Rand Paul slams Ted Cruz in op-ed

BT, don't forget sucking dick in the men's room at the Sallina bus station...

BT, don't forget sucking dick in the men's room at the Sallina bus station... Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Hanoi Cog's sexual preferences go without saying.

No a Tea Turd wants to cut spending , yet supports every chance they get to enter a war.

They want the government out of their Medicare!

Rand Paul ain't that stupid... Originally Posted by WTF

You can define "TEA Turd" anyway you want to, he's still affiliated with the TEA party! Glad to see that the Austin Reacharound Crew has a good turn out on this thread. You can enjoy another full circle dick to butt courtesy of WTF!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_Paul

In 2010, Paul ran as the Republican candidate for the United States Senate seat being vacated by retiring Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky, defeating Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson in the primary. He subsequently defeated Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway in the general election. A member of the Tea Party movement, he supports term limits, a balanced budget amendment, the Read the Bills Act, and widespread reduction in federal spending and taxation.

How do you spell "moronic buffoon": W-T-F!

How do you spell "dumbass troll?" CBJ7!

WTF, The moronic buffoon, has railed against the TEA party for 4 years and now he supports a member! Hilarious!

I knew it wouldn't take long for the Repukes to start eating their own!

I suspect that next years Repuke debates will be epic.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/0...481.html?hp=f2 Originally Posted by bigtex

You did read this link didn't you bigkotex? I mean its a Politico take on an article written by Rand. The article admits that Rand doesn't mention Cruz.

Nice try. Where's the Politico article saying the TEA party is dead? You can reach around WTF, the TEA Party's newest member, with it.

You did read this link didn't you bigkotex? I mean its a Politico take on an article written by Rand. The article admits that Rand doesn't mention Cruz.

Nice try. Where's the Politico article saying the TEA party is dead? You can reach around WTF, the TEA Party's newest member, with it.

Originally Posted by gnadfly

Thank you!

You can define "TEA Turd" anyway you want to, he's still affiliated with the TEA party! Glad to see that the Austin Reacharound Crew has a good turn out on this thread. You can enjoy another full circle dick to butt courtesy of WTF!



WTF, The moronic buffoon, has railed against the TEA party for 4 years and now he supports a member! Hilarious! Originally Posted by gnadfly

I've railed against stupid wars, stupid military spending and stupid GOP fuckers that don't want the government in their Medicare. As John McCain has tried to say, you dumb TP fuckers need to put all your toys on the table if you want the Democrats to too.

I've railed against stupid wars, stupid military spending and stupid GOP fuckers that don't want the government in their Medicare. As John McCain has tried to say, you dumb TP fuckers need to put all your toys on the table if you want the Democrats to too. Originally Posted by WTF

Nope, you've insulted and did your homosexual projection act on any poster you disagreed with no matter the topic and called them "Tea turds", "Tea Wipes," "Tea Baggers" and whatever sick variation of "TEA" your small mind could come up with. You even continue calling posters on this board TEA names when they admitted they had no affiliation with the movement.

And now you support one for President you self-loathing latent homosexual, racist, hypocritical, moronic buffoon.

Nope, own it moronic buffoon. Don't dodge another cum shot, gulp it up lovingly. You know you want to.

BTW, speaking of putting all "your toys on the table if you want the Democrats to," I think that's been done. Paul Ryan put a budget on the table that touched Social Security. You remember Paul Ryan, he's one of your TEA boys! I believe Obama and the Democratic Party laughed at him and tried to portray his budget as killing old people even though it was stated it didn't affect anyone currently on SS. Please point me to were you backed your TEA boy Paul Ryan's proposal then?

Admit it, WTF is latent homo and TEA Partier. C'mon we all know it's true.



Where did all your Austin Reacharound Crew go to on this thread?

Admit it, WTF is latent homo and TEA Partier. C'mon we all know it's true. Originally Posted by gnadfly

The only person(s) that would know it to be true would be a cocksucker who has sucked my dick. Have you sucked my dick gnad?

BTW, speaking of putting all "your toys on the table if you want the Democrats to," I think that's been done. Paul Ryan put a budget on the table that touched Social Security. You remember Paul Ryan, he's one of your TEA boys! I believe Obama and the Democratic Party laughed at him and tried to portray his budget as killing old people even though it was stated it didn't affect anyone currently on SS. Please point me to were you backed your TEA boy Paul Ryan's proposal then?

? Originally Posted by gnadfly

He did not put up a plan about SS, he proposed a plan effecting Medicare and Medicaid. And there was a reason I did not support it....He did not say which tax breaks he would do away with among other slight of hands...





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Path_to_Prosperity



Michael Hiltzik in the LA Times says there's no reason to believe that Ryan's proposals will do anything to reduce healthcare costs in the U.S., and reason to believe they would do the opposite.[41]
Henry Aaron, one of two economists who coined the term "premium support" in response to criticisms of health care vouchers,[42] states that the Republican plan for Medicare uses vouchers, not "premium support".[43] The defining attribute of the plans that Aaron christened "premium support" was that governmental financial support would rise with average health care costs. The Republican plan instead has this support rising with the consumer price index (general inflation). This difference is crucial to understanding the Republican proposal, as the cost of health care is rising much faster than the consumer price index.[43]
The vouchers would rise in value with the consumer price index (general inflation), but as medical expenses have been rising much faster than the consumer price index, the value of the government subsidy would erode over time. When the program begins in 2022, the typical 65-year old would be responsible for about 25% of the cost of their healthcare, which is consistent with Medicare as it exists today. However, the share paid out-of-pocket by this typical 65-year-old in 2030 would be 68% under the Republican plan, according to the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office.[23]
Ryan claimed that his new Medicare plan was modeled after the health care plans that Congressmen themselves currently receive.[39] Others point out that Members of Congress have what is called a "fair-share deal" as they do not bear the entire risk of increased costs because of health care inflation. The health care plan that Members of Congress use indexes benefits to health care inflation, not the consumer price index.[44] As health care becomes more expensive due to inflation, the government, not Members of Congress, are responsible for most of the extra costs.
Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee Kent Conrad, a Democrat from North Dakota, told NPR's Morning Edition that the reductions in Medicare spending would be "draconian". He also faulted the effort for not including cuts to defense spending and tax increases, which Hoyer argued must be part of any serious budgetary reform.[34]


James Fallows, a Democrat, former speechwriter for Jimmy Carter, and national correspondent for The Atlantic, panned the proposal. He wrote:

A plan that proposes to eliminate tax loopholes and deductions, but doesn't say what any of those are, is neither brave nor serious. It is, instead canny—or cynical, take your pick. The reality is that many of these deductions, notably for home-mortgage interest payments, are popular and therefore risky to talk about eliminating. [Bold in original][47]

Effects on States and Localities[edit]

On August 8, 2012 the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), a non-partisan think tank, released a comprehensive study detailing how Paul Ryan's budget plan would affect state and local government. The study concluded that the plan would force states and localities to cut services drastically, due to the substantial cuts in federal funding they would receive. The largest cut in funding from the federal government would be Medicaid funding. The plan cuts federal funding for the federal-state Medicaid program by 34% by 2022, and by steadily larger amounts in years after that. For services such as education, law enforcement, water treatment, and disaster response, states would lose over $247 billion in federal funding from 2013-2021. The plan also would cut federal funding for state and local transportation and infrastructure projects by $194 billion through 2021. By 2021, the plan would reduce discretionary state and local grants to an estimate 0.6% of GDP, which is less than half the average of the last 35 years. The study also concluded that the plan would hurt economic recovery and job growth by forcing layoffs at the state and local levels of government. The plan may also result in higher taxes at the state and local levels, to help offset the cuts in federal aid.[52]

The only person(s) that would know it to be true would be a cocksucker who has sucked my dick. Have you sucked my dick gnad? Originally Posted by WTF

In order for Turdy to do so, you would first have to get LL's out of his mouth!

He did not put up a plan about SS, he proposed a plan effecting Medicare and Medicaid. Originally Posted by WTF

...you are cum dodging again WTF. Go ahead and lap it up.

You said that the TEA partiers weren't putting items on the table. I proved you wrong (again).

Also from the article you quoted:
The plan would privatize a portion of Social Security,[20][21] eliminate the tax exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance,[21] and privatize Medicare.

I asked where your support was? After all, they put items on the table. It was one of your TEA breathren!

The moronic buffoon criticizes the TEA party, doesn't remember what a member did but bitches to the moon about "Bush's Wars" that the Democrats voted for. What a moronic buffoon.

BigKotex is a known quantity idiot and charter member of the Austin Reacharound Crew. Better reach WTF back into the circle jerk BT, he's going rogue with a TEA partier! If Hillary can't depend on the ARC who can she depend on?

Gnad, I just have one criticism. Calling WPF a "moronic buffoon" is insulting to all moronic buffoons. Even BigAss would be insulted if he was able understand anything that goes on here. Other than that, good work!

...
Also from the article you quoted:
The plan would privatize a portion of Social Security,[20][21] eliminate the tax exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance,[21] and privatize Medicare.

. Originally Posted by gnadfly

You need to wipe my cum out of your eye's and start reading the fine print a tad better...Cutting taxes on the rich and raising it on the middle class was not something I'd support and certainly not something I would say was putting something on the table. Unless you call cutting taxes for the rich something on the table. .

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...g-on-it/37364/
Massive, across the board tax cuts. (Cue the familiar arguments about the tax code's progressivity and significant tax process simplification.) To balance out the revenue streams, Ryan would impose an 8.5% business consumption tax, which would, in theory, place more of a burden on middle class families than the rich, as the taxes would get passed along to consumers. Overall, it seems as if the rich would pay much less than they ordinarily would, and middle class families would pay more -- even though they'd pay less income tax.

Ryan endorses a version of President Bush's partial privitization of Social Security, giving younger Americans the option of investing as much as a third of their money, and filling the multi-trillion dollar transition gap that would result by using general revenue. In other words, the rest of the government budget might have to be significantly cut in order to allow Social Security to be saved. (Ryan says this isn't necessarily true.) The CBO concluded that "traditional retirement benefits would be reduced below those scheduled under current law for many workers who are age 55 or younger in 2011." Benefits for current retirees would stay the same.

Rand tells you Tea Turkeys to be more inclusive.....but you won't listen to him. He is not one of you. He has a brain.


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/rand-pau...ore-inclusive/

Gnad, I just have one criticism. Calling WPF a "moronic buffoon" is insulting to all moronic buffoons. Even BigAss would be insulted if he was able understand anything that goes on here. Other than that, good work!

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

STFU old man, you wouldn't know a "moronic buffoon" unless it fucked you in the butt.

You need to wipe my cum out of your eye's and start reading the fine print a tad better...Cutting taxes on the rich and raising it on the middle class was not something I'd support and certainly not something I would say was putting something on the table. Unless you call cutting taxes for the rich something on the table. Originally Posted by WTF

You need to stick with lapping up one pool of cum before you move on to the next.

You are just changing the subject...again.

The fact is that you are supporting someone affiliated with the TEA party after years of degrading them. What a moronic buffoon.