Comment: Let us look at the

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: The fact that almost (see in situ)

Let us look at the

Let us look at the facts:

"Also, I suspect what you are doing is going to in-fact raise taxes. You've gotten rid of a lot of loopholes that kept tax burdens down for a lot of people. Doing some quick math, he'd increase income tax revenue to 1.6 trillion. That is higher than it is today..."

So, take the approx. 138 million taxpayers that filed in 2011. Then take the 13 trillion in personal income earned in that same year. You lose about 4.4 trillion of that to Rand's exemption. Then, take the rest and multiply by .017. One gets 1.45 trillion, and remember, these are 2011 numbers. For 2013, they'd be about 1.6, if not more, as that is a conservative estimation.

"'In ours we go ahead and eliminate some departments. We eliminate the Department of Education, most of the Department of Energy, most of the Department of Commerce.'

He's saving what, 120 billion here? Big whoop!"

Dept. of Energy is 71 billion, Energy is 35 billion, and Commerce is 9 billion. That is 115 billion, or rounded up, 120 billion. Plus, I doubt that Rand is going to cut Pell grants, which he has supported in the past.

"Social Security is a program DESIGNED to give you less than what you paid in."

Yup. Check out Social Security's own website on the treasury, and do the mat from your own contributions. Plenty of studies have backed this up.

"And where is the waste? It is a simple program."

10 billion in administrative costs, managing nearly 800 billion. That is only slightly over 1%....

"MediCAID is more efficient than PRIVATE healthcare (they have to be since they have a much more fixed revenue); I'd wager that Medicare is fairly efficient as well."



"It is hard to compare with private insurance since Medicare covers a different patient population, which is why I compared Medicaid to private care."

Obviously. Medicare is for those over 65. Private insurance covers everybody.

"You paid into your SS, you are entitled to it. When you reduce payouts, your simply retroactively taxing people."

What about this is untrue? The fact that you don't like it doesn't make it untrue...

"'His plan for Medicare allows every senior citizen to have the same health plan that congress does.'

This I cannot prove, but bull-freaking-shit. Congress's healthcare plan is so freaking way Medicare will ever come close."

Again, if you can prove this statement wrong, go ahead. I would be very surprised if Congress had a modest healthcare plan...I'm not even going to take the time to do the research!

"Social Security is fine. Maybe stop borrowing off it, and stop trying to hid your THEFT by reducing obligations."

Again, truth.

"Government spending doesn't create jobs, tax cuts don't create jobs. The facts are in. Opportunity creates jobs...companies, businesses, and individuals are not not creating jobs because they lack money (look how cheap money is to borrow, and look how low credit demand is), they're not creating jobs because they don't need to. They don't see the ability to expand business, and/or they're still trying to get the mistakes they made in the last decade off the books."

There are numerous STUDIES that show this. And it make sense. With money being so cheap, if the private sector saw places to invest in, they would invest already. Corporations are sitting on PILES of cash. They don't see the opportunity out there...cutting taxes won't solve anything.

Companies spend money when they NEED to spend money, not just because they have it.

"Cut taxes because its the right thing to do; let people keep their money if we can manage it."

Truth. At least, for me.

"But don't sell it as a jobs package."

Which is what Rand is doing.

"That is what Obama did."

That is exactly how Obama sold the stimulus plan, which, BTW, included a 300 billion dollar tax cut.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:


Specific cuts; defense spending: