News Paul's Detailed Budget Plan is released

  • Thread starter Thread starter mheslep
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    budget Plan
AI Thread Summary
Paul's budget plan proposes significant cuts, including the elimination of five cabinet departments and halting all foreign aid, aiming for a total reduction of $1 trillion in the first year. While Social Security and Medicare remain untouched, the plan does not balance the budget without increased revenue. The discussion emphasizes the importance of this plan in prompting other GOP candidates to provide more detailed budget proposals. Participants express varying opinions on the cuts, particularly regarding the necessity of departments like Homeland Security. Overall, the conversation highlights the contentious nature of federal spending and the need for transparency in government budgeting.
mheslep
Gold Member
Messages
364
Reaction score
719
Hard but necessary. Even if Paul has little chance there is important relevant value in this budget plan. Going forward in the GOP primary process this should force more details out of the other candidates which is a good thing. In my opinion the other candidates should have already roughed out budgets to highlight the lack of any budget details from the Democrats.

Paul cuts outright five cabinet departments - Energy, HUD, Commerce, Interior, Education. Stops all foreign aid, zeros Iraq and Afghanistan war funding. Block grants Medicaid to states. SS and Medicare untouched far as I can tell; they both continue to increase. Federal Reserve budget is doubled. Hah, kidding on the last one; I think Paul plans to burn the building. In total Paul cuts $1T in year one, but, and this is the amazing part, this still will not immediately balance the budget absent increased revenue.

http://www.ronpaul.com/media/RestoreAmericaPlan.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
He better close the EPA - before he burns the Fed.
 
Shouldn't we wait until we have a shortlist of real candidates? Then this thread won't be needed, IMO.
 
Evo said:
Shouldn't we wait until we have a shortlist of real candidates? Then this thread won't be needed, IMO.

That's probably the best reason to run this thread now - after the first few primaries - nobody will read it.
 
Paul, Paul... Ron or Rand? Either of them still running?

I can see why he'd want to cut those five. If it were me, I'd add Homeland Security to that as well, as they're growing ever more totalitarian the last few years.
 
Char. Limit said:
Paul, Paul... Ron or Rand? Either of them still running?

I can see why he'd want to cut those five. If it were me, I'd add Homeland Security to that as well, as they're growing ever more totalitarian the last few years.

I'm not so sure about Homeland Security - the President's changing hair color probably says a great deal about what we don't know - about security matters.
 
Char. Limit said:
Paul, Paul... Ron or Rand? Either of them still running?

I can see why he'd want to cut those five.
From his various communications I gather that Ron Paul considers that the federal government i) has no constitutional prerogative to do all that those departments do, and ii) does not do very good job in these areas even if it did, iii) the federal govt. can not afford it even if i)&ii) were wrong. At least in the case of federal Dept of Education I agree.

If you were to keep those, what would you do instead to balance the budget?

If it were me, I'd add Homeland Security to that as well, as they're growing ever more totalitarian the last few years.
Second that notion on HS.
 
WhoWee said:
I'm not so sure about Homeland Security - the President's changing hair color probably says a great deal about what we don't know - about security matters.
Ok, so 'bad things'™ are out there. What leads you to believe Janet Napolitano and the merry band of airport gropers is effective and worth the billions?
 
Last edited:
mheslep said:
Ok, so 'bad things'™ are out there. What leads you to believe Janet Napolitano the merry band of airport gropers is effective and worth the billions?

Hey, it's so cool to actually have you on my side!
 
  • #10
mheslep said:
Ok, so 'bad things'™ are out there. What leads you to believe Janet Napolitano the merry band of airport gropers is effective and worth the billions?
I enjoy a good groping, but considering how rarely I fly, I suppose it's not worth spending the billions on HS. :wink:
 
  • #11
Homeland Security is many things. It includes customs (this is a HUGE concern), immigration (also a HUGE concern), they are also things I can't discuss because I am under non-disclosure with the DHS.
 
  • #12
mheslep said:
Ok, so 'bad things'™ are out there. What leads you to believe Janet Napolitano the merry band of airport gropers is effective and worth the billions?

I can't defend Napolitano, certainly didn't appreciate stripping down my bare feet the last time I flew and agree there has to be waste and duplication. However, I wouldn't want to second guess people in the know on this one - or get it wrong.
 
  • #13
Evo said:
Homeland Security is many things. It includes customs (this is a HUGE concern), immigration (also a HUGE concern),

But of course these could be done by other departments. Customs was once part of Treasury, and INS was part of Justice, I think.

If I were emperor, I'd cut back enormously on the number of federal departments. There are 15 cabinet members, plus 7 cabinet-level officers. Having a meeting with 23 people ensures you'll never make a decision. I would have:

  • Treasury
  • Justice
  • Defense (foreign relations, shooting)
  • State (foreign relations, non-shooting)
  • Interior (everything else)
 
  • #14
Vanadium 50 said:
But of course these could be done by other departments. Customs was once part of Treasury, and INS was part of Justice, I think.

If I were emperor, I'd cut back enormously on the number of federal departments. There are 15 cabinet members, plus 7 cabinet-level officers. Having a meeting with 23 people ensures you'll never make a decision. I would have:

  • Treasury
  • Justice
  • Defense (foreign relations, shooting)
  • State (foreign relations, non-shooting)
  • Interior (everything else)

Don't forget the "czars".:wink:
 
  • #15
Vanadium 50 said:
But of course these could be done by other departments. Customs was once part of Treasury, and INS was part of Justice, I think.

If I were emperor, I'd cut back enormously on the number of federal departments. There are 15 cabinet members, plus 7 cabinet-level officers. Having a meeting with 23 people ensures you'll never make a decision. I would have:

  • Treasury
  • Justice
  • Defense (foreign relations, shooting)
  • State (foreign relations, non-shooting)
  • Interior (everything else)
But you're just changing the names of the departments again.

I say to save money we place a cap of $40K per year for all elected officials. And that's based on a minimum 40 hours per week, less than that, pay will be docked. Income will be taxable. No perks. All financial accounts and monetary transations will be public record. This includes their business dealings. They're supposed to be public servants, let's start treating them as such. :biggrin:
 
  • #16
I'm also getting rid of 11 Secretaries of This and That. I also think there is value in putting most of the domestic spending in one place.

The problem with the $40K cap is that it will attract people who are already wealthy and want power.
 
  • #17
Vanadium 50 said:
I'm also getting rid of 11 Secretaries of This and That. I also think there is value in putting most of the domestic spending in one place.
Agreed.

The problem with the $40K cap is that it will attract people who are already wealthy and want power.
Not when every penny that goes through their hands (personal and business) is public knowledge and closely scrutinzed, as well as activities such as trips, and unexplained new "assets", anything of value that has not been paid for by them.

I know it will never happen.
 
  • #18
mheslep said:
Hard but necessary. Even if Paul has little chance there is important relevant value in this budget plan. Going forward in the GOP primary process this should force more details out of the other candidates which is a good thing. In my opinion the other candidates should have already roughed out budgets to highlight the lack of any budget details from the Democrats.

Paul cuts outright five cabinet departments - Energy, HUD, Commerce, Interior, Education. Stops all foreign aid, zeros Iraq and Afghanistan war funding. Block grants Medicaid to states. SS and Medicare untouched far as I can tell; they both continue to increase. Federal Reserve budget is doubled. Hah, kidding on the last one; I think Paul plans to burn the building. In total Paul cuts $1T in year one, but, and this is the amazing part, this still will not immediately balance the budget absent increased revenue.

http://www.tbf.org/uploadedFiles/tbforg/Utility_Navigation/Multimedia_Library/Reports/InformingTheDebate_Final.pdf

why are you linking a pdf about boston schools?
I n f o r m i n g t h e D e b a t e : C o m p a r i n g B o s t o n ’ s C h a r t e r , P i l o t a n d T r a d i t i o n a l S c h o o l s
 
  • #19
Char. Limit said:
Hey, it's so cool to actually have you on my side!
Yep, common cause. I'll play in any band that want's to cut spending.
 
  • #20
Proton Soup said:
why are you linking a pdf about boston schools?
Because I knew that's what you really wanted to read. :devil:
Sorry.
http://www.ronpaul.com/media/RestoreAmericaPlan.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #21
Evo said:
I say to save money we place a cap of $40K per year for all elected officials. And that's based on a minimum 40 hours per week, less than that, pay will be docked. Income will be taxable. ...
As I thought, it's Evo the Ron Paul supporter:

Paul Budget said:
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.
http://www.ronpaul.com/media/RestoreAmericaPlan.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #23
WhoWee said:
I guess the Evo/Paul ticket won't be in favor of this plan then?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ernment-to-hire-all-unemployed-americans-for/

"Rep. Jesse Jackson Calls on Government to Hire All Unemployed Americans for $40,000 Each"

Great, another Chicago politician. Of course he would be the one to say: "I hope the president begins to continue to exercise extraordinary constitutional means based on the history of Congresses that have been in rebellion in the past."

One of these days he's going to recognize that at the end of the day it is only by means of piece of paper called the Constitution that Presidents or insipid Congressman like him exist at all.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #24
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #25
Char. Limit said:
Oh god, Jesse Jackson... I had hoped he had gone away...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Jackson,_Jr."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #26
mheslep said:
Yep, common cause. I'll play in any band that want's to cut spending.

Mind if I play along? A trio is more harmonious. :)
 
  • #27
mheslep said:
As I thought, it's Evo the Ron Paul supporter:
I also eat, sleep and breathe air, same as Paul. Please don't make dumb jokes, knowing that I am completely against that crackpot (IMO). He's currently making $174,000 a year.
 
Last edited:
  • #28
Evo said:
I also eat, sleep and breathe air, same as Paul. Please don't make dumb jokes, knowing that I am completely against that crackpot (IMO). ...
Yes I know that, so do most I suspect, that's why it was a great joke, IMHO. o:)
 
  • #29
Evo's $40K idea is a great one, though in the context of expenses in DC, I'd peg it quite a bit higher. Still, I would forbid the spouses and children of any congressional rep (having served within the last 10 years or so) to work for any lobbyists or political "pollsters" or public-relations firms.

DC is far too corrupt. When a "public servant" takes office, and in a few years has accumulated wealth far in excess of his/her compensation, shouldn't we be just a bit concerned? You can't swing a cat in Congress without hitting a multi-millionaire.

I can sympathize with Paul's "hands-off" libertarian approach in some of his saner moments, but I would couple that with increased diligence when overseeing the actions of our elected officials, and strict limits on their sources of income. So far, there is no candidate conservative enough to propose such a thing.
 
  • #30
mheslep said:
Yes I know that, so do most I suspect, that's why it was a great joke, IMHO. o:)
You're bad. :-p
 
  • #31
Evo said:
But you're just changing the names of the departments again.

I say to save money we place a cap of $40K per year for all elected officials. And that's based on a minimum 40 hours per week, less than that, pay will be docked. Income will be taxable. No perks. All financial accounts and monetary transations will be public record. This includes their business dealings. They're supposed to be public servants, let's start treating them as such. :biggrin:

Vanadium 50 said:
I'm also getting rid of 11 Secretaries of This and That. I also think there is value in putting most of the domestic spending in one place.

The problem with the $40K cap is that it will attract people who are already wealthy and want power.

Not true. There's plenty of people that would be happy with a $40,000 a year job.



WhoWee said:
I guess the Evo/Paul ticket won't be in favor of this plan then?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ernment-to-hire-all-unemployed-americans-for/

"Rep. Jesse Jackson Calls on Government to Hire All Unemployed Americans for $40,000 Each"

There you go. We hire unemployed (and preferably unemployable) Americans to serve in Congress.

The Tea Party would love it! They hate the idea of having professionals run the country!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #32
BobG said:
There you go. We hire unemployed (and preferably unemployable) Americans to serve in Congress.
I thought we already did.
 
  • #33
DoggerDan said:
Mind if I play along? A trio is more harmonious. :)

tumblr_ls95hgm9eC1qbepkw.gif

(Source: http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/legolas?before=1317267138)
 
  • #34
WhoWee said:
I guess the Evo/Paul ticket won't be in favor of this plan then?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ernment-to-hire-all-unemployed-americans-for/

"Rep. Jesse Jackson Calls on Government to Hire All Unemployed Americans for $40,000 Each"

Oh my gourd... is that a real plan?! You hire unemployed people for $40k?! Everyone with a $39k or less job will quit. What are they supposed to be doing for that price? Just cleaning?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #35
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #36
Proton Soup said:
so he's calling for another round of quantitative easing? only this time, we print money and give it to poor people?
WalMart, Kmart, and Target shares would bust through the roof! Shares of Dollar-Tree and other low-end purveyors would drop like a rock once poor people switched to shopping at the trendy places like WalMart.
 
  • #37
turbo said:
WalMart, Kmart, and Target shares would bust through the roof! Shares of Dollar-Tree and other low-end purveyors would drop like a rock once poor people switched to shopping at the trendy places like WalMart.

What happens when everyone quits their jobs at the above-mentioned retailers to accept their re-distributive share (and a big "raise") - who will restock the shelves and ring the registers?
 
  • #38
WhoWee said:
What happens when everyone quits their jobs at the above-mentioned retailers to accept their re-distributive share (and a big "raise") - who will restock the shelves and ring the registers?
Register-clerks at Dollar Tree, would swarm for the new openings at WalMart, Kmart, etc. Haven't you been paying attention at the zero-sum clinics?

It is so sad to see such GOP-leaning crap distributed as the truth. I'm not impressed by either political party, and there is no comfortable ground for the supporters of either IMO. I don't want to see guillotines in town squares, but some of the creeps that crashed our economy should spend some time behind bars.
 
  • #39
turbo said:
Register-clerks at Dollar Tree, would swarm for the new openings at WalMart, Kmart, etc. Haven't you been paying attention at the zero-sum clinics?

It is so sad to see such GOP-leaning crap distributed as the truth. I'm not impressed by either political party, and there is no comfortable ground for the supporters of either IMO. I don't want to see guillotines in town squares, but some of the creeps that crashed our economy should spend some time behind bars.

I guess I missed the "zero-sum clinics" in the Jessee Jackson Plan? I did note this aspect though.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ernment-to-hire-all-unemployed-americans-for/

"Jackson said the government’s direct hiring of the nation’s 15 million unemployed Americans would cost $600 billion."

Care to explain what you mean with this comment? "It is so sad to see such GOP-leaning crap distributed as the truth." This is a story about a Democrat's jobs plan.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #40
turbo said:
... I don't want to see guillotines in town squares, but some of the creeps that crashed our economy should spend some time behind bars.
Ok, what's the charge?
 
  • #41
mheslep said:
Ok, what's the charge?

As per Media matters - all we know for sure - Barney Frank is innocent!:rolleyes:

http://mediamatters.org/research/200901080014
"Limbaugh falsely asserted "Banking Queen" Barney Frank "created" subprime mortgage crisis"

Please label my entire post IMO - after you listen to the Rush Limbaugh video.
 
  • #42
mheslep said:
SS ... untouched far as I can tell ...

http://www.ronpaul.com/media/RestoreAmericaPlan.pdf
It says that young workers can opt out of SS. Which I guess means that they wouldn't pay the SS tax. I don't know.

But I think Paul missed the opportunity to do some important stuff wrt SS retirement. Treat it as an old age welfare fund. Do away with the $106K cap; increase the SS payroll tax, just slightly, for those making below a certain amount; don't exempt anybody from paying the SS tax, do means testing and exclude those who don't qualify from getting SS payments.

This would mean a turnaround of hundreds of billions. There would be no 'solvency' problem, and most likely a pretty big surplus that could be used for ...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #43
ThomasT said:
It says that young workers can opt out of SS. Which I guess means that they wouldn't pay the SS tax. I don't know.

But I think Paul missed the opportunity to do some important stuff wrt SS retirement. Treat it as an old age welfare fund. Do away with the $106K cap; increase the SS payroll tax, just slightly, for those making below a certain amount; don't exempt anybody from paying the SS tax, do means testing and exclude those who don't qualify from getting SS payments.

This would mean a turnaround of hundreds of billions. There would be no 'solvency' problem, and most likely a pretty big surplus that could be used for ...
Yes, I prefer privatizing SS ala Chile, but if that is not doable politically then I agree with much of what you have above.
 
  • #44
mheslep said:
Yes, I prefer privatizing SS ala Chile, but if that is not doable politically then I agree with much of what you have above.
I prefer Paul to the other Republican candidates, and I think he's wiser than Obama. But I can't reconcile some of his proposed cuts with what I think is the best course of action. That is, I think that his proposed cuts wrt housing and food welfare would have decidedly negative effects wrt the general economy. I'm interested to hear any comments wrt why this wouldn't be the case.
 
  • #45
ThomasT said:
I prefer Paul to the other Republican candidates, and I think he's wiser than Obama. But I can't reconcile some of his proposed cuts with what I think is the best course of action. That is, I think that his proposed cuts wrt housing and food welfare would have decidedly negative effects wrt the general economy. I'm interested to hear any comments wrt why this wouldn't be the case.

I think the important thing to remember about Ron Paul is that his views should be taken as an indication of direction and preference. It's incredibly unlikely that he could radically change the nation by simply being president; he would need to convince all of congress that he's right on every point.

So, instead of looking at his campaign points as a dictatorial manifesto look at is as an indication of how he would shape the country.

Electing Ron Paul will NOT get Social Security privatized, but it WILL start the conversation.

EDIT: As far as cuts to housing and welfare; the benefits are manifestly evident. By cutting federal support for housing programs, the housing market will have to respond with more realistic value-to-price ratios (remember, boom-and-bust cycles happen when the value/cost relationship is skewed or hidden). When the dictate of a program is to "make housing affordable to Americans" then it doesn't matter how much a home costs because it will be "made affordable" by government mandate (usually in the form of tax revenue redirection). It's the same thing that will happen with college tuition once there are government programs to help students afford almost any price college... OH WAIT!

Cutting welfare is prudent only because it trims two costs: the cost of aid, and the cost to supply aid. There are plenty of studies that argue the economic feasibility of having your government distribute your money to the less fortunate for you as opposed to you distributing it yourself, but the fact remains... it IS cheaper for you to volunteer your time and money than it is to pay your government to find someone else to do it for you. Ron Paul is a big advocate of private charity and volunteer work.

He's also a big advocate of your freedom to choose how your money is spent.
 
Last edited:
  • #46
FlexGunship said:
I think the important thing to remember about Ron Paul is that his views should be taken as an indication of direction and preference. It's incredibly unlikely that he could radically change the nation by simply being president; he would need to convince all of congress that he's right on every point.
Ok, I understand.

FlexGunship said:
So, instead of looking at his campaign points as a dictatorial manifesto look at is as an indication of how he would shape the country.
Ok.

FlexGunship said:
Electing Ron Paul will NOT get Social Security privatized, but it WILL start the conversation.
Agreed. But I don't think that SS will be privatized in the foreseeable future. And, I think that Paul missed some things that could be done with SS, saving the US hundreds of billions, while still keeping it essentially an old age retirement/welfare fund.

FlexGunship said:
EDIT: As far as cuts to housing and welfare; the benefits are manifestly evident. By cutting federal support for housing programs, the housing market will have to respond with more realistic value-to-price ratios (remember, boom-and-bust cycles happen when the value/cost relationship is skewed or hidden). When the dictate of a program is to "make housing affordable to Americans" then it doesn't matter how much a home costs because it will be "made affordable" by government mandate (usually in the form of tax revenue redirection). It's the same thing that will happen with college tuition once there are government programs to help students afford almost any price college... OH WAIT!

Cutting welfare is prudent only because it trims two costs: the cost of aid, and the cost to supply aid. There are plenty of studies that argue the economic feasibility of having your government distribute your money to the less fortunate for you as opposed to you distributing it yourself, but the fact remains... it IS cheaper for you to volunteer your time and money than it is to pay your government to find someone else to do it for you. Ron Paul is a big advocate of private charity and volunteer work.
Ok, points taken, but I still think that the net effect of abolishing or cutting housing and food welfare is negative wrt the general economy.

FlexGunship said:
He's also a big advocate of your freedom to choose how your money is spent.
I like Paul. A lot. I think he's a good person, wiser than most, compassionate, empathetic, as well as practical. I just disagree that private charity can take care of needy Americans. It's too big a problem. Governmental intervention is necessary in order to avoid large scale societal problems.
 
  • #47
ThomasT said:
I like Paul. A lot. I think he's a good person, wiser than most, compassionate, empathetic, as well as practical. I just disagree that private charity can take care of needy Americans. It's too big a problem. Governmental intervention is necessary in order to avoid large scale societal problems.

Food welfare is a fantastic idea. Soup kitchens and even food stamps are good. My only complaint about food stamps is that users of food stamps should be compelled to purchase maximally nutritious food at the lowest possible cost. I watched a woman argue with a cashier because her Red Bull couldn't be purchased with food stamps. Clearly someone has missed the point here. If you are a burden on the state, then you should try to minimize your burden... this is a concept completely lost on some people.

Government-funded housing seems to be a mistake in almost every case. I've lived in two cities with "projects," and I can say that in both cases they were the worst parts of their respective cities. Instead of helping to integrate disparate members of the lower economic classes into the society as a whole, it gathers them up and groups them together and they form a sort of dysfunctional counter-culture.

Government assistance in guaranteeing loans for homes... well... we've seen how that works out.
 
  • #48
You guys are missing the elephant in the room...he's not electable.

Ron Paul has little to no chance of beating President Barack Obama, according to a poll of Republican influentials in New Hampshire and three other early-voting states.

Nearly four out of five of the 190 people responding to the latest Patch-Huffington Post Power Outsiders poll of Republican voters in New Hampshire, Iowa, South Carolina and Florida said the Texas Congressman has almost no shot at winning the GOP nomination, let alone defeating Obama in the general election. Less than one-third described Paul in positive terms. Among the words used were "extreme," "crazy," "unelectable" and "nut."

Only 28 percent used positive words to describe Paul, including "consistent," "focused," "honest" and "smart." That's the lowest percentage for any candidate or prospective candidate tested so far.

Electability is by far their biggest concern about Paul. Just 21 percent describe him as someone who can beat Obama in the general election, while 78 percent have doubts. That score ranks him at the bottom of the candidates tested so far, below even Michele Bachmann (29 percent described her as able to beat Obama) and Sarah Palin (37 percent).

The Power Outsiders view Paul as an even less viable candidate for the Republican nomination, with just 14 percent seeing him as someone who "can win" the nomination.

One Republican influential from New Hampshire said Paul is “an embarrassment to the Party.”

Other issues are
Several respondents said Paul’s foreign policy stances are downright dangerous.

“Ron Paul is an isolationist who borders on being thoroughly naive," said one. "While he is very well-versed in the Constitution, his policies are dangerous to America and the world."

http://nashua.patch.com/articles/can-ron-paul-beat-barack-obama
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #49
Evo said:
You guys are missing the elephant in the room...he's not electable.

Other issues are

http://nashua.patch.com/articles/can-ron-paul-beat-barack-obama

Yeah, I guess... it doesn't mean much to say a candidate is un-electable other than he's unpopular. My mom was unpopular with me when she told me to eat my vegetables as a kid. Doesn't mean she was wrong. The principal of the school was unpopular when he gave me detention. Doesn't mean he was wrong.

Furthermore, to say that Ron Paul is isolationist is to demonstrate a severely fundamental lack of knowledge about Ron Paul and his ideals. He is ultra-in-favor of free trade internationally and wants to grow the United States' economic and political influence around the world. The only thing he DOESN'T want to do is get involved in conflicts that don't necessarily affect the U.S. or an ally and he doesn't want to spend money taking sides in those conflicts by providing anything but strictly humanitarian aid.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #50
Evo said:
You guys are missing the elephant in the room...he's not electable.

Other issues are

http://nashua.patch.com/articles/can-ron-paul-beat-barack-obama
Yes he can't win, but focusing only on that misses the elephant in the room: if Paul finishes strong in several primaries he gains bargaining power. For example, if the #1 and #2 candidates are neck and neck at the convention Paul can encourage his delegates to vote for the candidate most in line with his views, which would very likely be the one with the largest and clearly defined budget cuts, or anti-interventionist policy, etc. Plus he'll warrant speaking time at the convention.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

News Welfare now 21% of Federal Budget
2
Replies
72
Views
10K
News Will a failure to raise the US debt ceiling force a default?
2
Replies
73
Views
12K
News Psssttt, the deficit's shrinking
Replies
19
Views
4K
News Is the Tax-Cut Strategy a Con to Dismantle Government Programs?
Replies
2
Views
4K
News Is George Bush Misusing Taxpayer Money for His Re-Election Campaign?
Replies
6
Views
3K
News Is a Major Overhaul of the US Government Possible? Feedback Wanted!
Replies
11
Views
3K
News Bush Administration: My Indictment
Replies
3
Views
3K
News Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of Energy Independence
3
Replies
133
Views
27K
News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
2
Replies
65
Views
10K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top