Printable View
President Obama made the following statement during his most recent weekly radio address:
"I have good news and bad news. The good news is, we have enough money to pay for all of our new social welfare programs. The bad news is, it's still out there in your pockets."OK...he really didn't say that. But he would've if he thought he could get away with it.
Remember those awesome years before Obama, when the budget was balanced?
Oh, right, neither do I.
H.
(Pssst...it was joke, Hoosier)
I have a GREAT idea...
Lets support THIS country instead of the other 150 countries that hate us anyway...
Okay terrific.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
Yeah, I'm just a tad more than annoyed about the fact that we've run a deficit for decades and as a result are now shoveling 10% of our government revenue into servicing that debt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
I fail to understand how anyone who is against the deficit can not be behind Ron Paul. None of the other candidates seem serious about cuts.
H.
I understand your frustration, Hoosier. My problem with Paul is not his fiscal ideas...as a matter of fact, that's what I like about him.
It's some of his other ideas that bother me: some of his stands on supporting business bothers me, I'm with him on ending the "War on Drugs" but he's against using the military for border security and control, some of his opinions on prison vs rehab bother me (I don't think he's "soft" on criminals but I think he's a little idealistic on his idea of rehabilitation), he's in favor of giving out needles to druggies to prevent AIDs and other diseases.
Where he really loses me is in some of his foreign policy ideas...too numerous to mention. He also pissed me off by voting "No" on the gun product liability law.
I echo Bailey Guns on Ron Paul.
I think Ron Paul's domestic economic policy would be pretty good.
I think Ron Paul's foreign policy ideas are poorly thought out. This is not the time in history to withdraw from the world, that time has long past us by. We should be more choosy about our strategic partners. We need to stop about 90% of foreign aid and curb the state department.
I'll third that..
If he had a little more modern view of the rest of the world. Then yes, I could support him.
Ron Paul is too far out there and most of his ideas are not feasible. at least not all of them at once that's for sure.
I am all for gutting the IRS, fixing the tax system with a fair tax. I want to completely eliminate income tax on the federal and state level. almost half of Americans don't pay income tax once refunds are given back. but letting the fed keep your money for a year is BS, not to mention employing IRS workers that could be eliminated.
The private sector would gain a lot more jobs than those lost with the IRS elimination/massive cut.
Honestly, if you are going to vote for ron paul, you are wasting your vote. Sure, make your point by voting for him...but where has it honestly got him? nowhere.
It is just like the south park episode about voting (and PETA). One way or another you are voting for a Giant Douche or a Turd Sandwich.
How can this be, though? He's in the Republican primaries, so that's your chance to vote for him. If I vote for him in a primary, it's not like I'm helping a Democrat along at the same time.Quote:
Originally Posted by sniper7
It's not like Ross Perot and the third-party-problem.
H.
do you honestly think he has a chance to win the primaries. Given his past, the votes he had garnered before. the current situation the economy is in. people are looking for someone that is going to give them stability, positive influence on the economy, bring down the deficit, give them jobs, protect them from terrorism and keep the border under control.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoosier
Paul has some great ideas, but it is too extreme right now for people to really rally behind them.
So yes it would be a waste of a vote, even in the primaries. and he wouldn't stand a chance against the renewed hope and change billion dollar campaign. His oratorical skills don't even come close to obamas. that is where obama won. he talked to the people, he speaks very well and he can spew bullshit that amazingly people believe and latch on to.
People want change, Obama promised it and didn't deliver. That's the message that sells. We'll have to see who's in the final GOP field, but the rest feel interchangeable... tax cuts for corporations and using government to funnel money to them by every means imaginable. Weeee!Quote:
Originally Posted by sniper7
H.
if you sit back and think about the economy and come to the conclusion that "corporations" are to blame, then you have a flawed world view.
Corporations and their ownership of government. Congress in particular (both sides of the aisle) have just one master, and it isn't the suckers who elect them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elhuero
H.
Do you know his platform and how it would be installed? Did he ever say it would be over night? Keep drinking NEO Con koolaid. He is the only FREEDOM & PEACE candidate.
So keep voting for your slavery, I'm sure this next batch of "conservatives will keep their word. Notice how Congress controls the purse strings and yet no change.
Quit the left right crap and educate yourself on our banking system which has bankrupted this Country. GOP and Dems differ in action very little.
We are broke and will be a third world country if we don't wrestle control of our currency back soon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sniper7
I THINK the same way but reality is a bitch and not more than 50% of the country has this type of massive change type thinking. I like a lot of ron pauls ideas. All I am saying is I don't think he has a chance to win. I think the person with a chance hasn't even come out yet, isn't well known and we can only hope he has some of the same thinking as we do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rust_shackleford
We get it. There are some rabid Ron Paul fans on the board. But since no one else will say it, I will. Ron Paul ain't all that and a bag o chips. His foreign policy ideals are totally whacked. The first casualty of a Ron Paul presidency would be our relations with Israel.
He makes good fiscal sense and has a good understanding of the Constitution. That's it.
Throw out all the platitudes you want. Ron Paul will not only not get elected, he won't even survive the primaries. And it has nothing to do with "left right crap". It has to do with a majority of people not liking, or believing in, some of the things he stands for. Like his idiotic ideas on foreign policy.
Not only that, but anyone who says Ron Paul is the only "real conservative" candidate this early in the game is a fool. The field isn't even populated yet and may not be for several more months.
The thing is, the primaries are the ONLY way to make any real change. In the end, either the Ass or the Elephant will win; third party candidates don't stand a ghost of a chance. So if we get another McCain in 2012, we're probably hosed because most GOP candidates will simply bring MOTS to DC.
Very few politicians are ready to stand up and make the hard choices that need to be made. Worse, the electorate is fickle; most people want the hard choices to be made, as long as it doesn't affect THEIR GOODIES.
In order to stop this train wreck, we need large numbers of people elected who are willing to stop the earmarks; quit spending the $$ in that cat-box; be honest about the unfunded promises that we can't afford to keep (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the like); kill the farm and other corporate subsidies; control the borders; institute a tax system that puts some skin in the game for EVERY citizen. The list goes on. And on.
But most people don't want THEIR stuff to be cut. Trouble is, we can't afford to pay for YOUR stuff any more. Nor for mine. Life's a bitch.
Like I said, we're hosed.
Sad, but I agree with this-Quote:
Originally Posted by Tweety Bird
I like Ron Paul, in terms of economics, I agree with his stance on drug control (or lack there of) and giving out needles even (it would still be much much cheaper than dealing with Hep C, AIDs, HIV, etc., and if you are willing to use a dirty needle, a clean needle isn't the reason you put that shit in your body). And its a big "screw you" to the cartels. They have nothing on the business skills of American business. I would like to see Coke given a shot at marketing crack! and then I would really like to see the tax revenue! As to it killing people, they do it anyways, and we pay for it, anyways, this just brings it above board. As to rehab vs. Prison. Rehab has little chance of fixing addiction, prison has no chance.
As to militarizing the border, that won't fly anyways, long standing treaty between the US and Mexico. worthless or not, the treaty is what it is, and they are a huge trading partner, really sensitive to this. I think its cool to militarize the US/Canada border though, for what its worth.
I am nervous about his foreign policy, truthfully.
that said, I think the GOP has put forward a few lumps of crap and are hoping to trick people who vote R because it says R behind their names. Honestly, if you wanted to be president, now is your shot! Throw an R on your name, don't cheat on your wife with anything with a vagina or suddenly change all of your opinions miraculously depending on the voting block you face, and then lie your way to the top ( don't get caught doing it). After that you only have to beat Obama, not bad odds for the job.
I really hope a few more options show up at the table or I'm probably swinging third party. Hell, every time I've voted its sure seemed like I wasted my vote, regardless of who won. The way I see it, if I'm wasting my vote anyways, I may as well hold my head up this time.
I haven't heard a solid plan from Paul about cutting, either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoosier
Also, the reason no GOP candidate for dog catcher, let alone president, is presenting any detailed budget cut plan (and no, Paul Ryan's "lets increase our spending LESS FAST than we are right now" doesn't count as a budget cutting plan) is because there is a vanishingly small number of people who support actual, as opposed to theoretical, cuts.
Let me explain. You see, for example, a recent poll that 75% of Americans support a "spending cap." Splendid. That means no more deficeit, right? Get on it.
Hold on there. Numerous other polls show that when it comes time to make actual cuts, the story is different. Only 24% of Americans support making cuts to social security, medicare and medicaid and other mandatory welfare-state expenditures.
This is a big problem, because if you axed all discretionary spending - the military chief among it, I mean just said the US isn't having a military anymore - we're just barely be in the black.
People are under the false impression that we could cut pork or a few (or even a lot) of unimportant programs, we'd be back in the black again. Or even a few structural changes to social security or medicare or medicaid. This is untrue. We are at the point that balancing the budget for a year requires drastic cuts or complete phase-outs of large segments of the governmeent, with any realistic plan to pay back the debt in 20 years or less to mean more cuts.
1.2 trillion is a lot of money. The entire military is half of that. Social security, medicare, medicaid and other mandatory expenses don't need to be "adjusted" or "made more efficient" - they need to go, and fast, or the entire economy will tank.
I don't see any candidate - or any large chunk of the voting public - demanding that, so there will not be that.
I'll give you an example of how drastic the problem is.
Let's start cutting the 2010 budget and see how long it takes us to get to 1.2 trillion dollars, or just barely in the black. If we cut 1.9 trillion dollas and kept growth in government pegged to growth (or shrinkage) in GDP, we'd be on pace to pay the debt off in about 20 years, so that's our #2 budget goal.
Let's start cutting! (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Un...federal_budget)
Let's just completely axe these departments. All numbers are in trillions of dollars. We just need to get to 1.2 to be barely in the black, and 1.9 to be on pace to pay the debt off in under 20 years.
Here we go! Let's just axe all these departments. All dollar figures are in trillions.
0.078 - Department of Health and Human Services
0.072 - Department of Transportation
0.052 - Department of Veterans Affairs
0.052 - Department of State and otherInternational Programs
0.047 - Department of Housing and Urban Development
0.047 - Department of Education
0.043 - Department of Homeland Security
0.026 - Department of Energy
0.026 - Department of Agriculture
0.019 - NASA
0.014 - Department of Commerce
0.014 - Department of Labor (490)
0.013 - Department of the Teasury
0.012 - Department of the Interior
0.011 - The EPA
0.010 - The Social Security Administration
0.007 - National Science Foundation
0.005 - Corps of Engineers
0.005 - National Infrastructure Bank
0.001 - Corporation for National and Community Service
0.001 - Small Business Administration + General Services Administration
0.125 - "Other" (per the budget)
Okay! We've cut ALL discretionary spending EXCEPT the military and department of justice. How far along are we?
About $680 billion in cuts. A little over halfway to a balanced budget, and about 1/3 of the way to paying off the debt in 20 years or less!
Okay, let's cut the military in half. We don't need all those overseaas bases, nuclear carrier fleets and wars in the mideast, right? That brings us up to 1.011 trillion dollars, or still short of our goal of a balanced budget by about 190 billion bucks. If you insist on not cutting tthe military, make that about 520 billion dollars.
Okay! Let's see what we have left:
Social Security: $695 billion
Medicare: $453 billion
Medicaid: $290 billion
Other Entitlement Programs: $571 billion
If we cut expenses on all of those programs by 10%, we have a (barely) balanced budget. This can be done by raising the retirement age on SS, and making it harder to collect medicare or medicaid. If you don't want to cut the military, an across the board cut of about 25% is needed (or some mix and match thats effectively that.)
We have a problem, though; the national debt still doesn't get paid off in less than around 100 years in this scenario. And who knows! that half of the military we cut before might eventually come to bite us in the ass. Its possible.
So lets try to get to that magic 1.9 trillion:
If we cut all programs by about 40% - so, raise the retirement age effective immediately so that half of the rolls of social security are shed, and about half of the people on medicare and medicaid no longer qualify for payments from that.
If you don't want to cut the military, increase that to about a 60% cut in all programs.
It's time people fessed up. We aren't balancing the budget. Everyone has their finger in the pie and everyone is going to whine when their handout gets cut. What the people won't demand, the politicians won't deliver.