Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 42

Thread: Rand Paul's Budget Plan: Cut spending 1% per year for 5 or 6 years

  1. #1

    Rand Paul's Budget Plan: Cut spending 1% per year for 5 or 6 years

    A recent article in the New Republic said your budget would eviscerate the departments of Energy, State, Commerce, EPA, FDA, Education, and many others. Would Americans support that?

    My budget is similar to the Penny Plan, which cuts 1 percent a year for five or six years and balances the budget. Many Americans who have suffered during a recession have had to cut their spending 1 percent, and they didn’t like doing it, but they were able to do it to get their family’s finances back in order. I see no reason why government can’t cut 1 percent of its spending.
    http://www.businessweek.com/articles...ederal-reserve



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Well, let's see. The 2013 FY budget called for $3.803 trillion in spending. Total Revenue FY 2013: $2.902 trillion. $901 billion estimated deficit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Un...federal_budget Let's cut one percent a year for six years.
    Year One: $3.76 trilllion
    Year Two: $3.73 trillion
    Year Three: $3.69 trillion
    Year Four: $3.65 trillion
    Year Five: $3.61 trilion
    Year Six: $3.58 trillion

    If revenues remain unchanged (they won't) the deficit would still be $680 billlion. Tax revenues would need to increase by 24% to balance in six years under such a plan.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 08-09-2013 at 07:29 PM.

  4. #3
    Extremist and draconian.

  5. #4
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    28,739
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Rand may need some visual aids ala Perot at the debates. The people are borderline retarded. Show the growth of government spending over the last 50 years and compare it to citizen income at that same time. That should raise some eyebrows.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Well, let's see. The 2013 FY budget called for $3.803 trillion in spending. Total Revenue FY 2013: $2.902 trillion. $901 billion estimated deficit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Un...federal_budget Let's cut one percent a year for six years.
    Year One: $3.76 trilllion
    Year Two: $3.73 trillion
    Year Three: $3.69 trillion
    Year Four: $3.65 trillion
    Year Five: $3.61 trilion
    Year Six: $3.58 trillion

    If revenues remain unchanged (they won't) the deficit would still be $680 billlion. Tax revenues would need to increase by 24% to balance in six years.
    Compare with expected revenue:


  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Well, let's see. The 2013 FY budget called for $3.803 trillion in spending. Total Revenue FY 2013: $2.902 trillion. $901 billion estimated deficit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Un...federal_budget Let's cut one percent a year for six years.
    Year One: $3.76 trilllion
    Year Two: $3.73 trillion
    Year Three: $3.69 trillion
    Year Four: $3.65 trillion
    Year Five: $3.61 trilion
    Year Six: $3.58 trillion

    If revenues remain unchanged (they won't) the deficit would still be $680 billlion. Tax revenues would need to increase by 24% to balance in six years under such a plan.
    if the dollar collapses, then revenues will increase.
    Knowledge is Liberty!


  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Galileo Galilei View Post
    if the dollar collapses, then revenues will increase.
    So will the interest on the debt and the nominal cost of expenditures.
    Last edited by anaconda; 08-09-2013 at 07:37 PM.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Galileo Galilei View Post
    if the dollar collapses, then revenues will increase.
    If the economy collapses, so will tax revenue. Would your dollar collapse give us an economic boost?



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Well, let's see. The 2013 FY budget called for $3.803 trillion in spending. Total Revenue FY 2013: $2.902 trillion. $901 billion estimated deficit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Un...federal_budget Let's cut one percent a year for six years.
    Year One: $3.76 trilllion
    Year Two: $3.73 trillion
    Year Three: $3.69 trillion
    Year Four: $3.65 trillion
    Year Five: $3.61 trilion
    Year Six: $3.58 trillion

    If revenues remain unchanged (they won't) the deficit would still be $680 billlion. Tax revenues would need to increase by 24% to balance in six years under such a plan.

    The Penny Plan supposedly balances in two years.

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    If revenues remain unchanged (they won't) the deficit would still be $680 billlion. Tax revenues would need to increase by 24% to balance in six years under such a plan.
    Do you think Rand is taking expected revenues into consideration? Or, does the discrepancy lay elsewhere?

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    If the economy collapses, so will tax revenue. Would your dollar collapse give us an economic boost?
    I did say an economic boost. I said if the dollar collapses, that will increase revenues. That's because of massive inflation.
    Knowledge is Liberty!


  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Galileo Galilei View Post
    I did say an economic boost. I said if the dollar collapses, that will increase revenues. That's because of massive inflation.
    Seems to me this would be offset by proportional increases in the nominal prices that government pays for its goods and services.
    Last edited by anaconda; 08-09-2013 at 08:20 PM.

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by anaconda View Post
    Seems to me this would be offset by proportional increases in the nominal prices that government pays for its goods and services.
    No, it wouldn't, becasue Rand's plan decreases spending by 1% per year.
    Knowledge is Liberty!


  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Galileo Galilei View Post
    I did say an economic boost. I said if the dollar collapses, that will increase revenues. That's because of massive inflation.
    Assuming inflation also hits wages.

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by AuH20 View Post
    Rand may need some visual aids ala Perot at the debates. The people are borderline retarded. Show the growth of government spending over the last 50 years and compare it to citizen income at that same time. That should raise some eyebrows.
    Perot's charts were the best. Great idea. Hopefully somebody is reading this and will remember.

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Assuming inflation also hits wages.
    Wages went up in Zimbabwe.
    Knowledge is Liberty!




  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    28,739
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Quote Originally Posted by 69360 View Post
    Perot's charts were the best. Great idea. Hopefully somebody is reading this and will remember.
    This is the one that could start a riot.




    Government spending does not increase wealth despite what the thieving class tells you.
    Last edited by AuH20; 08-09-2013 at 08:33 PM.

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Galileo Galilei View Post
    Wages went up in Zimbabwe.
    What happened to their budget deficit and tax revenues?
    http://entrepreneurshipafrica.com/bu...very-cato.html
    Hyperinflation ended by the end of 2008 and a paltry $133 million in taxes was collected that year, but by 2011, tax revenue had jumped to $2,6 billion, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by AuH20 View Post
    This is the one that could start a riot.




    Government spending does not increase wealth despite what the thieving class tells you.
    hmmmmmm.... looks like something significant happened August 15, 1971

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Bruehound View Post
    hmmmmmm.... looks like something significant happened August 15, 1971
    Hmm. looks more like things changed in 1974 on the chart.

  24. #21
    why only 5 or 6 years?

    I seem to recall a book in the 70s (possibly "Looking out for number One") that suggested a 2% per year phaseout for social security

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by cindy25 View Post
    why only 5 or 6 years?

    I seem to recall a book in the 70s (possibly "Looking out for number One") that suggested a 2% per year phaseout for social security
    Over how many years? Cutting two percent a year over ten years still leaves you with 80% of what you started with.

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    What happened to their budget deficit and tax revenues?
    http://entrepreneurshipafrica.com/bu...very-cato.html
    Zimbabwe did not cut spending 1% per year, as is required in the penny plan. What exactly are you arguing about?
    Knowledge is Liberty!


  27. #24
    Really Rand? 1% a year? We are borrowing $ 1 for every 2 that we spend and have a 17 trillion dollar debt and this is your solution?



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    I'd support any plan that spends less than the year before. I agree I would treat this like my own budget and cut expenses as much as possible but anything is better than the status quo.
    -Ancap-

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by jclay2 View Post
    Really Rand? 1% a year? We are borrowing $ 1 for every 2 that we spend and have a 17 trillion dollar debt and this is your solution?
    It's a pretty good solution. You would get to a point where the country isn't borrowing in two years.

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Galileo Galilei View Post
    No, it wouldn't, becasue Rand's plan decreases spending by 1% per year.
    I was referring to the money neutrality with the change in the price level. An increase in nominal receipts in tax revenue does not help if the things the government is spending its income on are subject to the same inflation. Which I'm assuming will be the case. At least over a period of time sufficiently lengthy for unions to renegotiate nominal wages and so forth. Additionally, inflation will cause future budget deficits to be inflated as well.
    Last edited by anaconda; 08-09-2013 at 10:27 PM.

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Hmm. looks more like things changed in 1974 on the chart.
    Whip Inflation Now
    Out of every one hundred men they send us, ten should not even be here. Eighty will do nothing but serve as targets for the enemy. Nine are real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, upon them depends our success in battle. But one, ah the one, he is a real warrior, and he will bring the others back from battle alive.

    Duty is the most sublime word in the English language. Do your duty in all things. You can not do more than your duty. You should never wish to do less than your duty.

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Galileo Galilei View Post
    Zimbabwe did not cut spending 1% per year, as is required in the penny plan. What exactly are you arguing about?
    You were the one who raised it.

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by krugminator View Post
    It's a pretty good solution. You would get to a point where the country isn't borrowing in two years.
    Two years? How so? $900 billion in cuts (about one quarter of your budget)? Or raising taxes? (you could raise income taxes by 50%)?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Sen. Rand Paul proposes plan to balance federal budget in 5 years
    By Galileo Galilei in forum Rand Paul Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-08-2012, 09:23 AM
  2. Replies: 16
    Last Post: 03-22-2012, 10:56 AM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-21-2012, 10:39 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-19-2011, 08:30 AM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-18-2011, 02:16 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •