ron Paul's budget will cut 1 trillion dollars

1. 67

   SparklingJewelposted 12 years ago

   ...within his first three years as president
   
   hopefully they will run the numbers and see if it is so...
   
   http://www.politico.com/news/stories/10 … z1b2aMmbbo

   replyreport
   1. 89

      SimeyCposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I always have a problem with any politician who promises to cut trillions from the budget. They all make these kind of statements before being elected and then end up not doing a thing. In fact I never believe anyone's pre-election promises...
      
      Remember Bush's famous 'tax' statement?
      In the last election both Obama and McCain promised to reduce the taxes of the middle-class and put $100s of dollars in their pockets - what they really meant was that they would re-enact the Bush taxes so the middle-class were not taxed more - so the expected $100s of money in their pockets was not extra - but was simply money they didn't take away.
      
      Promises mean absolutely nothing - until they are in office they cannot do anything - and as we have found - even when in office it becomes almost impossible to really achieve anything with bi-partisan support - and we all know how that one works!

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Ron Paul has openly said the exact same thing.
         
         He's different. Here are the reasons why:
         
         In his 30+ year record in Congress....
         
         He has never voted to raise taxes.
         He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
         He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
         He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
         He has never taken a government-paid junket.
         He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
         
         He voted against the Patriot Act.
         He voted against regulating the Internet.
         He voted against the Iraq war.
         
         He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
         He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

         replyreport
   2. 0

      SeanBabinposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Deleted
      1. 73

         Quilligrapherposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Hey there, Sean.  Welcome to Hubpages.  Good luck with your hubs.
         
         You call the media biased. Is that because they are not celebrating your list of straw poll victories?  Perhaps there is another reason for not treating Mr. Paul as a front runner. According to the Washington Post, "Straw polls generally have little predictive value, as evidenced by the fact that longshot candidates keep winning them. Paul just won one in California; Santorum just won another in Pennsylvania. Even the higher-profile straw polls should be taken with a big grain of salt. Bachmann's Ames Straw Poll win might have been her high point in the race." (1)
         
         Then there are still other considerations. First, his stated position on some foreign policy matters is not in step with the GOP as a whole.  Nor will his opposition to the fed encourage financial support from the power brokers controlling the big bucks.  And finally, if elected in 2012, he will be 77 years old in the first year of his administration and 85 years old after two terms. Faced with these realities, his vice-presidential running mate becomes far more important than his campaign promises because they will never see daylight with the support and consent of about 530 self-serving members of congress.
         
         I sincerely wish you and your candidate good luck, Sean, but I hope you have a backup plan.
         
         
         References:
         (1)http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the … _blog.html

         replyreport
2. 76

   lovemychrisposted 12 years ago

   They can cut trillions by simply rescending(sp) the Bush era tax cuts for the Uber rich!

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      If you look at it, tax revenue really isn't the problem.
      
      Spending is clearly the problem if you bother to look at tax revenue vs. spending over the past 40 years.
      
      This video shows it:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXm4j2ORYcg

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Smart Rookieposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Tax revenues as a percentage of the economy are very low, as the video shows. The population is growing and getting older, we're at war. Unemployment is in Great Depression era levels.
         
         Maybe the Government spends too much money in areas that are wasteful, such as war. But during a time when more people are needing social services, less spending is only going to make a bad situation worse. What we really need is more revenue, so the best idea is to roll back the top marginal tax rate to 94%, as it was in 1944:
         
         http://www.businessinsider.com/facts-ab … 11-11?op=1

         replyreport
3. 84

   kerrygposted 12 years ago

   Ugh, very mixed. Here's a link to the actual plan, by the way: http://c3244172.r72.cf0.rackcdn.com/wp- … caPlan.pdf
   
   "eliminating 5 cabinet departments (Energy, HUD, Commerce, Interior, and
   Education), abolishing the Transportation Security Administration and returning responsibility for security to private property owners,"
   
   More details please. What's he going to do, sell Yellowstone?
   
   "abolishing corporate subsidies, ending foreign wars"
   
   These two I like.
   
   "stopping foreign aid"
   
   Mixed feelings. I am all for stopping subsidies, for example, to the Israeli Army, but cutting programs like family planning and literacy to poor countries that can't afford to run such programs themselves will save us very, very little money, proportionally (less than 1% of the federal budget), and do much more harm than good in the long run.
   
   "Honors our promise to our seniors and veterans, while allowing young workers to opt out."
   
   Allowing or forcing?
   
   "Block grants Medicaid and other welfare programs to allow States the flexibility and ingenuity they need to solve their own unique problems without harming those currently relying on the programs."
   
   Can't parse this sentence. Help?
   
   "Makes a 10% reduction in the federal workforce, slashes Congressional pay and perks, and curbs excessive federal travel. To stand with the American
   People, President Paul will take a salary of $39,336, approximately equal to the median personal income of the American worker."
   
   Works for me.
   
   "Lowers the corporate tax rate to 15%,"
   
   Does it also close the loopholes that allow so many corporations to get away with paying 0%?
   
   "Allows American companies to repatriate capital without additional taxation, spurring trillions in new investment."
   
   "Additional" taxation? I thought the point of tax havens was to avoid paying taxes in the first place? If we're going to give them amnesty, it had better be a temporary one!
   
   "Extends all Bush tax cuts."
   
   Ugh, dnw.
   
   "Abolishes the Death Tax."
   
   Another giveaway to the 1%. Just what they need.
   
   "Ends taxes on personal savings, allowing families to build a nest egg."
   
   This one sounds better, though.
   
   "Repeals ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank, and Sarbanes-Oxley."
   
   Depends on whether he repeals them completely or trashes the stupid parts and keeps the parts that make sense.
   
   "Mandates REINS-style requirements for thorough congressional review and authorization before implementing any new regulations issued by
   bureaucrats."
   
   Not sure.
   
   "President Paul will also cancel all onerous regulations previously issued by Executive Order."
   
   Depends on what his definition of "onerous" is. Suspect it may be "any" regulation, in which case I'm opposed.
   
   "Conducts a full audit of the Federal Reserve and implements competing currency legislation to strengthen the dollar and stabilize inflation."
   
   No strong opinion.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      S Leretsehposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      "Ron Paul's budget will cut 1 trillion dollars"
      
      1 trillion is only about half of what needs to be cut. 
      
      (wish list) CUT:
      --Dept. Of Education
      --Medicare/ Medicaid
      --foreign aid
      --legal aid for the poor
      --GSL loans
      --SBA (Small Business loan Admin.)
      ---- ALL FUNDING FOR THE EEOC
      --head start
      
      Since the list is a long one,  I'll just sum up by saying ...  I would favor abolishing every gov't program Nancy Pelosi supports.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      How much more information do you need when it says he's going to completely cut out 5 executive departments?!
      
      How could you possibly ask for more detail than "completely get rid of them"?
      
      Your quote: "Allowing or forcing?"
      
      Allowing. He's openly said - numerous times - to let the young'uns decide if they want to "be promised money in the future for money today".

      replyreport
      1. 84

         kerrygposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         It's not like those departments are sitting around pushing papers. They do have actual programs and assets. Will the programs be cut immediately? Will they be phased out? Will they be handed over to the states to run?
         
         Concerning assets, I'm most familiar with the Dept. of Interior, because my dad worked for it for more than 30 years. The US has ~650 million acres of federal lands, most overseen by the DoI. What's he planning to do with those?  Sell them? Turn them over to the states? What about situations like Yellowstone where the park covers parts of three different states?
         
         You can't just wave a wand and make those departments disappear - there is stuff that will need to be taken care of and I want to know how he plans to take care of it.

         replyreport
         1. 67

            SparklingJewelposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            if you spent some time listening to him and all that he has had to say about these ideas of cuts, he said that all departments cut will have their current duties rolled into other departments or will go to the states, since it is their constitutional responsibility, not the federal govt. or they are unconstitutional anyway.
            plus, all the duplication that will be cut out that goes on within each of these departments and across departments, will significantly make each of these departments obsolete.
            
            Ron Paul has been around long enough to know how things have been working and how they are suppose to work according to the constitution. This guy is honest to the core...not a corporatists either...his suggestions, for now, will help with the transition to the correctly run system...you can't just cut some things off at the knees and expect it to continue to run...there may be some corporational business type things that need to transition. He is very  clear that corporatism is a problem and he knows how to fix what needs to be fixed without being bought off by them. that's why he is getting so blacked out of the media...he will not play their games.

            replyreport
            1. 76

               lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               He is for making the Bush tax cuts permanent.
               So--he's for cutting programs, but not increasing revenues. Who's going to pay for all the seniors? Healthcare in old age is a BEAST!
               Wait til these young people find out, their parents nursing home bill will be on THEIR dime! ....IF they can find a job that pays above poverty level.
               
               And I know whereof I speak. I worked for an elderly woman in the 1990's. She was wealthy, by any standards. But, 3 years in a nursing home, and her savings ran out.
               She had to sell the house she had planned to will to her daughter, and when that money ran out, eventually ended up in a state-run nursing home, at tax-payers expense.
               What happens when the state-run homes cease to exits?(without federal money--they will!) And federal dollars dry up?
               
               He also wants a big break for business to "repatriate??? Obama does too. I think that sux!
               They already got breaks to leave, paid no taxes here, and sold us their over-priced, slave-labor goods. pffffft!
               
               And-he is not pro-choice. Leaving abortion up to the states dooms women back to the 1890's. Same with gay rights. There is such a thing as a Universal Right, above and beyond states rights!
               
               I'm going to find a quote I saw earlier that said it better...

               replyreport
      2. 65

         Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Ron Paul isn't going to cut anything because he's so far out in right field that he's outside the ball park. I hope he runs as a third party candidate and that you and other Libertarians help re-elect Barack Obama.

         replyreport
   3. 76

      lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I have a strong opinion....NO WAY!
      
      He's still a corporatist. And that is always BAD BAD BAAAAAAD.
      
      Freebies for business.....Eff outta here!

      replyreport
4. 72

   thisisoliposted 12 years ago

   Hmm yeah, cut the education funding, because that's what America needs.
   
   If there are going to be budget cts it should be in the one Government expense that has vastly increased, it started in the Bush era, it continued under Obama, and most of the money spent disappears in a 'flash' so to speak. 
   
   It's the military budget. 
   
   Withdrawing from foreign territories and reducing the military budget would solve a huge amount of the problems.
   
   Current military budget for 2012 is just over 1 trillion dollars by itself (Not inclusing interest payments), not including classified spending, which is, well, classified.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      The Department of Education is unconstitutional and has been the generator of countless idiotic laws that have infuriated every teacher and administrator in the country.
      
      Also, Ron Paul has demanded - repeatedly - to "just bring them home". When asked "when?", he replied "As soon as the boats can get there".
      
      He's also for bringing home EVERY troop - not just the ones that are at war.

      replyreport
      1. 72

         thisisoliposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Why is the department of education unconstitutional?  on top of that, do you think a national education is a bad idea?

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Ron Montgomeryposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            All things opposed by Evan are unconstitutional.  It's called the Evan clause.  We don't need no hi-falutin' courts an' such to figure this out; just ask any armchair justice.

            replyreport
         2. 67

            SparklingJewelposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            there is a lot of information out there explaining why govt run education is not good. check out "Montessori Madness" by Eissler...he gives alot of good information why its bad...basically the one size fits all kind of education of big systems is not healthy and is impossible to run...state assissted, or charter-like, local and private and personal as homeschooling are better for the children. a big system ends up creating robots and dumbing down of students

            replyreport
            1. 76

               lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Yeah....we're feeling th effects of federal cuts here.....
               
               Kindergardners catch the bus at 7:00am, because all schools share buses. Must pay for sports and art. OK, but what if you can't afford it? Inequality is back.
               No late buses.,,kind of a REAL pain if your kid is in sports and you work and have kids to pick up, dinner to make...yadda yadda ya
               More raising money (squeezing blood from stones), less of the programs and activities I got when I was a kid....for free.
               pfffffft!

               replyreport
5. 76

   lovemychrisposted 12 years ago

   Eh, can't find the quote, but here:  "$708 Billion. Cost of the tax cuts for the top 1% since 2001."
   
   That to me is waste and abuse, When we have people in need, who are being CUT. It's a dam disgrace, and I want it ENDED.

   replyreport
   1. 57

      xmasdecorationsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      That would meet interest payments on your federal debt for three years.

      replyreport
6. 57

   xmasdecorationsposted 12 years ago

   $1 trillion over three years isn't going to make much difference to this: http://www.usdebtclock.org/

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Moderndayslaveposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      If this is right that debt clock is BS
      http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/10/18 … ess-video/ 
      More specifically this:
      "In a world where few really make anything and real commerce seldom reaches the past a few million dollars except in the oil and arms industry, an imaginary world of equally imaginary money has created a super-class of criminal elite, “Ponzi-schemers” and hucksters whose hidden wealth dwarfs that of even the Saudi princes.
      
      How much money is out there, how big a figure?  America’s national debt, in the billions during the Carter Era will hit $16 trillion any day now.
      
      This, however, isn’t the real figure.  The banks hold “derivatives,” actually unauthorized “mystery money” estimated at $240 trillion dollars.  Where is that “mystery money.”
      
      The “1%”  have it and are enjoying it as though it were real, that and the money that used to be your 401k or the value that should represent the home you worked for.
      
      That $240 trillion they have will also be the money your children and grandchildren will never earn, not unless they become banksters and hedge fund managers, trading “mystery money” in endless cycles, hoping the merry-go-round won’t stop again like it did in 2007."

      replyreport
      1. 57

         xmasdecorationsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Your pension funds have been robbed, and your savings have been devalued through artificially created inflation (quantitative easing) and intentionally deflated interest rates, and whilst bankers no doubt benefit from these (if anything because they insist on paying themselves huge bonuses whilst everybody else takes real terms pay cuts or lose their jobs), and you have become poorer, your nation has in reality become poorer because it borrows so much to pay for military expenditure.
         
         More of your money has been heading east to China than into the hands of American bankers, same with the UK of course, ours has too.
         
         When America ends its obsession with empire building and war it will become stronger, that is highly ironic, but no doubt true.
         
         If your 'defence' budget really was a defence budget, and not an offense budget used to attack almost defenseless countries, then your country could easily eradicate its budget deficit and stop borrowing from the likes of China.
         
         You could cut your military to a third of its current size and nobody would attack you. That's what defense is right? Defending your own territory without entering into the territory of others?
         
         Unfortunately America has become far too power hungry, and the result is far less power, but empires decline.... as us Brits know....
         
         Can't really see what you are saying about the $240 trillion, that may well be the total capitalization of stock markets or something, but that doesn't relate in any way to the debt clock. There is no way of knowing how many American dollars are said to exist, not that I know of, only GDP and debt as a percentage of GDP.
         
         Money is a strange thing to try and comprehend, as of a couple of years ago there were $820bn in circulation, that is the number of actual notes and coins believed to exist out there, away from notes and coins, it is all digits stored on computers, who knows how they calculate that. Nobody knows how much money still exists, the fed will know how much they have printed, but then you have counterfeit money, money which is assumed lost but not, then you don't know where in the world the notes are stored, there are several countries which use dollars.
         
         Money is simply crazy, a complicated system that I will never truly understand, I guess that's what stock markets are for, buying an actual share in a business entity rather than holding a piece of paper.

         replyreport