Senator Paul rejects Republican doctrine, says cuts in military spending are necessary

[scandal 951]

Paul also said it may be necessary to raise the retirement age to rein in federal spending: “You may have to. They're already talking about it. I mean, there's a bipartisan commission up here talking about raising age, graduating the benefits, maybe having means testing. You have to look at all of these things. They need to be on the table.”

He's absolutely right about this. It's unavoidable that the entitlement programs need to be restructured. Everyone knows it and has known it for years. They're all just too chickenshit scared of the AARP and senior citizen voters to do anything about it. Good to hear some clarity on the subject even if it is from a crackpot.

[mawilson 2,133]

We have that now, with the current administration's "Czars", if you haven't noticed.

The so-called "czars" are just another boogeyman the media created to scare us with.

At least the "Car Czar" rhymed with "car", all the other "czars" had no rhyme or reason.

They are nothing more than special envoys or special advisers to the President -

something all presidents had. Some of them are executive branch officials directing

agencies that have long existed in the executive branch - again, nothing new.

How many Czars did President Bush have?

[scandal 951]

He's absolutely right about this. It's unavoidable that the entitlement programs need to be restructured. Everyone knows it and has known it for years. They're all just too chickenshit scared of the AARP and senior citizen voters to do anything about it. Good to hear some clarity on the subject even if it is from a crackpot.

Well, clearly Jim DeMint still knows that he's supposed to run scared of the AARP. Here's a quote from his interview with David Gregory on MTP this morning:

SEN. DeMINT: Well, no, we're not talking about cuts in Social Security. If we can just cut the administrative waste, we can cut hundreds of billions of dollars a year at the federal level. So before we start cutting--I mean, we need to keep our promises to seniors, David, and cutting benefits to seniors is not on the table.

"Hundreds of billons" in administrative waste :dance: The loons are as loonie as ever! Even Mitch McConnell realizes that without hitting Entitlements there is no meaningful cost cutting.

[luckytxn 2,265]

what's funny, is when Ron Paul says this people get all upset/angry..... When Rand says it, it's ok.

either way, he's right.

You are right. The main thing is that the GOP does not agree and did all they could to destroy Ron. They also tried to stop Rand but failed. They are now just going to try to co opt at first and if that fails they will just marginalize him. The frigging RINO's are banding together and they have a lot of power and money on their side to win in the long run.

[Dan J 277]

He's absolutely right about this. It's unavoidable that the entitlement programs need to be restructured. Everyone knows it and has known it for years. They're all just too chickenshit scared of the AARP and senior citizen voters to do anything about it. Good to hear some clarity on the subject even if it is from a crackpot.

The age has already been raised. It was done in 1983. It will be 67 for people born after 1959, but it will be several years yet before they begin to retire.

But just raising the retirement age is not going to be enough to close the social security gap. Increasing the cap on income taxable for social security and changes to the benefits structure will also have to be done. As well as finding ways for those at or near retirement to continue to contribute to the economy, although that might affect the ability for young workers to become a part of the economy.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The age has already been raised. It was done in 1983. It will be 67 for people born after 1959, but it will be several years yet before they begin to retire.

But just raising the retirement age is not going to be enough to close the social security gap. Increasing the cap on income taxable for social security and changes to the benefits structure will also have to be done. As well as finding ways for those at or near retirement to continue to contribute to the economy, although that might affect the ability for young workers to become a part of the economy.

It started kicking in earlier than that, back in 2003 for those born in 1938, who had to wait an extra two months to retire with full benefits.

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/retire2/agereduction.htm

[Dan J 277]

It started kicking in earlier than that, back in 2003 for those born in 1938, who had to wait an extra two months to retire with full benefits.

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/retire2/agereduction.htm

I know, there were two age increases, one that started to take effect in 2000 (Retirement at 66), other will probably take effect around 2027 (Retirement at 67).

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I know, there were two age increases, one that started to take effect in 2000 (Retirement at 66), other will probably take effect around 2027 (Retirement at 67).

Nope. It's phased in with a sliding scale. Check the link.

[DEDixon 39]

bring the troops home and use part of the savings to beef up our borders to keep illegals out. afghanistan? let europe deal with it.

[mawilson 2,133]

He's absolutely right about this. It's unavoidable that the entitlement programs need to be restructured. Everyone knows it and has known it for years. They're all just too chickenshit scared of the AARP and senior citizen voters to do anything about it. Good to hear some clarity on the subject even if it is from a crackpot.

I don't think that's necessarily true. After all, the Social Security trust fund has a

$2.5 trillion surplus. Where is it, you ask? Gone, poof. Still, the program can

operate in the black for some time, if we can put a real lock on the lock box (i.e. no

"investments" in US government debt.)

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I don't think that's necessarily true. After all, the Social Security trust fund has a $2.5 trillion surplus. Where is it, you ask? Gone, poof. Still, the program can operate in the black for some time, if we can put a real lock on the lock box (i.e. no

"investments" in US government debt.)

But you have to invest the funds somewhere. And you better invest them somewhere safe. Not loaning the funds to anyone (i.e. locking the lock box) would be the equivalent of stuffing the money into one giant mattress. That's not the best strategy, is it?

[mawilson 2,133]

But you have to invest the funds somewhere. And you better invest them somewhere safe.

That money is lost, never to be paid back without additional tax revenue. Anything beats zero.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

That money is lost, never to be paid back without additional tax revenue. Anything beats zero.

It's not really lost. Not any more so than it would have been had it been borrowed from other sources. The issue isn't so much investing SSF in US debt but the spending that the apparent abundance of funds from the social security fund over the past few decades has spurred w/o anyone clearly thinking about that bill coming due eventually.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

That money is lost, never to be paid back without additional tax revenue. Anything beats zero.

By law, there is are only three options for the funds:

1) Pay additional benefits

2) Buy Treasury Bonds

3) Refund excess to Taxpayers

But, since this year revenues are less than what is being paid in benefits, the issue is mute.

Edited November 8, 2010 by ##########

[mawilson 2,133]

It's not really lost. Not any more so than it would have been had it been borrowed from other sources. The issue isn't so much investing SSF in US debt but the spending that the apparent abundance of funds from the social security fund over the past few decades has spurred w/o anyone clearly thinking about that bill coming due eventually.

Let's say you have some money in your bank account. Instead of spending the money (because

that would be irresponsible, right), you decide to "borrow" it from yourself and promise to

pay it back with interest. You use the money to finance your lavish lifestyle and feel

good about it because you haven't really spent it - after all, you *will* pay it back with

interest, so you're actually "making money" on your investment. You keep doing it for about

20 years and now the money is gone. What's worse, you just got a pay cut and don't make

as much as you did 10 years ago. Still, when asked, you brag about a "surplus" in your bank

account. And of course you still intend to pay it back.

See the problem with that line of thinking?