Ron Paul Plan: $1T cut, kill 5 departments, & presidential pay = $39K

[Bill of Rights]

I'm no economist, but it sounds like Dr. Paul has (and has had for a long time) the right ideas. I really hope he gets to put them into operation. I do agree he may lose the SS recipient's vote due to this plan. There is no way around it, though: Weaning people off the government teat is going to be difficult. The question is not if we will do it or if we need to, the question is when we will do it, and it is not going to get easier.

The lowering of the Presidential salary is symbolic, as noted: When the President makes $400,000/yr, that's $1.6M over a four-year term. When they're spending millions (plural) both from their campaign contributions and from their personal bank accounts, they are not seeking the job for the income, not to mention the cutting of $1.5M from the federal budget is less than a drop in the bucket. It does do much to tell the average citizen, "Hey, this guy doesn't think he's any better than me!", and that may be a big step toward removing the "us vs. them" paradigm. I would LOVE to see all of our federal officeholders make similar cuts to their salaries.

To be clear, I don't have a problem with someone doing a job and accepting whatever he can get for doing it, but I do have a problem with it when they vote it for themselves, from everyone else's money, and the people footing the bill don't have any say in the matter.

I'll be watching this.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[ATOMonkey]

I would like to see more meaningful tax reform out of Paul.

Otherwise, I agree with all of his plans. I think $1T might be too big of a bite for those receiving patronage to swallow though. Realistically, they'll balk, and be very vocal about it. Hopefully it won't get violent, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

My $.02

 

[mrjarrell]

There will be no end to foreign aid. Paul doesn't have the authority to do it.

He could certainly veto any foreign aid bill that came across his desk, so I'd say he does have the authority. He could also make all the departments under the executive branch stop with the foreign aid, as the chief executive.

 

[hornadylnl]

To those that SS is a central issue to their vote, they aren't going to vote repub anyway. Nice to see a candidate state their plans vs talking out of both sides of their mouths to try to get votes from both sides.

 

[teddy12b]

I love me some Ron Paul. I'm looking forward to reading his plan tonight.

 

[spec4]

The younger folks I talk to would love to opt out of social security. The offset could be to allow them to put a similar amount into IRA's. Ron Paul's plan looks good at first blush. More palatable than 999, and will cause the liberals to go nuts.

 

[CampingJosh]

I figure that those who opt out of Social Security will likely only be able to opt out of the employee portion; half of the money (the "invisible" half from the employers) will still go in. That's the only way to make the ponzi scheme work even in the very short term.

 

[88GT]

He could certainly veto any foreign aid bill that came across his desk, so I'd say he does have the authority. He could also make all the departments under the executive branch stop with the foreign aid, as the chief executive.

No, he only has the authority to veto. Not end it. And given the nature of legislation, it's never the only issue. There is never a "foreign aid bill" that covers it all. Without a line-item veto, he must sacrifice something, either the main purpose of the legislation or the ending of foreign aid. Not saying I disagree with his desire. Just saying it's a pie-in-the-sky dream.

To those that SS is a central issue to their vote, they aren't going to vote repub anyway. Nice to see a candidate state their plans vs talking out of both sides of their mouths to try to get votes from both sides.

I believe you are sorely mistaken. When I canvassed my neighborhoods for signatures for the 2010 primary ballot, more than half of the residents I visited were old enough to draw SS, and every last one of them voted Republican. Not just the last election cycle, but repeatedly, historically. Which is one of the reasons Romney is taking Perry to task over the SS issue.

 

[rambone]

Here is the press-conference on the Plan to Restore America, freshly uploaded to YouTube.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-2Zs0-N1dA

 

[rjstew317]

88 is right, without a like minded congress most of what Paul would like to do would never see the light of day if he were elected

 

[rambone]

88 is right, without a like minded congress most of what Paul would like to do would never see the light of day if he were elected

Ditto for every other candidate. Anybody think that 9-9-9 is a done deal without a congressional battle?

But just as importantly, a strong-willed president can veto the continuous stream of unconstitutional laws that congress regularly pushes.

 

[EvilBlackGun]

Modify foreign aid, not eliminate it altogether.

The goon-squads who get that money now just spend it the same way our politicians do here: to buy votes. If there are legitimate needs in those F.A. countries, then WE in the U.S.A. should fill those needs, by supplying the food, mechanics, utensils, goods and products that are needed, and then SELL those to the F.A. recipients, including food and medicine. A whole lot of Americans would be put to work. And a very obvious work-force supply is in the street right now: graduate "students" who won't pay their tuition back to us. Give them jobs. Real, honorable, sweaty jobs, like we've all had. One last item; bring our troopers home. Use the payroll saved, to build more drones -- the less-sophisticated kind -- and blow ALL islamofascits out of this world.

 

[88GT]

Ditto for every other candidate. Anybody think that 9-9-9 is a done deal without a congressional battle?

Nope, but incrementalism is easier to spoon feed than the entire bottle of medicine in one swig. And reality has to play a part in this. I know it burns your britches, but Paul's plan is too radically different (as in degree of difference between the status quo and his desired end point) to gain much traction. The sheer brazenness is enough to turn people off, even if after reflection, they might actually agree with it. Ignoring that reality is folly for what good is the best plan in the world if nobody is listening or open to support it?

But just as importantly, a strong-willed president can veto the continuous stream of unconstitutional laws that congress regularly pushes.

I doubt even Paul will be able to stand so solidly on his principles if elected. That's not a reflection on his integrity. Just an observation of past behavior. Compromise is the name of the game. If he thinks for one second he can thumb his nose at Congress and veto every thing they send to his desk (which arguably, he probably should), and then expect them to work with him to implement his goals, he's loonier than I thought. I wish it weren't that way, but it is. He needs Congress because he can't do it all alone.

 

[Bummer]

Nope, but incrementalism is easier to spoon feed than the entire bottle of medicine in one swig. And reality has to play a part in this. ... I wish it weren't that way, but it is. He needs Congress because he can't do it all alone.

So what do we do? Give up? None of the other candidates represent even an incremental step in that direction. They're really all party liners. Cain represents himself as non-Beltway, but he was a Fed Director. That makes him as much a party line insider as the rest. A vote for any of the others is not significantly different from a vote for Obama.

Now what? (Seriously.)

 

[WWIIIDefender]

Holy Crap even Rush Limbaugh endorces the Ron Paul plan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1t96QPXbA0g&feature=player_embedded

 

[jedi]

I'm no economist, but it sounds like Dr. Paul has (and has had for a long time) the right ideas. I really hope he gets to put them into operation. I do agree he may lose the SS recipient's vote due to this plan. There is no way around it, though: Weaning people off the government teat is going to be [STRIKE]difficult[/STRIKE] IMPOSSIBLE. The question is not if we will do it or if we need to, the question is when we will do it, and it is not going to get easier.

Bill

88 is right, without a like minded congress most of what Paul would like to do would never see the light of day if he were elected

BINGO! 88 is correct. Ron's plan and the 9-9-9 plan have NEGATIVE chance to ever passing in Congress. Actually HELL will stop accepting the dead and mankind will be judged by it's dead (ie. zombies) BEFORE congress goes for either of these 2 plans.

You can google the survey's cause I'm feeling lazy tonight but while 45% to 60% of Americans say that the .gov is spending too much, when the survey goes into details on how to cut the spending (ie. either raise taxes and/or cut certain programs [SS, medicare, free school lunches, etc.] the # of American's that then agree drops to less the 20%.

IN ESSENCE THE PEOPLE COMPLAIN WE ARE SPENDING TOO MUCH BUT COMPLAIN WHEN THEIR PROGRAM IS ON THE CHOPPING BLOCK.

Only way to fix this is a complete reset at this point. We are far too much in debt to be able to get out within a reasonable time frame before the majority of people quit.

The mentality is america is "I should be able to take this pill and lose 100 lbs or I should be able to do this in 10 days and get out of 100,000 of personal debt" but when reality shows its head and says you must lose no more than 8 lbs per month to ensure you lose it permanent thus it would require 10+ months to lose 80 lbs 90% of Americas bulk at having to exercise/eat right for that long. It's way too long!

Same with clearing their personal debt. Having to slowly get out of debt and budgeting and cutting your cable, cell phone, etc. for 24 to 60 months and again American's bulk at the time.

The majority of American's are spoiled children that demand results now but are unwilling to endure the pain and sacrifice needed for the results.

So until reality comes a knocking and b----- slaps the crap out of us and the majority of the world NOTHING is gonna change!

 

[teddy12b]

88 is right, without a like minded congress most of what Paul would like to do would never see the light of day if he were elected

I think there's some merit to considering what the other 2/3's of government are going to think of RP's plans and how they're going to vote. I don't think he'll get everything he wants, but at the same time I also expect to see more RP like minded people being elected in 2012. I think the new people that are also going to be getting into the arena in 2012 are going to be a lot more open to libertarian ideas. I think the country is demanding liberty.

 

[Carmelbythecorn]

I see 9-9-9 as a risky plan without enough budget cuts. I'm not interested in a plan that attempts to sustain Fedzilla's gluttonous spending habits.

Paul's plan cuts existing taxes and goes way further in cutting the beast down to size.

I think Cain's 9-9-9 plan introduces a new class of tax; the national sales tax (VAT anyone?). It starts relatively low (9%) but as government is currently unconstrained, it is likely to grOW! I would rather that not happen...govt needs to be constrained, not an entirely new revenue stream opened.

 

[rambone]

Nope, but incrementalism is easier to spoon feed than the entire bottle of medicine in one swig. And reality has to play a part in this. I know it burns your britches, but Paul's plan is too radically different (as in degree of difference between the status quo and his desired end point) to gain much traction. The sheer brazenness is enough to turn people off, even if after reflection, they might actually agree with it. Ignoring that reality is folly for what good is the best plan in the world if nobody is listening or open to support it?

I think everyone's britches are going to get burned if the status quo prevails once again. America just doesn't have the luxury of time. If Republicans reject the life-preserver being thrown to them, then the country will get the demise that they asked for. I wonder if these cuts are even going to be enough.

I doubt even Paul will be able to stand so solidly on his principles if elected. That's not a reflection on his integrity. Just an observation of past behavior. Compromise is the name of the game.

We can speculate all day on that. My money goes to him upholding his the constitution, since Paul's past behavior has been solidly on the side of principle.

 

[rambone]

Holy Crap even Rush Limbaugh endorces the Ron Paul plan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1t96QPXbA0g&feature=player_embedded

Rush is talking about this plan so that he can remain relevant with conservative listeners. It would be outrageous if he actually tried to ignore one of the most ambitious fiscally conservative plans proposed by a presidential candidate in this era. Since he can no longer ignore Ron Paul, Rush tries to claim ownership of Paul's platform that he's been espousing for the last 30 years. Rush is such a tool. But I'm glad the Restore America Plan got some national radio time.