News Paul's Detailed Budget Plan is released

  • Thread starter Thread starter mheslep
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    budget Plan
Click For 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.
  • #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:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #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:
  • #51
mheslep said:
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.
Isn't he doing horribly in the actual primaries? We're not talking about the bogus straw polls.
 
  • #52
ThomasT said:
... 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.
A hundred years ago there were thousands of mutual aid societies and perhaps one third of adult males belonged to one. https://www.amazon.com/dp/080782531X/?tag=pfamazon01-20

I don't know either if a modern version of that system could replace government aid. Then I don't see that government aid does a very good job. I know that government based medical assistance (Medicaid, Medicare) in particular can not continue growing at the current rate.
 
Last edited:
  • #53
  • #54
FlexGunship said:
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.
Ok, there are the unappreciative miscreants (maybe too strong a term, but I assume you'll get what I mean) wrt food welfare. I'm certainly not disputing that. My point is that if food welfare is significantly cut or abolished, then the general economy (and tens of thousands of workers and business owners) will suffer.

And I don't think it's practical to entertain the idea that food welfare recipients can be "compelled to purchase maximally nutritious food at the lowest possible cost".

FlexGunship said:
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.
This isn't my experience with government funded housing. Yes, some of it involves "projects" and the problems associated with those. However, much of it is spread throughout various neighborhoods -- which was my experience when I was buying and renting properties/rooms/apartments.

If funding for this stuff is significantly decreased or abolished, then lots of people will be negatively affected. Thousands of jobs will be lost, businesses will close, not to mention that the people who can't afford to rent will simply be out on the street. No church or other charitable organization can afford to deal with such a problem effectively.

FlexGunship said:
Government assistance in guaranteeing loans for homes... well... we've seen how that works out.
Yes, that was abused. Home ownership is simply not an option for a lot of working Americans. But I still think that housing subsidies should remain, because there would be more, and more difficult, problems without them.
 
  • #55
mheslep said:
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.
Yes, I think this is a good point. The idea is to get some ideas and certain ways of thinking into the mainstream discussion. I expect that the current Republican front runners will lose ground, while Paul will maintain or even slowly increase his percentage. The thing is that he comes across, to me at least, as sincere. Which is, in itself, a helluva thing when you're talking about politicians. He comes across, to me, as an empathetic and compassionate person who values personal liberty and the rule of law. I happen to disagree with some of his current ideas, but those could change. Hopefully he's not the sort of candidate who's intimidated by charges of 'flipflopping' or changing one's mind. If one is amenable to learning, then one is probably going to change one's mind from time to time.
 
  • #56
mheslep said:
A hundred years ago there were thousands of mutual aid societies and perhaps one third of adult males belonged to one. https://www.amazon.com/dp/080782531X/?tag=pfamazon01-20

I don't know either if a modern version of that system could replace government aid.
Nor does anybody, I'm assuming. Even though some (including me) would like that to be the case.

mheslep said:
Then I don't see that government aid does a very good job.
I think that in some cases it does, and in some cases it doesn't. I don't know enough about the general effects (wrt individuals) to make a general statement in that regard. I do however think that significantly decreasing or abolishing government aid wrt housing and food would have a marked negative effect on the general economy.

mheslep said:
I know that government based medical assistance (Medicaid, Medicare) in particular can not continue growing at the current rate.
I, of course, agree. But it's a complicated consideration involving insurance companies, big pharma, hospital administration, production and distribution of medical equipment, etc. As well as governmental subsidies.

I don't know that anybody has as yet condensed the problem to its salient features.
 
  • #57
Paul is actually positioned to do well in nevada and iowa. They are both caucus states, which favor paul's dedicated base, and he has a strong constituency in Nevada (not to mention that many are "boycotting" that contest.)

Paul could finish 2nd in Iowa, and possibly win Nevada.
 
  • #58
Galteeth said:
Paul is actually positioned to do well in nevada and iowa. They are both caucus states, which favor paul's dedicated base, and he has a strong constituency in Nevada (not to mention that many are "boycotting" that contest.)

Paul could finish 2nd in Iowa, and possibly win Nevada.
Nah, I have faith that common sense will prevail, although there isn't much to choose from. Although Paul would guarantee a win for Obama, IMO. Can't the Republicans come up with better candidates? Someone that is at least middle of the road and not a creationist/evangelist/Intelligent Design anti-science candidate?
 
  • #59
Evo said:
Nah, I have faith that common sense will prevail, although there isn't much to choose from. Although Paul would guarantee a win for Obama, IMO. Can't the Republicans come up with better candidates? Someone that is at least middle of the road and not a creationist/evangelist/Intelligent Design anti-science candidate?

Why doesn't Romney satisfy the description?
 
  • #60
WhoWee said:
Why doesn't Romney satisfy the description?
Romney isn't too bad, forgot about him. I'd have to say he's the only viable Republican contender. IMO :biggrin:

What are his views on science, btw, since this is a science forum?
 

Similar threads

News Welfare now 21% of Federal Budget
  • · Replies 72 ·
3
Replies
72
Views
11K
News Will a failure to raise the US debt ceiling force a default?
  • · Replies 73 ·
3
Replies
73
Views
12K
News Psssttt, the deficit's shrinking
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
News Is the Tax-Cut Strategy a Con to Dismantle Government Programs?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
News Is George Bush Misusing Taxpayer Money for His Re-Election Campaign?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
News Is a Major Overhaul of the US Government Possible? Feedback Wanted!
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
News Bush Administration: My Indictment
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
News Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of Energy Independence
  • · Replies 133 ·
5
Replies
133
Views
27K
News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
11K