Here's Ron Paul's Crazy Plan To Destroy The Economy. He will eliminate five departments, saving one trillion in spending, and only take a presidential salary of $39,336.
Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), who is running for the GOP presidential nomination, released his economic plan to dramatically reduce the size of government in his first year in office.
Titled the "Plan to Restore America," Paul's plan would cut nearly $1 trillion
in federal spending immediately after taking office, while also cutting
over $500 billion in revenues when compared to President Barack Obama's
2012 budget. He claims his plan would return the nation to budget
surpluses by 2015.
would cut funding from nearly every government agency, while
eliminating several Cabinet agencies in their entirety. On the revenue
side, Paul would lower the corporate tax rate and eliminate the capital
gains and estate taxes.
Here are some of the cuts, and how much they would save in FY 2013 compared to the Congressional Budget Office baseline:
- Cut over $600 billion from mandatory spending programs including cuts to unemployment insurance
- Department of Defense: End the wars, freeze other spending. $196,695,000,000
- Department of Transportation: Privatize the FAA, $39,936,000,000
- Department of Health and Human Services: Cut funding for FDA and CDC, eliminate Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. $16,972,000,000
- Department of Homeland Security: Privatize the TSA. $13,788,000,000
- Department of State: Eliminate foreign aid and dues for international organizations. $19,412,000,000
- Environmental Protection Agency: 30 percent cut from 2006 levels. $4,281,000,000
- Eliminate the Departments of Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Commerce, Interior and Education. $173,677,000,000
- Cut Medicaid spending by $95,000,000,000 (34% cut)
- Cut Food Stamps program by $50,000,000,000 (62% cut)
- Cut Child Nutrition programs by $7,000,000,000 (33% cut)
- The plan does not reduce Social Security, Medicare, or retirement program spending
Notably
the plan does not include an analysis of the economic effects of Paul's
proposed budget — though cutting $1 trillion from the federal budget
would be an instantaneous 7 percent cut to GDP, nearly equivalent to the
slowdown seen during the 'Great Recession.'
And proof right here that this guy has lost his mind.
Department of Education: They oversee things like ensuring the
nations education follows civil rights, students can get financial aid,
special education, adult education. Yeah, lets privatize all that and
the market will ensure that our children get the best education...
Department of Energy: They only oversee everything nuclear in our
country. Waste disposal, plant standards, and weapons. Not to mention
they help ensure standards in power and power generation across the
country. OH, they are also the largest sponsors of R&D; and are the
department that has such no-name labs like Lawrence Livermore, Los
Alamos, Oak Ridge, and Ames, but they've never done anything of
importance.
Department of Commerce: Guess there is no need for NOAA, National
Weather Service, Patent and Trademark office, National Institute of
Standards and Technology, National Telecommunications and Information
Administration. The industry will self regulate right? I mean
ATT/Comcast and all the companies are doing such a great job, right?
Department of the Interior: Yeah, who needs a National Parks service,
Fish and Wildlife service, Reclamation, or any of that other
conservation stuff that corporations and the market seem to always
respect. Right?
Housing and Urban Development: The mortgage crisis never happened, we
should remove even more roadblocks in the housing industry to ensure
the market can get everyone into a home...
All of these departments are regulatory and management departments
and were stood up because the market wasn't doing a good job, because
the market was excluding people, because the things these departments
oversee shouldn't be for-profit.
He also wants to cut all funding to NASA, the EPA, FEMA, stem cell
research, is against gay rights, the Civil Rights Act and would allow
states to have prayer in school.
problem with this is that it will result in a depression. There will be
few good options for growing out of that depression. There will be lots
of bad options for growing out of it.
I think that world investors may have to take some sort of bath through a
jubilee of debt forgiveness, unless we can start putting people to work
actually improving airports, roads, etc.
I am concerned that with Europe on the ropes, this would be a very bad
idea. Deutsche Bank is in really bad shape. There are others as well.
France may not be able to bail out banks without credit rating woes. I
just think this big cut now would be dangerous.
And you know Wall Street will attempt risk on trades. How can you cut
these when many staples are already priced too high? And jobs aren't out
their to cut unemployment benefits. You will see more people on the
street, hardly a confidence booster for everyone else. You could start a
spiral downward.
Read the full plan here >
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2011/10/18/ron-pauls-bold-budget-p...
"...but then it would be come apparent whether government ran systems verses privately ran systems perform better and at less cost."
You have a really skewed perception of of how you see things around you, Are you on medication? Everything sold in the private industry is a lot more expensive. Although the nation's gross domestic product declined in 2009, health care spending rose to an estimated $2.5 trillion in 2009, or $8,047 per person, according to us today. That number will grow to $4.5 trillion in 2019, or 19.3% of the GDP, which is the entire economic output of the USA.
As far as I understand it, your approach is pretty much "fend for yourself", and the market will take care of it.You live in a dream world. States have been proven time and time again to ignore entire groups of citizens. It just looks better if the larger group thinks they were correct in doing this. Paul actually said the "free market" would have ended slavery. But then being Paul, he said the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT should have bought all the slaves. Does that make sense? No The Federal Government would have had to force slave owners to sell. Paul said his idea would have avoided the CIVIL WAR! I think forcing slave owners would have caused a CIVIL WAR. The man i...
&
"...but then it would be come apparent whether government ran systems verses privately ran systems perform better and at less cost."
You have a really skewed perception of of how you see things around you, Are you on medication? Everything sold in the private industry is a lot more expensive. Although the nation's gross domestic product declined in 2009, health care spending rose to an estimated $2.5 trillion in 2009, or $8,047 per person, according to us today. That number will grow to $4.5 trillion in 2019, or 19.3% of the GDP, which is the entire economic output of the USA.
As far as I understand it, your approach is pretty much "fend for yourself", and the market will take care of it.You live in a dream world. States have been proven time and time again to ignore entire groups of citizens. It just looks better if the larger group thinks they were correct in doing this. Paul actually said the "free market" would have ended slavery. But then being Paul, he said the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT should have bought all the slaves. Does that make sense? No The Federal Government would have had to force slave owners to sell. Paul said his idea would have avoided the CIVIL WAR! I think forcing slave owners would have caused a CIVIL WAR. The man is nuts.
"I have faith in private market when allowed to run without interference from government. We have not actually had this in a very long time."
There is no free market. Corps already control a big share ( at least most) of the market
"The Housing crises was caused because the government stepped in and forced businesses to take greater risks than they thought were good with the promise that when the bubble did burst, the government would bail them out."
As usual, you are wrong. The origination of subprime loans came primarily from non-bank lenders not covered by the [Community Reinvestment Act, a law pushing the two GSEs to purchase more loans in the secondary markets and thus expand access to housing loans to low-income neighborhoods]; Prior to 2005, nearly all of these sub-prime loans were bought by Wall Street—NOT Fannie & Freddie;
"Why would lenders make loans to people's who's credit was poor or who could not otherwise afford it unless those loans were guaranteed by government agencies like Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac?"
When the big banks began chasing subprime, it was due to the profit motive, not any mandate from the President (a Republican) or the Congress (Republican controlled) or the GSEs they oversaw;
In fact, prior to 2005, the GSEs were not permitted to purchase non-conforming mortgages;The change in FannieM/Freddie M conforming mortgage purchases in 2005 was not due to any legislation or marching orders from the President (a Republican) or the the Congress (Republican controlled). It was the profit motive that led them to this action.
Too bad, not gonna happen any time soon.
"I have waited for Nasa to be gutted so that space exploration and new innovations could come to the forefront of developing new manufacturing."
What the hell do you define as "new manufacturing"?
"There is no need for FEMA."
Really, idiot? If there was no FEMA, the victims of Katrina of that hurricane hit the northeast coast would be died, displaced, homeless, or be starving to death. What are they capitalizing on exactly? Poor have no money, hence no capital. The thought doesn't pass muster sir, it just sounds good. A solution in a sentence. And Paul had an opportunity to find a charity to take care of his last campaign manager, didn't he? The man died, and left his Mom with huge debts, all because when he was well, he was considered un insurable for pre existing conditions.
"DOE has been a fiasco since its inception."
Maybe in that mentally ill head of yours.
"Privatized schools do better for the education of students (waiting for superman)."
While you're at it, let's privatize the highways, police depts, food stamps. and the DMVs.
The movie "Waiting for Superman" was saying charter schools and parochial schools are somewhat better than public schools.
"I think the US Treas.ury should coin our m...
Too bad, not gonna happen any time soon.
"I have waited for Nasa to be gutted so that space exploration and new innovations could come to the forefront of developing new manufacturing."
What the hell do you define as "new manufacturing"?
"There is no need for FEMA."
Really, idiot? If there was no FEMA, the victims of Katrina of that hurricane hit the northeast coast would be died, displaced, homeless, or be starving to death. What are they capitalizing on exactly? Poor have no money, hence no capital. The thought doesn't pass muster sir, it just sounds good. A solution in a sentence. And Paul had an opportunity to find a charity to take care of his last campaign manager, didn't he? The man died, and left his Mom with huge debts, all because when he was well, he was considered un insurable for pre existing conditions.
"DOE has been a fiasco since its inception."
Maybe in that mentally ill head of yours.
"Privatized schools do better for the education of students (waiting for superman)."
While you're at it, let's privatize the highways, police depts, food stamps. and the DMVs.
The movie "Waiting for Superman" was saying charter schools and parochial schools are somewhat better than public schools.
"I think the US Treas.ury should coin our money according to Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution."
I think they do.
"I hope we can have national parks turned over then we wouldn't have issues as catostrophic fires and only individuals visiting would be paying for its maintenance and less erosion would occur at the parks. I don't think taxpayers should fund it. I think he has some excellent ideas on how to save the Republic."
Everything you've said is devoid of sense, (You make no sense.)These state parks are a public trust and entity given to the people by past legislation and persons of good will and well meaning. This philosophy of “privatization” is nothing less than another form of a Teapot Dome scandal.
Why is it that many idiot politicians like Con Paul and Christie of our time even bother to run for public office when they do not believe in government itself. This lack of public service while serving in office is quite unique and was glorified by President Ronald Reagan.The purpose of government is a noble one — promote prosperity, create harmony, prevent destructive competition among various groups. Christie reflects none of these aspects of purpose nor does his party.
Corrupting our state parks is a form of blasphemy. We should be instilling better management policies, expanding biodiversity within and around our parks, providing more funding and inspiring others to treat our wild places in a respectful manner.
These parks are not real estate, they are gardens of life’s diversity. Better managed, yes; privatization, no way.
" If there was no FEMA, the victims of Katrina of that hurricane hit the northeast coast would be died, displaced, homeless, or be starving to death"<---over a thousand died remember.
I like your ideas on privatized: roads, police dept.s and DMV's, not a fan of food stamps.
("I think the US Treas.ury should coin our money according to Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution." ------ I think they do.) The private federal reserve bank prints fiat money. It says Federal Reserve note on the top, rather than silver or gold certificate. When was the last time you exchanged silver or gold at the bank? December 23rd, 1913 --- the creature from Jekyll island.
six words to look up in order: Violence, Force, Law, Justice, Liberty, Peace ---you will find that most laws are unjust they are an act of violence through force which is the opposite of justice, liberty, and peace.
Rather than hatred, I come to you with peaceful coercion unlike many that use an antithesis coercion. Please take a chance to watch these videos.
Adherence to the gold standard prevented the Federal Reserve from expanding the money supply in order to stimulate the economy, fund insolvent banks and fund government deficits which could "prime the pump" for an expansion. Once the US went off the gold standard, it became free to engage in such money creation. The gold standard limited the flexibility of the central banks' monetary policy by limiting their ability to expand the money supply, and thus their ability to lower interest rates. In the US, the Federal Reserve was required by law to have 40% gold backing of its Federal Reserve demand notes, and thus, could not expand the money supply beyond what was allowed by the gold reserves held in their vaults.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1807996
Charlatan Austrian economists like you need professional help. Here's a paper explaining how retarded you sound right now:
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bc...
Austrian economics is asinine, at best. Foolishly stupid at worst. It's just another restatement of supply-side theory which is completely contrary to how the world really works and how economies have been driven for 6000+ years. Only morons think Austrian economics has any answers.
http://thereisnoaustrianschoo...
gold standard is dumb and dangerous:
http://www.econlib.org/librar...