Comments on: Senate Votes Down 5-Year Balanced Budget Plan

By: commonsenseobserver

commonsenseobserver — Sat, 19 May 2012 09:36:38 +0000

I think it received more votes than both the Lee and Paul budgets. I think that it has a time frame of 8 years, which would place the budget on course to be balanced by 2020, earlier than the Ryan budget, but not as quickly as the Paul or Lee budgets.

By: Dave_A

Dave_A — Sat, 19 May 2012 05:10:28 +0000

Rand’s failure is required as well as his father’s, for safety’s sake.

Their ideology is simply that dangerous, it must be stomped out…

No matter who we have to primary him out with, come the end of his term.

He has to go. The disease has to be cut out once and for all….

By: Dave_A

Dave_A — Sat, 19 May 2012 05:08:12 +0000

5 years is way, way too fast. And I’m going to guess – as it’s a Paul budget – that must of the cuts come from the wrong places (Defense, Intellegence, etc)….

Ryan’s budget uses a more reasonable time frame.

By: Dave_A

Dave_A — Sat, 19 May 2012 05:06:57 +0000

would smash the economy into little bitty pieces…

House values would drop further.

Wages would drop

Meanwhile everyone would still owe the same amount of debt…

And BTW, balancing the budget wouldn’t do much to change the value of the dollar – the money supply would still stay the same size….

We can reduce the rate of inflation, but REVERSING IT – deflating – is economic suicide.

By: Flagstaff

Flagstaff — Fri, 18 May 2012 00:24:35 +0000

This is really stupid.

I can accept various bills to achieve some of the goals of the unlamented Obamacare. As long as they destroy it and start over.

But what is the point of not supporting this? They would know it wasn’t going to get out of the Senate, so why not make a statement even if they didn’t like some of it?

Was this a shot across Ron Paul’s bow? Call off your terriers if you want Rand to succeed? I can almost guarantee that’s what the Paulindromes will be saying as soon as they think of it.

By: garfieldjl

garfieldjl — Thu, 17 May 2012 21:20:11 +0000

I will give kudos for Rand Paul actually suggesting a potential solution though.

I will also point out that Senator Kirk from Illinois had been hospitalized due to a serious health issue (I think it was a stroke) a while back, not sure if he is back in Washington DC yet, so he has a valid excuse to not vote one way or the other on this.

It is also surprising that McConnell voted in favor of this, anyways I don’t know what all was in Rand Paul’s proposal, so I’m not going to accuse any Republicans that voted against his plan of not being serious about dealing with our debt problems until I have more information.

I’m not surprised the Democrats voted enmasse against it, I don’t know what it is (maybe something in their drinking water), but Democrats that go to Washington often start going off the deep end into irrational liberalism.

By: APA Guy

APA Guy — Thu, 17 May 2012 18:23:23 +0000

The dollar would firm up…especially since the currency it is matched against, the Euro, is set to sink like a rock. That means commodities priced in dollars – like oil – would similarly sink in price.

It’s common-sense economics…but then again, I don’t expect the D.C establishment to give a rip. Solving a colossal problem means they can’t whine about that colossal problem in the months leading to Election Day.

And so it goes…