Yes. Eliminating the IRS by cutting gov't spending by 50%? I'd sure be willing to give it a try.
Ron Paul - 1 Week, 1 Million Dollars
- Thread starter RenegadeRick
- Start date
Here is an independent video from Ron Paul Reveres. From what I have seen so far, it's GREAT!
http://ronpaulreveres.com/DVDPlayAll
Tell your friends and enemies. 10 minutes to understand his positions. 10 minutes well spent in my opinion.
http://ronpaulreveres.com/DVDPlayAll
Tell your friends and enemies. 10 minutes to understand his positions. 10 minutes well spent in my opinion.
You are deluded man. Cut 50% of the gov't spending leaves you with...the military.
No FCC, no FDA, no highways, no interstates, no emergency relief.
Completely unreasonable unless you live in a shack in the woods and trap your own food while wearing racoon skin hats.
You just said they were 20% of the budget.
I also pointed out that that wasn't complete. Not even close to it. It is just the base operating budget for the 4 main branches.
Even at 20%, running 80% (+ 6% deficit) of a government on what amounts to 30% of the budget is not possible. It simply cannot happen. In no way shape or form can it be done. It sort of like getting blood from a stone.
Yes but what if they are tin-foil lined raccoon skin hats?
SHHH. They will catch on.
Having discussed political matters with you in the past, I feel I must challenge your assertions about who is and is not in touch with reality. If a person finds problems with the status quo and fails to unquestioningly obey the nearest authority figure, you scream "Tinfoil hat, tinfoil hat. Your reform program is unrealistic!" Do you honestly believe that our world is as just, prosperous, and peaceful as it can be? If not, I am curious to hear your suggestions for improvement.
If you have nothing to propose, you contribute nothing to the discussion. Please stay out of the way.
I propose you try and run the government with less than 50% of the budget while not getting rid of important infrastructure and defense. Put up or shutup.
I theorize that a) you cannot; and that b) you are completely out of touch with the fiscal reality and responsibilities of a sovereign nation state if you even think you can. It isn't about suggestions or improvement, it is about reality. I'd like to imagine i could get by in life without a job and live in a bad ass mansion with a Rolls Royce Phantom. I can claim i can do it all I want. It doesn't make it a reality.
Go for it, the numbers and budgets are all online. Prove to me it can be done. It simply isn't possible to run a modern, 1st world super power on 50% of it's current budget (which is currently running a 6% deficit.
Keep in mind you need a certain level of social programs (emergency relief), you need infrastructure (highways, shipping lanes), you need defense, you need certain governing bodies as mentioned (FCC, FDA), you need intelligence gathering bodies and law enforcement (CIA, FBI, ATF, INS).
Now you go ahead and lay on paper how exactly you are going to do this all on about 1250 billion dollars. Remember, 530+ billion is already gone to the military. Air force, army, navy, marines. You also need the coast guard (not under the military budget). You also need the nuke program, regretably (also not under the military budget). You need the energy department and about a 2 dozen others I can't even think of.
There is a lot of expenditures that can be slimmed down, but you cannot eliminate these from your government. It isn't 1932 anymore.
Claiming you WILL do this is absolute nonsense. But hey, you are free to go ahead and smoke some more dope and believe it is actually possible. It isn't like 2% is going to even get him a nomination, let alone get his crazy ass elected.
PS: The President does not have the authority to get rid of the IRS.
I'm gonna agree with you here, but I cannot address the other stuff. I honestly don't know where to cut specifically, but I know there is a lot to be cut. I heard on the radio today that the GAO said the Air Force has $18 billion in excess spare parts. Has any other Republican candidate suggested they wanted to cut anything? The Democrats seem to just want to create more entitlements which is a move in the wrong direction.
You need to get off the 2% thing. There hasn't been a recent poll in which Paul has ranked so low. It seems your so-called facts aren't holding up. At best, they are outdated.
Sorry, the dec 8 ABC poll has him at 3%.
I'll you you the extra 1% if you it makes you feel better? I guess if you look at it as a 50% increase in support, you can smile.
Zogby has him at 4% yesterday. Fox has him at 3% on the 19th.
You mean this Zogby?
Fox. As if that is a reliable source of information.
Who did they poll? Bill O'Riley and his staff?
lthumbsdown:
Here is some interesting OPINION on polling and who will be the Republican nominee.
I infer that you believe the government must be involved in all these areas, that our super power responsibilities justify and require violence and espionage, and that there is no alternative to the nation state.
That's what you have been told to think, so I guess it's not really your fault, but these are damn inconvenient views to have drilled into the heads of hundreds of millions of people when it becomes necessary for our system of government to evolve.
In other words, you can't do it.
If I were king of the United States and everyone had to obey my edicts I could easily eliminate 50% of the federal budget without eliminating anything I consider essential. However, this is not my personal kingdom and instead of getting out the red pen and cutting programs I'm here talking to you about this.
Until people understand why overspending is a problem, until they believe that our government is too large and intrusive, real reform can't happen without violence or coercion (which I am opposed to).
It is politically impossible and economically disastrous in the short term to just unmake the government's promises. In that sense, you're right, you can't just cut everything out of the budget. People need a transition period that permits them to adjust to the new institutional environment without getting put out on the street. Many libertarians advocate prior restraint in the creation of entitlements and new programs precisely because they are so hard to get rid of once they have employees and constituents. However, hard and impossible are two different things.
Until people understand why overspending is a problem, until they believe that our government is too large and intrusive, real reform can't happen without violence or coercion (which I am opposed to).
It is politically impossible and economically disastrous in the short term to just unmake the government's promises. In that sense, you're right, you can't just cut everything out of the budget. People need a transition period that permits them to adjust to the new institutional environment without getting put out on the street. Many libertarians advocate prior restraint in the creation of entitlements and new programs precisely because they are so hard to get rid of once they have employees and constituents. However, hard and impossible are two different things.
Check this out:
http://www.google.com/intl/en/press/zeitgeist2007/newsmakers.html
Does this mean that everyone who uses Google are tin-hat wearing idiots?
http://www.google.com/intl/en/press/zeitgeist2007/newsmakers.html
Does this mean that everyone who uses Google are tin-hat wearing idiots?
Freudian slip?
Howz a bout a Paultard update eh??
Ron Paul has a whopping 14 delegates!
$19.95 million thru last quarter of 2007 and $5.9 million so far the first quarter of 2008. Grand total of $25,850,000.
That's only $1.8M per delegate...
$19.95 million thru last quarter of 2007 and $5.9 million so far the first quarter of 2008. Grand total of $25,850,000.
That's only $1.8M per delegate...
Well here is a Message from Ron.
Since he says that he will not run independent, and actually says what he believes (unlike Hillary who repeatedly said that she would not run for president), I read it to say that he is focusing on his congressional campaign and letting the presidential campaign slide.
I believe this means that the Republicans are doomed to nominate McCain with his "we could do 100 years in Iraq" carp.
I believe this also means that we will be getting President Obama in less than 1 year.
So, I have a question for Silver. How do you think this will affect the US policy of killing brown people around the world?
I'm not Silver but I reckon y'all be killin's just as many brown people under McCain as you done has been under Dubya.I believe this means that the Republicans are doomed to nominate McCain with his "we could do 100 years in Iraq" carp.
I believe this also means that we will be getting President Obama in less than 1 year.
So, I have a question for Silver. How do you think this will affect the US policy of killing brown people around the world?
mccain prefers the term 'gooks', tyvm
would they be more yellow than brown anyway?
The only difference is that the guy ordering the killing will be brown.
Every US President since Truman (and many before that, but I'm using the Nuremberg definitions) has been guilty of war crimes. It's a requirement of empire.
We need a paultard update!!!
He's going to save us all. All Hail King Ron!
Oh no he isn't..!!!!
God, let it go. He's over and done.
just ask your local paultard during a WoW break...
This thread should be stickied for eternity.
Yesterday I drove by a hotel downtown and a mob of Paulites were out front with their signs and banners and all manner of retardation...WTF? He quit, right? GO HOME.
This post is pretty funny in retrospect
lol....