Ron Paul announced Presidential plan today

[Synthaholic]

Paul would also abolish the Transportation Security Administration, leaving security at airports and other transportation systems up to the private sector.

Fuck that! We have another airliner infiltration, everyone sues the private firm running security, they go under, their insurance company gets another bailout from the taxpayers.

I don't want my security in the hands of incompetent, profit-driven corporations.

Don't fly. You don't have a right to travel by airplane.

In my scenario, I would still be paying for the insurance company bailout, whether I fly or not.

 

[auditor0007]

While it's nice to finally see a GOP candidate put forth a plan with serious back up attached, Ron Paul's plan is bat shit crazy. A good education would become a luxury of those who could afford one. States would be allowed to pollute other states with no recourse. Unemployment would go up. Income inequality would go up. The number of uninsured would go up. We would be positioned to have another asset bubble.

And worst of all, we would have no national security plan when it comes to energy independence or airport security.

Bat. Shit. Crazy.

I could see making cuts in all these departments, but Ron Paul's ideas go to the extremes. This is why he is not a tangible candidate. Yes, we could dump the Department of Education. As for the others, dumping them completely would lead to nothing but massive problems, as you stated. Education could be left to the individual states.

 

[WatertheTree]

Who says they are incompetent? And the U.S. government isn't going to go bankrupt and disappear, only to resurface unscathed as a new company.

Nanny state needin scumbag. So eager to take tax dollars and use them to subsidize the airline company's.

Your line of thinking is fucking flawed. Do you think the government should be paying for security at roller skating rinks, cause occasionally violence happens there to. Or how about security at the malls?

Fucking make me sick with socialist comments like that. Government providing security for the private sector is nothing short of welfare for business, and we cant afford it anymore.

Another low-information voter! Just what USMB needs!

Yea and your just another neocon that has problems with helping the population but has no problem with giving tax dollars to a corporation based upon a manufactured need that simply doesnt exist.

In other news, what says the Herman Cain crowd about Ron Paul calling him out in this video????
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKl0YIDTBfw&feature=player_embedded]Ron Paul "Because Of Overseas Spending Last 10 Years Our National Debt Went Up 4 Trillion Dollars!" - YouTube[/ame]

You know things are bad when Ron Paul starts bashing you around.

 

[pgm]

Avorysuds, do you have any thoughts to my thoughts on page 2? If I don't get a reply other than "SSSHUUUUDDDDUUUPP!!!!" from waterthetree, then my reply was a complete waste.

 

[DontBeStupid]

The good doctor has the cure. Go get em Dr. Paul!

Yeah. He plans to bleed the patient with leeches.

I still haven't seen anyone supporting Ron Paul's plan. Why not? Why can't you show us how we are better off with no DoE and no EPA? Why aren't you cheering about privatizing national security?

Seriously, if the plan is so great, then explain to us why it's so great.

 

[WatertheTree]

Avorysuds, do you have any thoughts to my thoughts on page 2? If I don't get a reply other than "SSSHUUUUDDDDUUUPP!!!!" from waterthetree, then my reply was a complete waste.

On the simplistic breakdown first:
*Cutting $1 trillion in one year will hurt a lot. I'm not saying it's not a good thing in the long run, but it'll certainly be bad in the short run. If a business that spent a trillion dollars a year suddenly stopped spending that money, it would have a huge ripple effect on the world economy. Still, it's a scary thought that so many are dependent on one thing (no matter how you feel about the role of government), so making the economy more independent from big government is a good idea. I just wouldn't do the transition in one year (especially right now).
*Cutting regulation should make up for some of the negative effects of cutting spending. You won't reduce the costs of regulation to make up 1 trillion dollars, but it'll certainly help.
*The bully pulpit has not proven itself at all effective in at least George Bush or Barack Obama's presidencies. Bush tried it on his social security reform and failed. Obama is trying it with his jobs bill and it is not yet doing anything. I don't see Ron Paul as having a better ability to bully Congress into action.
*The power of the veto may work better because Paul will obviously use it in a consistent and principled way. It could just end up with nothing happening at all, however, unless 2/3s of Congress can come up with a compromise that isn't what Paul wants.
*Changing entitlement spending to block grants could be good because it will create competition on who can come up with the best plan. But it also might hurt people as states could be more interested in cutting costs than providing the best service.
*Cutting the federal workforce by 10% is definitely good as a long-term goal, but it'll certainly hurt the economy by massively increasing unemployment.
*He can't cut the pay of Congress in one year. He can have Congress change the pay for the second two years.
*I support the idea of a $40K/year presidential salary. The President does have tons of expenses (he has to pay for food, including the meals by the White House chef). Supposedly, the President has $50K/year in expenses. But the President can learn to spend less.
*Moving the capital gains tax to zero will definitely help investment. But it'll help the people who make their income off of capital gains far, far more. I could question the fairness of it, but instead I'll question whether it could be distortionary to favor investment income far more than other income. It'll spur growth, but it could also increase risk.
OK, that's all on this.

I think the biggest thing here is that your concerned about what effects cutting 1 trillion in spending will have on the economy. Its a legitimate question.

Much of the spending is cuts from oversea's spending and military spending. While there would be immeadiate loss of jobs amongst military contractors it will more then be made up with job creation ignited by military servicepeople stimulating our economy instead of afganistans.

With regards to layoffs of government workforce the plan calls for attrition:

a gradual reduction in work force without firing of personnel, as when workers resign or retire and are not replaced.

What this means is that essentially the effects will not be immeadiate, but rather as people quit, or retire they will simply not be replaced. Or think of it that government is simply not hiring untill the workforce is reduced.

Any other questions you have about the trillion can be referenced in my signature.

Passing the buck is what we have been doing since Obama took office. Its expensive to pass the buck and only makes our situation worse. Its time to get our act in order and start taking responsability for ourselves. Both on a personel level and on a government level.

 

[Avorysuds]

The good doctor has the cure. Go get em Dr. Paul!

Yeah. He plans to bleed the patient with leeches.

I still haven't seen anyone supporting Ron Paul's plan. Why not? Why can't you show us how we are better off with no DoE and no EPA? Why aren't you cheering about privatizing national security?

Seriously, if the plan is so great, then explain to us why it's so great.

Maybe we will have to wait untill a debate... Most people don't pay as much attention to policties as people that go the political forums.

 

[pgm]

I think the biggest thing here is that your concerned about what effects cutting 1 trillion in spending will have on the economy. Its a legitimate question.

Much of the spending is cuts from oversea's spending and military spending. While there would be immeadiate loss of jobs amongst military contractors it will more then be made up with job creation ignited by military servicepeople stimulating our economy instead of afganistans.

That's true. I think it would be logistically tough to cut such spending in a year and may have tons of unintended consequences. But I might be wrong. I'm just cautious about such massive changes in such a short period of time. I would be less pessimistic if this were a 10-year or even 4-year reduction in spending. If it took 60 years to get to this point (or at least 10 years from the last primary budget surplus), I'm not sure it's wise to try to get everything done in one year.

The other concern I have is I think a lack of economic growth is a bigger concern than overspending. I don't think massive cuts in government spending is wise until the economy is moving again.

With regards to layoffs of government workforce the plan calls for attrition:

a gradual reduction in work force without firing of personnel, as when workers resign or retire and are not replaced.

What this means is that essentially the effects will not be immeadiate, but rather as people quit, or retire they will simply not be replaced. Or think of it that government is simply not hiring untill the workforce is reduced.

Ah, I see that now. I missed that the first time. If you gradually reduce the role of the federal government with the size of the federal workforce, this makes a lot of sense. Otherwise, by freezing pay and increasing workload, you'll force out all the competent people who are left (and there are actually many).

Any other questions you have about the trillion can be referenced in my signature.

I understand the analogy of it. Although, I wouldn't call it all (or any of it) credit card debt as the interest rate is way lower. It's closer to a mortgage. I can't think of any credit card that is only charging .3% interest with no credit limit.

Also, if much of that $38K was not discretionary spending for my family, I would try to look for ways to increase my family's income (a second job, for example).

Passing the buck is what we have been doing since Obama took office. Its expensive to pass the buck and only makes our situation worse. Its time to get our act in order and start taking responsability for ourselves. Both on a personel level and on a government level.

Passing the buck started long, long before Obama took office (as Ron Paul will certainly tell you). I wouldn't even say it's gotten worse under Obama since he had a greater reason to not cut spending due to the depressed economy and he has already negotiated/been forced to accept massive government cuts already.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Something didn't seem right about the numbers so I took a second look and sure enough.

Q2 of 2011, our GDP was $15T. Paul's plan projects that GDP will be $16.182 by the end of 2013. That's a 7.88% increase, which is a lot, but over a year half, certainly possible. Of course, Government spending is part of GDP, and Paul's plan is to cut Government spending by $1T. Paul's plan is to lower our GDP to $14T and THEN grow it to $16.182 by 2013. In that case, it's a 15.5% increase! Unheard of in modern times.

It's just as bad in the following years. Paul projects GDP to be $17.483T at the end of 2014. That's an 8% increase in one year! And it doesn't stop. He projects a 7% increase for 2015 and a 5.4% increase in 2016. These are unheard of numbers for that stretch of time. No economist would project that, and certainly not after cutting $1T from GDP.

Paul's plan is pure fantasy.

 

[Avorysuds]

Something didn't seem right about the numbers so I took a second look and sure enough.

Q2 of 2011, our GDP was $15T. Paul's plan projects that GDP will be $16.182 by the end of 2013. That's a 7.88% increase, which is a lot, but over a year half, certainly possible. Of course, Government spending is part of GDP, and Paul's plan is to cut Government spending by $1T. Paul's plan is to lower our GDP to $14T and THEN grow it to $16.182 by 2013. In that case, it's a 15.5% increase! Unheard of in modern times.

It's just as bad in the following years. Paul projects GDP to be $17.483T at the end of 2014. That's an 8% increase in one year! And it doesn't stop. He projects a 7% increase for 2015 and a 5.4% increase in 2016. These are unheard of numbers for that stretch of time. No economist would project that, and certainly not after cutting $1T from GDP.

Paul's plan is pure fantasy.

Or we could do it your way, the Obama way and make Predictions that literally are
opposite of what happens then trash anyone that offers we stop the insanity. Yeah, Government spending is part of all that % you talk about but it's fake, false, adds to debt abd deficits... Anyone could come in and claim more spending will get the numbers up, but what do you do when that money runs out? Oh I know, you propose a 450 billion stimulus and rename it a "jobs bill," just enough to get Obama top elections then we crash again...


Here is Obama before he sold you out.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaQUU2ZL6D8]Obama will cut deficit in half FEB 2009 - YouTube[/ame]

Before 2008 Obama was a Ron Paul budget supporter. Today Obama is a fucked up retarded clone of Bush.

 

[WatertheTree]

Something didn't seem right about the numbers so I took a second look and sure enough.

Q2 of 2011, our GDP was $15T. Paul's plan projects that GDP will be $16.182 by the end of 2013. That's a 7.88% increase, which is a lot, but over a year half, certainly possible. Of course, Government spending is part of GDP, and Paul's plan is to cut Government spending by $1T. Paul's plan is to lower our GDP to $14T and THEN grow it to $16.182 by 2013. In that case, it's a 15.5% increase! Unheard of in modern times.

It's just as bad in the following years. Paul projects GDP to be $17.483T at the end of 2014. That's an 8% increase in one year! And it doesn't stop. He projects a 7% increase for 2015 and a 5.4% increase in 2016. These are unheard of numbers for that stretch of time. No economist would project that, and certainly not after cutting $1T from GDP.

Paul's plan is pure fantasy.

never ceaces to amaze me how people who know jack shit can trash talk anything.

 

[WatertheTree]

Something didn't seem right about the numbers so I took a second look and sure enough.

Q2 of 2011, our GDP was $15T. Paul's plan projects that GDP will be $16.182 by the end of 2013. That's a 7.88% increase, which is a lot, but over a year half, certainly possible. Of course, Government spending is part of GDP, and Paul's plan is to cut Government spending by $1T. Paul's plan is to lower our GDP to $14T and THEN grow it to $16.182 by 2013. In that case, it's a 15.5% increase! Unheard of in modern times.

It's just as bad in the following years. Paul projects GDP to be $17.483T at the end of 2014. That's an 8% increase in one year! And it doesn't stop. He projects a 7% increase for 2015 and a 5.4% increase in 2016. These are unheard of numbers for that stretch of time. No economist would project that, and certainly not after cutting $1T from GDP.

Paul's plan is pure fantasy.

When you got an economics degree or have 30 years of study like Ron Paul then you can speak, untill then shut the fuck up.