Paul's Detailed Budget Plan is released

  • News
  • Thread starter mheslep
  • Start date
  • Tags
    budget Plan
In summary: But of course these could be done by other departments. Customs was once...Ok, I get it. You don't actually like Napolitano.Ok, I get it. You don't actually like Janet Napolitano.I think her appointment was a mistake. I don't think she's effective or worth the money. I'd like to see someone with more experience take her place.I think her appointment was a mistake. I don't think she's effective or worth the money. I'd like to see someone with more experience take her place.
  • #1
mheslep
Gold Member
364
729
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
  • #2
He better close the EPA - before he burns the Fed.
 
  • #3
Shouldn't we wait until we have a shortlist of real candidates? Then this thread won't be needed, IMO.
 
  • #4
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.
 
  • #5
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.
 
  • #6
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.
 
  • #7
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.
 
  • #8
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:
  • #9
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:
  • #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. :tongue:
 
  • #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:

Similar threads

News The Taz-Cut Con - Paul Krugman
    • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
4K
News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
    • General Discussion
2
Replies
65
Views
8K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top