| The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/ |
|
| Paul's overall budget goals https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=7393 |
Page 1 of 3 |
| Author: | Elmarnieh [ Mon Oct 17, 2011 1:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Paul's overall budget goals |
http://c3244172.r72.cf0.rackcdn.com/wp- ... caPlan.pdf I like the Presidential pay cut a lot. |
|
| Author: | Midgen [ Mon Oct 17, 2011 2:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Paul's overall budget goals |
Sign me up... I think The Pesident, all of his appointees (including czars), and all elected federal represetatives should have to work for free until they balance the budget. |
|
| Author: | Lenas [ Mon Oct 17, 2011 2:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ron Paul 2012 let's do it. |
|
| Author: | Midgen [ Mon Oct 17, 2011 6:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
From the link Elmo provided: Ron Paul's Plan to Restore America wrote: SPENDING:
Cuts $1 trillion in spending during the Frst year of Ron Paul’s presidency, eliminating Five cabinet departments (Energy, HUD, Commerce, Interior, and Education), abolishing the Transportation Security Administration and returning responsibility for security to private property owners, abolishing corporate subsidies, stopping foreign aid, ending foreign wars, and returning most other spending to 2006 level |
|
| Author: | Xequecal [ Mon Oct 17, 2011 7:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
There's not really enough info in that plan to make a decision. He wants to get rid of the Dept of Commerce and the Dept of Energy. Commerce is the department that issues patents and trademarks, someone has to do that. You can't just get rid of it. Energy oversees the nuclear weapons, of course someone needs to do this. Also, the budget projections are just pure fabrications. A $1 trillion increase in federal revenues in four years? Yeah, right. Why do people even care about Presidential pay? This is even stupider than when people complain about CEO pay. Even if it is a "problem" it's so minor it's not worth addressing. Honestly, what really scares me about Paul is not his actual stated positions, but that he's a total hardliner who will never compromise. If he gets elected and Congress passes something that gives him half of what he outlines in this plan I'd see him vetoing it on pure principle. In fact I'd see him taking the stance that he will veto everything Congress passes period until they approve his budget plan. |
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Mon Oct 17, 2011 7:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Paul's overall budget goals |
DOD can oversee nuclear weapons. Just move the agency that does this under DOD separate from the actual services. That's hardly a problem. |
|
| Author: | Stathol [ Mon Oct 17, 2011 8:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Xequecal wrote: If he gets elected and Congress passes something that gives him half of what he outlines in this plan I'd see him vetoing it on pure principle. In fact I'd see him taking the stance that he will veto everything Congress passes period until they approve his budget plan. I don't think that he would veto everything just because their budget didn't match his plan. I do believe that he would veto everything if they fail to balance the budget. But in either case...good! Quite honestly, virtually any balanced budget would be superior to what we have now. And if Congress doesn't like it, they can go suck a 3/4 majority egg. That's what it's there for. Frankly, "unless you want to have to get a 3/4 majority for everything you pass, balance the **** budget" is a message that Congress desperately needs to be dick-slapped with. And it's not like this is some kind of secret agenda. It's going to be awfully hard (in an alternate reality where Paul actually gets elected...) to find political cover when that spending bill for, say, Social Security won't pass given that the President has told you up front that he's going to veto everything until you balance the budget. I mean, they call him "Dr. No" FFS. How well do you think "we jeopardized your retirement because we thought he was bluffing" is going to fly? |
|
| Author: | Rorinthas [ Mon Oct 17, 2011 8:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Xequecal wrote: Why do people even care about Presidential pay? This is even stupider than when people complain about CEO pay. Even if it is a "problem" it's so minor it's not worth addressing. It's a little thing, but it shows that frugality begins at "home" so to speak. Also I don't know about nukes (DE's idea sounds as good as any), but we had patents long before we had a secretary of commerce. I don't see anyone else in federal government laying out a budget these days so you at least have to give him props for that. |
|
| Author: | Kaffis Mark V [ Mon Oct 17, 2011 9:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Stathol wrote: Frankly, "unless you want to have to get a 3/4 majority for everything you pass, balance the **** budget" is a message that Congress desperately needs to be dick-slapped with. And it's not like this is some kind of secret agenda. It's going to be awfully hard (in an alternate reality where Paul actually gets elected...) to find political cover when that spending bill for, say, Social Security won't pass given that the President has told you up front that he's going to veto everything until you balance the budget. I mean, they call him "Dr. No" FFS. How well do you think "we jeopardized your retirement because we thought he was bluffing" is going to fly? QFMFT. This is exactly WHY we need a hardliner in the Presidency. |
|
| Author: | Corolinth [ Mon Oct 17, 2011 9:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ron Paul would just be making up for twelve years of presidents not vetoing a goddamn thing. |
|
| Author: | Midgen [ Mon Oct 17, 2011 9:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I don't love everything about Ron Paul. But every single one of the other candidates (possibly excepting Cain's questionable 9-9-9 plan) are just status quo. For all intents and purposes they are all the same. I refuse to support status quo. It's obvious what is being done, and has been done for the last 30+ year has been moving us further and further down the shithole. Something needs to change and it needs to change dramatically. No more arguing about a million here or a billion there. Screw it.... At this point I'm going to vote for the candidate that makes the best case for reducing government size, and government waste. And the more the merrier... |
|
| Author: | Khross [ Mon Oct 17, 2011 10:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Paul's overall budget goals |
The First U.S. Patent act was passed in 1790 and amended in 1793 with the definition (by Jefferson) that persists today. The U.S. Patent Office existed for 110 years before it was pushed under the Department of Commerce and Labor, which was split into two Departments about a decade later. |
|
| Author: | Lex Luthor [ Tue Oct 18, 2011 12:30 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Either you vote status quo or you vote Ron Paul. The status quo obviously hasn't worked out too great. |
|
| Author: | Rorinthas [ Tue Oct 18, 2011 2:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I still think he should be running for Speaker, not President. |
|
| Author: | Lex Luthor [ Tue Oct 18, 2011 4:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Rorinthas wrote: I still think he should be running for Speaker, not President. You're so stupid, nobody runs for speaker. Wikipedia wrote: In modern practice, the Speaker is chosen by the majority party from among its senior leaders, either when a vacancy in the office arrives, or when the majority party changes.
|
|
| Author: | Wwen [ Tue Oct 18, 2011 5:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I'm completely tired of compromise. We compromise everything I hold dear. |
|
| Author: | Buliwyf [ Thu Oct 20, 2011 5:21 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Paul's overall budget goals |
Cool. I can go fishing that day. |
|
| Author: | Rorinthas [ Thu Oct 20, 2011 9:33 am ] |
| Post subject: | Paul's overall budget goals |
I know the Speaker isn't directly elected. However that doesn't mean he wouldn't be better at it than Boener nor that he couldn't campaign for people to call their reps to support selecting him as Speaker. |
|
| Author: | Kaffis Mark V [ Thu Oct 20, 2011 11:34 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Paul's overall budget goals |
Rorinthas wrote: I know the Speaker isn't directly elected. However that doesn't mean he wouldn't be better at it than Boener nor that he couldn't campaign for people to call their reps to support selecting him as Speaker. Paul would be a nightmare Speaker for the majority of Republican reps. It would never happen, no matter who or how many people called in. The Speaker is all about directing how deals are cut. Deals are what keep reps electable. Dr. No is the last person they want in that kind of position. You could probably sway some of the "Tea Party" freshmen, but that's about it. |
|
| Author: | Buliwyf [ Thu Oct 20, 2011 3:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Paul's overall budget goals |
Ron Paul would be a nightmare President, too. You think the media beats up the Republican party as the party of "No" now? Elect Ron Paul and the Dems will hold the WH and both houses of Congress in 4 years, and it may last for a generation before the GOP is viable again. |
|
| Author: | Rynar [ Thu Oct 20, 2011 3:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Paul's overall budget goals |
Buliwyf wrote: Ron Paul would be a nightmare President, too. You think the media beats up the Republican party as the party of "No" now? Elect Ron Paul and the Dems will hold the WH and both houses of Congress in 4 years, and it may last for a generation before the GOP is viable again. Why? Do you feel Americans would for some reason be opposed to peace and prosperity after being exposed to it for four years? |
|
| Author: | Midgen [ Thu Oct 20, 2011 3:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Paul's overall budget goals |
Buliwyf wrote: Ron Paul would be a nightmare President, too. You think the media beats up the Republican party as the party of "No" now? Elect Ron Paul and the Dems will hold the WH and both houses of Congress in 4 years, and it may last for a generation before the GOP is viable again. I too am curious for a more detailed understanding of this position... |
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Thu Oct 20, 2011 3:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Paul's overall budget goals |
Rynar wrote: Buliwyf wrote: Ron Paul would be a nightmare President, too. You think the media beats up the Republican party as the party of "No" now? Elect Ron Paul and the Dems will hold the WH and both houses of Congress in 4 years, and it may last for a generation before the GOP is viable again. Why? Do you feel Americans would for some reason be opposed to peace and prosperity after being exposed to it for four years? Evidently he thinks that Ron Paul will not result in 4 years of peace and prosperity. |
|
| Author: | Midgen [ Thu Oct 20, 2011 3:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Paul's overall budget goals |
Diamondeye wrote: Rynar wrote: Buliwyf wrote: Ron Paul would be a nightmare President, too. You think the media beats up the Republican party as the party of "No" now? Elect Ron Paul and the Dems will hold the WH and both houses of Congress in 4 years, and it may last for a generation before the GOP is viable again. Why? Do you feel Americans would for some reason be opposed to peace and prosperity after being exposed to it for four years? Evidently he thinks that Ron Paul will not result in 4 years of peace and prosperity. Nor would it with any of the other fscking retards running for that office... |
|
| Author: | Rynar [ Thu Oct 20, 2011 3:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Paul's overall budget goals |
Diamondeye wrote: Rynar wrote: Buliwyf wrote: Ron Paul would be a nightmare President, too. You think the media beats up the Republican party as the party of "No" now? Elect Ron Paul and the Dems will hold the WH and both houses of Congress in 4 years, and it may last for a generation before the GOP is viable again. Why? Do you feel Americans would for some reason be opposed to peace and prosperity after being exposed to it for four years? Evidently he thinks that Ron Paul will not result in 4 years of peace and prosperity. Well, he's free to be wrong I suppose. I'll come at his expounded argument once he makes it. |
|
| Page 1 of 3 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|