"What's up with these sorry politicians?" [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXCZVmQ74OA"]New Ron Paul Ad - BIG DOG - YouTube[/ame] Ron Paul's new ad claims that our current elected officials can't back up their talk when it comes to budget cuts. He says that he will cut a trillion dollars in the first year, as well as cutting 5 federal bureaucracies. "Department of Education, Interior, Energy, HUD, and Commerce...GONE!" If you want a President who will work towards actually solving America's fiscal problems, you should be looking at Ron Paul.
OK..I gotta say it. Paul is running for President.I think we can all agree with that. Now for the fun part..The President can submit a budget..veto some things..but it is in fact CONGRESS that passes and sends that budget to The President for signing. Am I OK so far ? So looking at History ..even after the tea party win in THE HOUSE.. Paul as the budget ax man failed to lead..It was another Paul..A Paul RYAN that actually got a bi partisan budget reduction deal going..not RON PAUL. Maybe that is where you guys goof up..you got the wrong Paul. Ron Paul Had no broad support in Congress..and Paul Ryan did this stuff with far less time served.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ryan In late January 2010, Ryan released a new version of his "Roadmap."[31] It would give across the board tax cuts by reducing income tax rates; eliminating income taxes on capital gains, dividends, and interest; and abolishing the corporate income tax, the estate tax, and the alternative minimum tax. The plan would privatize a portion of Social Security,[32][33] eliminate the tax exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance,[33] and privatize MediCare.[32][33] On April 15, 2011, the House passed the Ryan Plan by a vote of 235-193. No Democrats voted for it, and only four Republicans voted against.[34] A month later, the bill died in the Senate by a vote of 57-40.[35] End. So Some of these SORRY politicians have a clue.. I think you guys have a real name identity crises. Ron Paul gave speeches.Lots of them..Others actually pass stuff and Lead by example....Ron Paul.. 22 years and nothing changed...?? Dont Blame others..blame yourself.
As you noted, the Ryan plan did not pass. It cuts $4 trillion over ten years, which is less than our projected deficits over that time, so our debt would still be higher under his plan. Also, the devil is in the details. Here's a link that shows some of those details. http://reason.com/archives/2011/04/06/paul-ryans-republican-budget-t/singlepage Aside from budget battles, the President does have the power to abolish cabinet level offices, which is what Ron Paul will do. As for the budget battles, it is up to the President to make the case for his cuts. Defense will be tough, but I think RP has made a good case so far. A lot depends on the makeup of Congress after the next election, but it's clear that the American people understand the debt situation we are in and the fact that things must change structurally. Can RP lead the charge? He has to, as no one else is even serious about it. Name me one candidate whose proposals seriously address our debt. Though some proposals will do some good, 'some good' is not good enough considering our circumstance. All of the others want to broaden the war on terror, which is expensive, not to mention it's chasing Bogeymen and makes us less safe. That philosophy maintains the DOD as a sacred cow and no serious budget reform can happen with that mindset. Whether you are a RP fan or not, many of his ideas are inevitable. You can see that by the other candidates beginning to graft some of his ideas into their talking points while ignoring the man that came up with them in the first place. Why settle for a candidate that is using Ron Paul as their cheat sheet when you can have the real deal?
not so fast... Restore America SPENDING: Cuts $1 trillion in spending during the first year of Ron Pauls 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 levels more... http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/
What Paul is proposing is things that the POTUS can do, and I actually believe the guy is telling the truth, unlike Obama who has broken virtually all of his campaign promises.
Paul could bring the troops home. I think he might be the only candidate out there that would. That would save a ton of money right there. In addition, if he were to get elected, this would send a message to law makers, would it not? Right now none of them think the American people give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about cutting spending, and they might be right.
Well the original op kinda said what's up ? I showed that not everyone was sorry. But in fact..Another PAUL in the Senate was 1 of 4 voting against the Ryan Bill. That leadership is score able within the existing congress. All is not lost if Paul doesn't win.
Obama promised things he could have done but didn't (rightly or not). Just because Paul would technically be able to do this things he's promising were he to become President doesn't mean he actually will. If you believe the words of any campaigning politician though, I think you're setting yourself up for disappointment regardless.
Typically, I would agree with you on that. However, Ron Paul has proven himself to be unlike the typical Washington political elite.
Well, that would be voting myself out of a job, so it's not likely to happen. Why is this necessary? Because DOE provides massive, massive benefits to the nation's scientific capabilities.
Ah.. so you don't care to lose your job... Well it's good to know where the opposition is coming from with the Elimination of that Dept. Also how does it provide benefits? Currently the DoE was created for the purpose of taking care of Nuclear Energy/Bombs and those could be shuffled under a different cabinet.
DOE is rather culturally distinct from other departments. Trying to merge it into another department would not work well... at all. The bureaucratic in-fighting would be intense between the old school DOE administrators and whatever department they would be merged into. What other department would even make sense to roll it into? The Department of the Interior? DOD? Neither of those would make much sense--especially DOD, since that's an even wider culture shock than exists between DOE and the other civilian departments. DOE is a department in its own right precisely because it has unique requirements and needs to maintain a rather unusual relationship between civilian government and a scientific establishment. As bizarre as DOE's decisions can seem at times, it's way more effective at managing the nation's nuclear research and materials management than any other department would be. Keep in mind that DOE's role has extended well beyond that original nuclear mission. They've picked up all sorts of energy research, and more general research in other areas. DOE complexes represent a massive concentration of diverse technical and scientific know-how--these complexes have substantial private sector advantages. It's why you often see high tech firms cropping up around such complexes. There's a lot of trickle-down that results from having so much world-class scientific talent concentrated in small areas. That's honestly the problem with the Republican proposals to merge departments--each department ends up developing a rather unique bureaucratic culture. Merging them back together probably wouldn't save any money.
