New Paul Thread

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Here you go, I found it again. I have no idea who this guy is or what his political bend is. I did find it interesting, and very disappointing, that Mr. Paul would not pick EPA as one of the departments to eliminate. That one would have been second on my list, after education.

I would love to hear HOW he plans to do the things he claims he would like to do. SPECIFICS instead of "broad plans".




Paulonomics: Ron Paul’s plans for taxes, spending and Social Security​

If you know anything about Ron Paul's economic views, it's probably that he's not a big fan of the Federal Reserve system, or that he loves the gold standard. But those are hardly the only noteworthy planks in his platform. The Republican congressman from Texas, who now looks to have a real chance of winning the Iowa caucuses in less than two weeks, also wants to abolish five Cabinet departments, drastically lower corporate taxes, and allow younger workers to opt out of the Social Security system.
Here are they key components of Paul's economic plan, "Restore America," released in October:

Spending: Paul proposes cutting $1 trillion from the federal budget during his first year in office, and balancing the budget by his third year. He would do this in part by eliminating five cabinet departments: Energy; Housing and Urban Development; Commerce; Interior; and Education. (Paul has not offered specifics on what would happen to some of the functions currently performed by the departments he wants to abolish--maintaining our nuclear weapons, administering our intellectual property system, and conducting the Census, for instance.)

He would also scrap the Transportation Security Administration, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security, eliminate corporate subsidies, end foreign aid, and return most other federal spending to 2006 levels.

Paul says he would cut the federal workforce by 10 percent, and accept a presidential salary of $39,336- roughly equal to what the average American makes. The president currently makes $400,000.

Paul, who opposes almost all American military intervention overseas, also says he would save money by ending foreign wars.

Taxes: Paul has said in the past that he'd like to abolish personal income tax rates, but his plan doesn't suggest that. It does propose lowering the corporate tax rate to 15 percent, from 35 percent. And it would extend the Bush tax cuts and eliminate the estate tax. Paul's campaign has said elsewhere that he supports eliminating the capital gains tax, which, as we've written, would be a boon for, among others, private-equity managers on Wall Street.

Regulation: Like most of his rivals, Paul would repeal President Obama's health care law. He would also get rid of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law intended to increase regulation of Wall Street. And he'd scrap Sarbanes-Oxley, the corporate governance law passed in the wake of the Enron scandal.

Monetary Policy: Paul has written a book called "End the Fed," but his plan calls only for auditing the central bank--something he's been trying to do as a legislator. He also would push "competing currency legislation"--meaning he wants individuals to be able to use alternative currencies to the dollar, including gold and silver. The idea is to reduce the federal government's control over the monetary supply.
Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid: Paul says he wouldn't scrap Social Security and Medicare. His plan "honors our promise to our seniors and veterans," meaning that those currently in the programs could stay in them. But he would like to allow younger workers to opt out of the Social Security system and the payroll taxes it imposes--although the details of how he would accomplish this are unclear.

"Dr. Paul is committed to fully funding Social Security and Medicare while we work a transition to allow young workers the freedom to save for their own retirement," Jesse Benton, the national chairman of Paul's presidential campaign, told Yahoo News.

Benton implied that the Social Security and Medicare payments for current retirees--paid for by payroll taxes on younger workers under the current system--would be provided by radically reducing the American military footprint around the globe, along with other cuts. "It will require cuts elsewhere, but we can save hundreds of billions of dollars a year by bringing troops home, ending foreign welfare and overseas nation building and providing a stronger national defense here at home," Benton said. "If we cut and work hard, we can take care of our seniors who rely on their Medicare and Social Security."

In its basic outline, Paul's plan shares several common features with those of his Republican rivals. All support extending the Bush tax cuts, and most want to lower the corporate tax rate. Newt Gingrich, Jon Hunstman, and Rick Perry would scrap the capital gains tax. And a desire to cut government spending is almost a requirement for entry into the Republican field.

If Paul's profile in the race continues to rise, he'll likely be required to fill in some of the plan's details, which remain vague. Extending the Bush tax cuts and cutting the corporate tax rate by more than half would make it difficult to balance the budget in three years, even by eliminating five Cabinet departments and cutting waste. The only feasible way to do so would be large cuts to the three big drivers of government spending: Social Security, Medicare, and the military.



Paulonomics: Ron Paul
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
What are you trying to do Witness - give the old geezer a heart attack - sending him to the campaign website, with that Money Bomb dono ticker clickin' over ? :eek:

(BTW, Layout - don't worry - I'm gettin to be an old geezer too - you'll have company)

Yeah, I am a geezer, just means that I am still alive.

I looked at the website, no SPECIFICS!! Just as there were none last time I was there 6 months ago.

Telling me your going to cut defense spending without saying EXACTLY how you intend to do it tells me NOTHING.

What units are going away? What weapons systems? ETC.

How does he intend to do away with Education? Interior etc? Over what time frame?

To me it looks just like every other politician spouting off broad concepts and sound bytes with NO substance.

What do you know about that dude that wrote that piece I posted?

(this old geezer looks at more than you think I do by the way! :p)
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Telling me your going to cut defense spending without saying EXACTLY how you intend to do it tells me NOTHING.

What units are going away? What weapons systems? ETC.

I think there is a difference between military spending and defense spending. If this is true, then I can see cutting military spending by 60% without impacting defense.

If we are talking about defense spending, I can see a 40% reduction by recalling most of the troops out of SK, Germany and ending the Afghanistan operations. Not to mention removing ourselves from Nato (which means a lot of money returning back home).

How does he intend to do away with Education? Interior etc? Over what time frame?

I would think it would take a bit of time, maybe a year to get everything in place but if it was me, it would be done the first day I'm in office. There is nothing that these departments do that can't be done by the states, especially in the education field.

To me it looks just like every other politician spouting off broad concepts and sound bytes with NO substance.

They all do, but see here is the difference I see, while everyone is screaming about Obama, he has not hid his agenda and neither has Paul. Not saying they are the same but they are in regards of doing things they believe in.

Having said that, Romney, Gingrich and others are just the same but in different suits. They represent the thing that everyone seems to make fun of - the opposition of the change that is needed. You can laugh at Hope and Change but in reality the 2008 election was about keeping the status quo or changing it, which seems to be why Paul is leading, he is representing that change we so desperately need to have happen but those, like Gingrich, Romney and others so desperately don't want to have happen. Many are so tired of the politics of today and if we need to take a chance to change it, Ron Paul is the better chance to take than someone like Gingrich or Romney.

What do you know about that dude that wrote that piece I posted?

Not a thing, but I also don't know about a lot of other writers either.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
I think that your estimates on cuts in military and defense are out of line. It costs far more to play "pure defense" than you may think it does. 25% would be a far more workable number.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
I don't know if that would be true, seeing our expenditures do include the "winning of hearts and minds".

Take Iraq for example, we built all kinds of things and then we just frickn' left the country. We didn't tell them "we're going to stay" or "we're taking over the oil fields to pay for this" but we are now stuck with ZERO return on what we put into it while there is a lot of questions being raise why we even bothered.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
I think that your estimates on cuts in military and defense are out of line. It costs far more to play "pure defense" than you may think it does. 25% would be a far more workable number.
You get the other 25% by cutting the waste that occurs as a result of the bureaucracy at the Five Sided Wind Box.

50% is very doable apparently - that's not my number - it's this guy's, who I just watched say it on TV not five minutes ago:

David_Walker.jpg
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
I don't know if that would be true, seeing our expenditures do include the "winning of hearts and minds".

Take Iraq for example, we built all kinds of things and then we just frickn' left the country. We didn't tell them "we're going to stay" or "we're taking over the oil fields to pay for this" but we are now stuck with ZERO return on what we put into it while there is a lot of questions being raise why we even bothered.

We will end up back in Iraq. We will end up back in Afghanistan too. I won't argue whether we should have went in at all or not, We will never agree anyway. We SHOULD have finished the job once we decided to go in.

Are you pulling out 100% of troops in Korea and Japan? Do you know what all of them do? Could pulling out 100% end up costing more than than leaving certain units there? I just believe that Mr. Paul does NOT have the needed background to make those decisions. I have little faith that he can put the proper people in place who would know.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
You get the other 25% by cutting the waste that occurs as a result of the bureaucracy at the Five Sided Wind Box.

50% is very doable apparently - that's not my number - it's this guy's, who I just watched say it on TV not five minutes ago:

David_Walker.jpg


I don't know David Walker's work. I would have to see "SPECIFICS" I personally don't buy that number. There are going to be costs that many cannot foresee. There are going to be "holes" that need filled that might not be able to be filled. Just because he is on TV means NOTHING. Oprah is on TV. So is Obama and Panetta.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
He is the former Comptroller General ......

...... of the United States of the America.

He served for 10 years (1998 - 2008)

He is a very serious dude .....

..... and by my observation, non-partisan.

David M. Walker
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
This is what he is doing now ......

..... it may be part of the solution .....

.... to the situation we find ourselves in:

Not Left. Not Right. Forward.

No Labels
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
He is the former Comptroller General ......

...... of the United States of the America.

He served for 10 years (1998 - 2008)

He is a very serious dude .....

..... and by my observation, non-partisan.

David M. Walker

And his MILITARY experience is? I have little doubt he is serious. I have little doubt he has a functioning brain. I was not concerned about his party. I have NO idea if he as any idea about how to PROPERLY cut military/defense spending. Numbers guys scare me. They seldom have any practical experience.

Just my feelings. It is a given you would agree with him. His ideas are more along the lines of yours. The more a persons ideas align with those observing the smarter that person is. Whether he has a clue about what he is talking about or not.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
This is what he is doing now ......

..... it may be part of the solution .....

.... to the situation we find ourselves in:

Not Left. Not Right. Forward.

No Labels

I don't watch "productions". I want cold, hard, unemotional FACTS. FACTS base on real life experience.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
"There is one thing stronger than all the armies in

the world, and that is an idea whose time has come ...."


- Victor Hugo, The History of a Crime
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
"There is one thing stronger than all the armies in

the world, and that is an idea whose time has come ...."


- Victor Hugo, The History of a Crime

Don't like Hugo, never have. Don't like "sayings" or "slogans". All talk. When push comes to shove, if these cutbacks and draw downs are done wrong, MILLIONS will die. Experience is the key. I have yet to see it in anyone you post about.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
How about an idea ? .... a concept ...?

A new paradigm for achieving for solutions ?

Ideas and concepts have to be based on reality, not '60's slogans and fluff.

I trust no one who has no real life experience. NO ONE!
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
We will end up back in Iraq. We will end up back in Afghanistan too. I won't argue whether we should have went in at all or not, We will never agree anyway. We SHOULD have finished the job once we decided to go in.

Why should we even consider returning to Iraq, they are the ones who don't want us there so if the country falls, it isn't our problem.

Afghanistan is a different story, we were warned and the country butts up against two countries which one of them we made our enemy and the other we act as if they are Germany, Japan, the Soviet Union and Red China all on one. So what advantage would we have if something happens to those two countries - none.

I don't know if you notice something, the Arab league was quick to call on Nato to help them with Libya and have talked about Syria as if we are supposed to do their work. It is a shrewed way of getting us involved with internal issues, so maybe we need to think about how we should be involved, and may be NOT be involved but let them deal with it.

So let's stay home this time around.

Are you pulling out 100% of troops in Korea and Japan?
Yep I would, all of them. Maintain if possible a place for our ships to dock for supplies but outside of that, what purpose are we serving?

Do you know what all of them do?

Don't know but if it is intel, that can be worked out some other way. The CIA seems to be doing a good job operating where we have no massive amount of troops so I guess it is how we approach the issue and what we have to gain by it that will matter.

Could pulling out 100% end up costing more than than leaving certain units there?

How?

I mean is there a reason that the billions spent on putting troops on the DMZ would end up costing up more?

I just believe that Mr. Paul does NOT have the needed background to make those decisions. I have little faith that he can put the proper people in place who would know.

Well he was in the military, and like many others, I think his background of being a citizen makes him as qualified as most of the other presidents we have had.

And his MILITARY experience is? I have little doubt he is serious. I have little doubt he has a functioning brain. I was not concerned about his party. I have NO idea if he as any idea about how to PROPERLY cut military/defense spending. Numbers guys scare me. They seldom have any practical experience.

They scare me too but the problem is that many don't get the idea that we can't continue to spend money for things we don't get a thing out of.

Just my feelings. It is a given you would agree with him. His ideas are more along the lines of yours. The more a persons ideas align with those observing the smarter that person is. Whether he has a clue about what he is talking about or not.

Well how about this.

Answer one of the two questions here;

Where in our constitution does it say that the military was created to protect say ... Japan?

With our given track record in "conflicts", even with Iraq, what gains have been made for our economy based on the obligation counties have (implied or otherwise) to buy our goods, use our companies and so on?
 
Top