Tweet
He says that the US brings in $200 billion in tax revenue every month, and spends about $20 billion in interest payments. So there is plenty of money to pay interest (and thus not default), SS, and military salaries. (He doesn’t state individual figures for SS or military salaries, but says that after those 3 categories, there’d be $70-$80 billion for “more government”.)
Also, he’s against the Boehner plan because it “will not balance, ever”, and in fact will add about $7 trillion to the national debt in 10 years, taking it from $14 Trillion to $21 Trillion.
PS: can somebody tell me how to embed a youtube video? The embed script from youtube didn’t work
53 Comments
Great.
Now you use Rand Paul to back up your arguments when this Birchite wants to eliminate Social Security altogether.
In fact, the Social Security Trust Fund has been raided to pay for wars and now Obama and Congress do not want to pay back to the Social Security Trust Fund the money they have stolen to pay for their Wall Street wars; and, to make matters worse, they want to turn over what remains of the Social Security Trust Fund along with future collections to the Wall Street vultures.
I’m not making any arguments, I’m reporting what Rand Paul said.
You have an overactive imagination that you need to learn to control. Nothing wrong with a good imagination, per se, but you should be able to distinguish between what you imagine, and what actually is.
Having said that, I do think that Boehner’s plan increasing the total debt by 50% is newsworthy (if it’s true; I made no attempt to verify his claim), and furthermore, that he’s correct to expose the needlessness of default and stopping SS checks, and he does well to call Obama out on this.
…..”that he’s correct to expose the needlessness of default and stopping SS checks, and he does well to call Obama out on this.”
Agreed.
Rand is scared of the polls I suspect he never was a supporter of SS or medicare this suggests that even the Tea Bagger’s Grandfather wants a way out.
Whoa! I though Ron Paul is the progressive one…
“He says that the US brings in $200 billion in tax revenue every month, and spends about $20 billion in interest payments. So there is plenty of money to pay interest (and thus not default), SS, and military salaries. (He doesn’t state individual figures for SS or military salaries, but says that after those 3 categories, there’d be $70-$80 billion for “more government”.)”
If you’re not making any arguments what’s your point? Rand’s essentially trying to argue that we can safely default and not suffer any cutbacks. His assurances on SS aren’t worth anything as he thinks it’d be a good thing if they weren’t paid out.
Presumably his position on civl rights-he thinks it’s not a civil rights’s violation for Denny’s to receive service to black people causes you no pause in going to him for authority?
I wonder how far it goes, why not quote Hitler he was critical of free trade right?
“You have an overactive imagination that you need to learn to control. Nothing wrong with a good imagination, per se, but you should be able to distinguish between what you imagine, and what actually is.”
Metamars don’t be so modest, you have a pretty active imagination as well and don’t see any evidence that you have controlled it.
For a long time there have been those who believe that Ron Paul is a progressive, but if you’re gonna extend that thinking to Rand Paul, you have an active imagination indeed.
“I’m not making any arguments, I’m reporting what Rand Paul said.”
And is the Birchite Rand Paul some kind of politician we want to promote to a position of authority on these matters? I think not. You should be able to provide an analysis from a progressive point of view. To “cherry pick” through the reactionary views of Rand Paul serves only to poison this discussion on the debt ceiling more than already exists.
Ultimately the only thing of substance in your comment is that you don’t like Rand Paul’s suggestions. Great.
Now, thank the nice reporter for calling them to your attention. Because his suggestions are now a part of the national discussion and even if you stick your head in the sand, they will likely impact GOP actions … such knowledge could be helpful even if you are a member of the brain-trust that thinks Democrats somehow don’t suck. Sheesh. To reductio ad Hitlerum in thirty seconds flat. Clearly, the O-Team is flailing.
But what Rand is doing is called prioritizing, he’s not saying we can safely default at all. Default means we didn’t pay our creditors. He’s saying pay our creditors, social security and military … and select who not to pay from what remains.
Not a great solution, IMO. But hardly Hitler. Why does it bother you so much to have someone report what is happening in contemporary politics?
The funny thing here is that now even Rand Paul has managed to find a position that ostensibly protects social security better than the one Obama has adopted. That’s awesome! It kind of begs a question: if Obama were to win at political chess in one of these other dimensions we hear so much about … would it have any impact on life in this one?
RU Kidding? You have zero control over if Rand Paul is elevated to a position of authority on these matters. He won an election. He’s a senator. The man has authority on these matters no matter if you like it or not. Helllooooooo?
Should people stop reporting statements by Bohner, Cantor and McConnell too?
He’s the true libertarian one. Quite a bit of overlap with progressives on foreign wars, social freedom, free trade and Fed oversight. Quite a bit of friction on other issues.
I take it you are new to politics?
“But what Rand is doing is called prioritizing, he’s not saying we can safely default at all. Default means we didn’t pay our creditors. He’s saying pay our creditors, social security and military … and select who not to pay from what remains.”
Correct. How Mike Sax completely reversed Rand Paul’s meaning on this, is beyond me.
“The funny thing here is that now even Rand Paul has managed to find a position that ostensibly protects social security better than the one Obama has adopted.”
Right, at least for the time being. I don’t have a problem with anybody questioning Rand or Ron Paul’s long term committment to Social Security. However, Rand Paul isn’t talking about that, and he’s weighing in on the side of SS recipients on the short term.
“You should be able to provide an analysis from a progressive point of view. ”
I didn’t analyze anything. I took what Rand Paul to say as factual, and interesting, and relevant to what may well be a pending national catastrophe; otherwise I wouldn’t have posted this.
I you have any facts that indicate that Rand Paul said anything contra-factual, go ahead and post them. Please. Otherwise, why waste my time? Do you think you can nag me into only posting things that you approve of?
I hate to agree with Rand Paul on anything, but in this case he’s dead right.
Obama went out his way to scare the shit out of old people. Not only was that cruel; it was also a lie. The SS debt is already on the books, so borrowing to redeem Treasury bonds held by the SS Trust Fund does not increase the debt.
Exactly!
It took an allying ourselves with Josef Stalin to defeat Hitler. We may have to ally ourselves with people we disapprove of to block Catfood-II
Get used to it.
By the way, Rand’s father’s way out of this debt-ceiling mess is to repudiate the $1.6T of Treasury bonds held by the Fed. Dean Baker liked that plan and wrote it up in the July 2 issue of The New Repubic. I like that idea. But my own recommendation is not to repudiate/destroy those bonds but to pay them off with a freshly minted $1.6T platinum coin.
Libertarian’s thinking is usually much more progressive than Obama’s.
Yessirree. I am an old people, and I am no longer tranquil. Didn’t you read my bit, maligners, about the bear and the bobcat and the rabbit on a log? Rand Paul is welcome to share my log; he’s the only one who has expressed ANY sympathy at all for the plight of ss recipients.
Put that in your poll and smoke it.
Didn’t nag you at all. Maybe you think you can do that to me. Not working. I can tell you something he said that’s counterfactual: that private institutions can legally “choose” not to serve certain people.
Rand Paul has said many counterfactual things. And he’s not doing anything to “save us from a pending national catasrophe.”
As far as wasting your time you do plenty of things that are a waste of time-I can provide the links if you like
So Rand Paul is gonna save us from “Catfood-II?” What’s his position on SS? Sure he wants to “save it”
“Friction”: delightful euphemism. Again Hitler was “against free trade” as well. How progressive is he on SS and the debt ceiling-the relevant issue at hand?
“Libertarion thinking” such that is on the matter at hand SS and paying down the debt is anything but progressive.
One libertarian who comes to mind is Murray Rothbard and his “Case Against the Fed”
He dreams of the gold standard, how “progressive”
What he doesn’t tell you is that in the 40 years prior to the modern fed-1873-1913) we averaged a recession 1 out of every 2 years.
Show me when he did this? I hope that link up top isn’t what you have in mind. He claims we can not raise the debt ceiling and still pay SS but that we’d have to make cuts elsewhere.
Even if this were true what cuts does he have in mind?
Answer me this: did he vote for the Ryan plan? If so how can it be imagined that he has expressed “sympathy” for SS recipients?
He’s in the racist camp. Hitler was an analogy didn’t realize you were such a literalist. But Rand is about as certinous a reactionary as you will find in American politics.
But Hitler did criticize certain things that some progressives criticize, my point is why not make an alliance with him? Find his speeches which criticized “globlaism” and use it against Obama? As that’s the whole point of this post.
He hasn’t come up with anything to protect SS. Not that he wants to. Did he vote for Ryan’s plan?
He says we can pay SS and for the military? So where are the cuts gonna come from then? With his record I want to know first before embracing him as a “progresive” or using his specious libertarian economics just to chide Obama yet again.
If we repudiate our treasury bonds no one will ever buy our debt again. You think that wouldn’t destroy the economy once and for all?
No one said don’t report on what he said, just that he’s wrong.
“I can tell you something he said that’s counterfactual:”
Of course, when I wrote
I meant “If you have any facts that indicate that Rand Paul said anything contra-factual in the video that I posted” It’s hard for me to believe that you’d be so dense as to not properly grasp my meaning. I was not asking for anything Rand Paul may have said that was counterfactual since his mother gave birth to him. I mean counterfactual in the video.
If your purpose is to derail this diary, then of course it’s in your interest to deliberately pretend to not understand my purpose.
Well, here’s your big chance. If there’s anything in the video that Rand Paul said that was counterfactual, then go ahead and post the evidence. Please.
Otherwise, “put up or shut up”. Please.
Shorter Mike Sax: You think just like Hitler.
You know, I’m sure that Metamars eats vegetables too, so what’s the next logical extension?
Did metamars say that Ron Paul or Rand Paul was a progressive, if you’re going to extend that thinking to metamars you’ve got a very active imagination indeed.
You’re style is about as offensive as anyone I’ve ever read here, in years.
Obama is trying to repudiate the Treasury Bonds. The 2.4 Trillion IIRC worth of them that Treasury owes to Social Security.
Cut the Godwin. You cant make a decent argument.
Be specific. Paul recommends repudiating only bonds owned by the Fed, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of the U.S. government. His reasoning is that this is debt that the U.S. government has already paid off.
Dean Baker, one of the nation’s most liberal economists and a frequent contributor to FDL supported the idea in an article in the July 2 issue of The New Republic. (Dean used the word “destroy” rather than “repudiate,” but gave Paul full credit.
Personally, I’d prefer to buy those bonds with a $1.6T platinum coin, which would get around the concern you have raised.
But every version of this plan is better than using this crisis to gut SS and Medicare, which is what Obama seems to be endorsing.
Here’s the last paragraph of Ron Pauls statement, who will vote no on Boenhers bill, and he’s against the super congress.
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this bill is that it disenfranchises the majority of Congress by denying them the chance for meaningful participation in the crucial areas of entitlement and tax reform. It proposes to cede power to draft legislation to a special commission, hand-picked by the House and Senate leadership. We can stand assured that such leaders will pick members to serve on the commission who promote the same goals as the congressional leaders themselves!
The legislation produced by this commission will be considered via a fast-track procedure, where Members will not have the opportunity to offer any amendments. Approval of the recommendations of the “Super Congress” is tied to yet another debt ceiling increase. This guarantees that Members will face tremendous pressure to vote for whatever comes out of this commission– even if it includes tax increases.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, this commission’s mandate does not allow it to suggest cutting one penny of the trillions spent on internventionist wars and overseas adventurism.
[...]
It is time to tear up the federal credit card and implement large spending cuts now, starting with overseas expenditures and unconstitutional bureaucracies. This will not only lead us to a balanced budget, but more importantly it will restore freedom and prosperity to the American people.
If it weren’t for that last paragraph, I’d have no clue that that statement was written by a “wingnut.”
It doesn’t matter who our next Fascist president is. And Ron Paul is the only declared Democrat or Republican candidate who is not a Fascist. The Paul haters need to tell me who they support and why. Both Paul’s have said they are against cutting Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid at this time. How does that compare to Obama’s position? Paul is like Hitler is not an answer.
Somebody remind me again, what is the difference between FDL and Dailykos?
“And Ron Paul is the only declared Democrat or Republican candidate who is not a Fascist”
To start with that is plain balderdash. Number 2 I don’t have to tell you who I’m gonna vote for or why to say that you who buy in the Pauls are all wet.
As for “Both Paul’s have said they are against cutting Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid at this time. How does that compare to Obama’s position?”
No one is going to cut SS “at this time.” That doesn’t stop you Obama-haters from speculating that he’s gonna in a month or a year…
With the Pauls on the other hand we’re supposed to leave if at “for now” even though both are clearly ideologically of the belief it should be ended. Again how is it that somone who votes for Ryan’s plan is seen as SS’s saviour.
If Rand Paul is the person most sympathetic to SS’s future “for the moment” SS is in deep trouble indeed.
Both Rand and Ron Paul are on record as opposing Social Security altogether. Both of these Birchites think Social Security is unconstitutional.
But why is Social Security an issue at all when it comes to raising the debt ceiling since there is— or there is supposed to be— a Social Security Trust Fund. Either the money that has been— and is being— collected is there in that Trust Fund or it it is no longer there. If the Social Security Trust Fund is still solvent and hasn’t been looted to pay for wars why is anyone talking about Social Security at all? Why is there any question as to whether those receiving Social Security benefits will receive these benefits on time no matter what happens regarding the debt ceiling?
On paper, the Social Security Trust Fund is the only solvent part of the United States government. Is this solvency only a gimmick used by book-keepers?
The entire damn government can go belly-up yet the Social Security Trust Fund should be solvent with every cent collected always available. After-all, workers kick in a very real part of their wages; I assume the employer mandate has been enforced through strict compliance.
What do interest payments on government debts, military salaries or anything else have to do with Social Security?
Then you don’t get out much. If Rand Paul says that private establishments have the right to refuse service to black people and yet you claim that “You’re style is about as offensive as anyone I’ve ever read here, in years” then we must be in Orwell’s 1984 and you must be one of O’Brien’s agents.
I guess I just have to admit that 2+2=5. I won’t say 2+2=4 because that ” is about as offensive as anyone I’ve ever read here, in years.”
More talk about “active imagination.” To me to claim that there is anything progressive or worth progressives listening to-that doesn’t require imagination for that’s what Metmars is doing here telling us to listen to Rand Paul’s tremendous insight-takes a more active imagination than even I am capable of.
I think that some hate Obama so much and so much want to “Dump Obama” they will buy any argument if it is made against him.
I got no idea how I think like Hitler, SheKissesFrogs, I will tell you though I believe if Hitler were running today you would praise him if he criticized Obama.
Again if you-and the rest of these geniuses who keep tripping over my point in my Hitler analogy-would read what I said but put your active imagination for even a second you’d realize that my point is that Hitler too-like Rand Paul or Trump to mention another recent FDL favorite son-sometimes made noises that were anti-globalist, what today we might call”anti-neo-liberal” and indeed even called himself a socialist. So why not vote for him She as it’s all about “anybody but Obama!”
Explain why you wouldn’t vote for him today if he ran against Obama if you can.
Obama’s Chief of Staff (Bill Daly) is a high level executive from Goldman Sachs. I rest my case.
If I was an Obama supporter I would keep it a secret too. The most dangerous enemy of the New Deal who ever lived is Obama. Your defense of him is pitiful and tiresome. He should pay you to shut up.
Those are all good questions. Ask Obama. He is the one who wants to cut Social Security to reduce the deficit.
Mike Sax is an Obamacrat agent employed by Obama’s new Blogosphere Ministry of Truth. I warned y’all about this a few months ago:
http://my.firedoglake.com/ohiogringo/2011/05/27/112/
The paid shills, or even worse, the true-believer shills, cometh.
You follow orders well, which are, tie leftist critics of Obama with the Crazy Libertarians. Narrow the choice with voters to either Obamacrat or Republican. Once you eliminate all the others, then Obama is the only way to go, right?
Lesser of two evils and all that, right?
You show your true colors by calling Ron Paul the “progressive” one. You are a Fascist shill.
GOOD! We want something else! We want something else!
I have no bonds, or stocks, or, for that matter, debt. Why should I care about the value of Treasury Bonds? This economy should be destroyed.
Where’s your house? I’m sure it would burn prettily.
Your great regard for Ron and Rand Paul is tremendous. I need comic relief in my life and you Obama-haters are it. Who will you admire next?
We’ve had Donald Trump, Mike Bloomberg, now even Rand Paul compare favorily with Obama.
That’s why I mention Hitler he’s the only one left.
Again why not say Obama is worse than Hitler? Hitler was “anti-capitalist” opposed to “neoliberalism” he didn’t like Jews but it doesn’t bother you that Paul hates blacks.
What is your answer to this one workingstiff? That I have no basis to say he hates blacks? Tell me how “separate but equal” is not reactionary but Obama is. Tell me. I can’t wait to here what absurdities come out of you next!
Only because Obama is giving away his true positions by sending out shills like Mike Sax into the blogosphere to broadcast his propaganda.
“such knowledge could be helpful even if you are a member of the brain-trust that thinks Democrats somehow don’t suck. Sheesh. To reductio ad Hitlerum in thirty seconds flat. Clearly, the O-Team is flailing.”
The anti-O team is doing more than-flailing or failing-if Rand is your great white hope.
Next non-sequitor: “Now, thank the nice reporter for calling them to your attention. Because his suggestions are now a part of the national discussion and even if you stick your head in the sand, they will likely impact GOP actions”
What national discussion are you even talking about? How is it sticking your head in the sand by saying that if we’re gonna start praising Rand Paul just because he criticize Obama-no matter what the substance-we have clearly jumped the shark.
Paul’s comments are “part of the national discussion” but it says little for our national discussion. If people like Rand weren’t part of the discussion we could have raised the debt ceiling 3 months ago and talking about something more interesting and relevant to our lives.
Quite honestly by now watching paint dry would be more interesting and relevant to our lives than this ongoing saga.
So if you don’t drink the koolaid on “Rand Paul wants to save SS from Obama” you’re a “shill.” Well then shill must be a good thing because this delusion sure aint.
You Obama-haters are always lectruing on the “fallacy of lesser-evilism” particularly Metamars. Now we are told that the lesser evil is Rand Paul?
This must be 1984 and you must be working for Obrien’s Miniostry of Truth.
2+2=5 and Obama wants to destroy SS but Rand wants to save it
The moon is made out of cheese.
Sure and Rand Paul wants to save it. LOL
What brillinat analysis. Only a shill wouldn’t have your admiration for Paul. Do you see how surreal your logic is?
“Both Rand and Ron Paul are on record as opposing Social Security altogether. Both of these Birchites think Social Security is unconstitutional.”
Right and as they believe it’s unconstitutional it’s doubtful they are trying to save it now or ever.
Ironically the last paragraph where he mentions the credit card, is the wingnut language and Obama is using it.
The rest of it is anti war, butter not guns. Oh, what i would give for a “wing nut” like this.
Obama is on the record wanting to cut Social Security and Rand Paul is on the record not wanting to cut Social Security and you support Obama. MIKE SAX FAVORS CUTTING SOCIAL SECURITY. And he launches personal attacks against people who would prefer not to cut Social Security. LOL
And I engae in “personal attacks” hillarious how flawed your logic is.
“You follow orders well, which are, tie leftist critics of Obama with the Crazy Libertarians. Narrow the choice with voters to either Obamacrat or Republican”
If these were my “orders” you certainly would be making my job easy so I’d be thanking you.
If it is my trying to tie you in with the Crazy Libertarians you are helping me by defending and quoting in approval: these very same Crazy Libertarians.
“Obama is on the record wanting to cut Social Security and Rand Paul is on the record not wanting to cut Social Security and you support Obama. MIKE SAX FAVORS CUTTING SOCIAL SECURITY”
Greatly admire how you bring greater clarity to things by putting it all in caps.
I favor cutting Social Securtiy. LOL. If you can show where I’ve ever said that I’ll joing NPA myself. LOL
This is all you have, nonsensical shrieking.
Where is Rand Paul on the record not wanting to cut SS? Again he believes it is unconstiturional, and he voted for Ryan’s plan.
But your right only Obama wants to cut SS, not the tea partiers. And me it turns out.
Maybe you should join hands with that wonderful tea party woman who declared “Get your filthy government hands off of my Meicare!”