
- Start date
Matt Collins
Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 47,707
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 63,479
Matt Collins
Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 47,707
Matt Collins
Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 47,707
Matt Collins
Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 47,707
Madison320
Member
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2012
- Messages
- 6,032
I've been reading articles that say Trump's team wants to suspend the debt ceiling out to 2027. Why would they need to do that? I thought they were planning on slashing the budget?
unknown
Member
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2011
- Messages
- 12,449
unknown
Member
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2011
- Messages
- 12,449
TheCount
Member
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2014
- Messages
- 11,744
Oh wow I'm soooooo surprised that Trump wants to do away with the debt ceiling.
Who could have predicted that?
Completely out of left field.
Matt Collins
Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 47,707
Matt Collins
Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 47,707
Dr. Rand Paul Offers Fiscally Responsible Solution to Shutdowns and Stalemates
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) offered the Government Shutdown Prevention Act as a fiscally responsible amendment to prevent shutdowns and stalemates. Dr. Paul’s amendment prevents shutdown crises, discourages excessive spending, and aims to balance the budget.
“No matter where one stands on the debate over government spending, we should all be able to agree that Congress needs to handle Americans’ money thoughtfully and hit its deadlines,” said Dr. Paul. “The Government Shutdown Prevention Act would take a major step forward toward bringing basic fiscal responsibility to Capitol Hill.”
Instead of Congress risking government shutting down operations, Dr. Paul’s plan would keep government open but institute a six percent cut, consistent with his Penny Plan, to then-current funding levels for any agency, program, and activity that Congress failed to fund. Funding would be reduced by another one percent every 90 days thereafter that an agreement is still not enacted.
Currently, Congress does not face any consequences for failing to pass appropriations bills on time, which has helped lead to it pursuing procrastination over prudence and risking shutdowns due to impasses.
Along with ensuring government honors its obligations and maintains its operations, Dr. Paul’s proposal would give agencies the certainty of knowing that, in a worst-case scenario, they will always be able to operate with a full year of funding at no less than 91 percent of their then-current levels.
You can read Dr. Paul’s amendment HERE.
Because they can't enact much of their agenda without doing it. It's funny. Fiscal conservatives never actually get anything they want, but they do end up unintentionally(?) growing the swamp.
Madison320
Member
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2012
- Messages
- 6,032
The system rewards increases in spending and punishes cuts. I don't think it's a conspiracy or anything nefarious, it's just the way democracies/republics tend to work. It'll always be politically popular to increase spending until we get high to hyper inflation. We getting close to that. We're to the point where we can't raise rates, even if prices start to rise. The interest payments on the debt are too high.
Part of me hopes Trump will do the the normal spending binge that new administrations do when they first get in. Like Trump did in his first term. Just to get it over with so we can start doing the right thing and cutting back government.
TheCount
Member
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2014
- Messages
- 11,744
Everyone knows that the best way to cut spending is to spend more first.
Matt Collins
Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 47,707
Dr. Rand Paul Forces a Vote on Fiscally Responsible Solution to Shutdowns
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Tonight, U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) forced a vote on his Government Shutdown Prevention Act, which was offered as an amendment to H.R. 82. Dr. Paul’s amendment proposed a fiscally responsible solution that prevents shutdowns. His amendment would have also prevented a shutdown crisis, discouraged excessive spending, and attempted to balance the budget.
“No matter where one stands on the debate over government spending, we should all be able to agree that Congress needs to handle Americans’ money thoughtfully and hit its deadlines,” said Dr. Paul. “The Government Shutdown Prevention Act would take a major step forward toward bringing basic fiscal responsibility to Capitol Hill.”
Instead of Congress risking government shutting down operations, Dr. Paul’s plan would keep government open but institute a six percent cut, consistent with his Penny Plan, to then-current funding levels for any agency, program, and activity that Congress failed to fund. Funding would be reduced by another one percent every 90 days thereafter that an agreement is still not enacted.
Currently, Congress does not face any consequences for failing to pass appropriations bills on time, which has helped lead to it pursuing procrastination over prudence and risking shutdowns due to impasses.
Along with ensuring government honors its obligations and maintains its operations, Dr. Paul’s proposal would give agencies the certainty of knowing that, in a worst-case scenario, they will always be able to operate with a full year of funding at no less than 91 percent of their then-current levels.
You can read Dr. Paul’s amendment HERE.
Matt Collins
Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 47,707
Dr. Rand Paul Forces Amendment Vote to Save Social Security from Bankruptcy
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Tonight, U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) forced a vote on his amendment to the Social Security Fairness Act to save Social Security from bankruptcy.
“It is absurd to entertain a proposal that would make Social Security both less fair and financially weaker. To undo the damage made by this legislation, my amendment to gradually raise the retirement age to reflect current life expectancies will strengthen Social Security by providing almost $400 billion in savings,” said Dr. Paul.
Dr. Paul’s amendment would have gradually raised the retirement age to reflect current life expectancies, by three months per year until the retirement age reaches 70, and would save the program nearly $400 billion. His amendment would have also paid for the cost of the Social Security Fairness Act, which will total over $200 billion over 10 years.
Dr. Paul offered a similar proposal in 2011 that would have been gradually implemented over the course of ten years. At the time, the Social Security trustees estimated that the trust fund would be solvent for 75 additional years.
Today, the same proposal with almost immediate implementation only buys us a little over a year before the trust fund goes bankrupt.
Dr. Paul’s amendment puts Social Security on a path toward solvency and helps undo some of the damage imposed by the Social Security Fairness Act.
You can read Dr. Paul’s amendment HERE.
unknown
Member
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2011
- Messages
- 12,449
GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged
Member
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2020
- Messages
- 4,149
I am of the opinion that years ago people like Edison, Twain, Franklin, Jefferson, Freud, Erickson, Maslow and so many more lived ripe old ages. I am of the opinion that many children and mothers died during birth and that many men died from hazardous occupations or undertakings. If you were more affluent you lived to a ripe old age and if you lived and didn't succumb to some hazard you also lived to be just as old as people today.
Society was much healthier in years past than today.
Furthermore extorting money from every paycheck for Social Security from the employee and employer was mandatory. That money was ponzied away from the people and misused for generations. SS is not an entitlement. It is flat out theft and then the thieves don't want to return it.
Initial thoughts for my own finances were to wait until later to collect SS. The wife and I calculated we didn't need the income now and we could get more if we waited. We changed that and I started collecting this year at 62 with the concept that if we don't need it collect it anyway and save it. If I die before 70 we would have collected 8 years. If I delay collecting there was nothing paid to us. If you run the numbers on a spread sheet you would conclude it is best to collect ASAP. There are no birds in the bush.
Last edited:
Matt Collins
Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 47,707
