• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Ron Paul's Economic Plan (Live Stream)

deltabtry said:
Many of the private corporations and small business are sitting on their money waiting for where the next shoe drops. A massive cut in government spending could mean a stabilization and or lower tax rates. Although this country does have a massive debt to repay with interest and this I haven't seen anyone address as of yet.
Click to expand...
A massive cut in spending will definitely make business owners sit on their money. The reason they are not spending, is because they are not sure if they will get returns on their investments. If Ron Paul gets his spending cut through, the business owners are going to downsize, because they know a crisis is approaching.

The problem is that Obama plans to increase the deficit from 2015. Who plans to have increased deficits?! What if we experience another crisis? To solve the deficit problem US needs to gradually keep cutting spending/increase taxes till we reach budget surplus.
 
Last edited:
Objective Voice said:
Thank you!

You're the first person I know, liberal or conservative, who sees Ron Paul for who he really is - a strict Constitutionalist. To him, if it's not written in the Constitution, you don't do it. But the framers of our nation's founding documents never intended for the Constitution to be a static document. Why? Because they knew the nation would continue to evolve over time "in order to form a more perfect union".

I agree we should get rid of redundency in government; eliminate those programs or agencies that perform similar work. I also agree that were programs that show progress but are under performing do need to be reformed to work better. But what Ron Paul is proposing is just mental!!! He'd set this country on its ear. And if you think times are tough now...
Click to expand...
Yes Ron Paul maybe over reaching but I think the true message he trying to send out is that the states need to reassert their rights as states and limit the federal government from mandating what states can and can't do. The federal government does put a unreasonable expenses upon the states along within it's self as well.
 
Camlon said:
A massive cut in spending will definitely make business owners sit on their money. The reason they are not spending, is because they are not sure if they will get returns on their investments. If Ron Paul gets his spending cut through, the business owners are going to downsize, because they know a crisis is approaching.

The problem is that Obama plans to increase the deficit from 2015. Who plans to have increased deficits?! What if we experience another crisis? To solve the deficit problem US needs to gradually keep cutting spending/increase taxes till we reach budget surplus.
Click to expand...
Actually the federal government anytime it has a surplus is supposed to return the monies to the people, the federal government is supposed to keep a zero balance sheet. That said, to cut spending on the level that Ron Paul proposes is only on the federal level, the states can fund what ever it sees fit as long as the voters agree. Ron Paul as I said and as I believe wishes to return to more of a representative republic with strong states rights being reasserted.
 
deltabtry said:
I believe all that Libratarians want is the federal government just to operate with in it's means monetarily and the constitutionally in regards to funding and laws. Anything else that isn't stated in the constitution that would be required by government to run or fund should be picked up by the states. Most libratarians today or at least the ones my age have seen rights and freedoms diminished right before our eyes with a over reaching federal government and it's oppressive regulations, which BTW cost money. The federal government spending on everything from here to eternity both abroad and here and all the while poverty on the rise, unemployment, crime, illegals, cost of living, imports, energy etc. and lastly a dysfunctional federal government enriching it's self at taxpayer expense.
Click to expand...

A lot of people would agree with that general sentiment. However, there is the pragmatic as in making federal government departments less redundant and more efficient, curbing federal excesses, modernizing regulatory agencies and so on, and then there is loony land where one argues that agencies like the U.S. Geological Survey and the National Park services are examples of federal government oppression and should be abolished.
 
Redress said:
It is not 7 % of the federal budget, it is 7 % of GDP. With economic growth as it is now, that would result in negative growth of about 5 to 6 %. Take a wild guess what that does to the economy.
Click to expand...

In the economics thread is a long video (about 1 hour long) with someone who I guess is highly respected in finance. He's been ahead of the curve and done quite well. The arguement is that he is really smart. Not that he isn't as I have no idea, but it's more of a fact that he has common sense and while he is obviously very, very, very good with numbers, he is able to see the effects of things outside of the numbers.

Here is the link.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/110574-kyle-bass-confessions-dangerous-mind.html

You are only looking at the numbers and completely discounting the psychological effect of balancing the budget. Yes, we would likely see an initial down trend. The economy is a slow moving thing except in rare occasions. But people would start to feel better about the economy and long term stability. They would then start acting in a more normal manner. That is what we need, not more government jobs.

We need people to feel better about spending, corporations to feel better about hiring. If we had done this in 2008, yes, perhaps things might have been worse for a bit BUT we would be far better off today by addressing the mess and getting it behind us. All we are doing now is the same as Greece has been trying to do. Put the inevitable off for later. It isn't going away. There will be no magical moment that just makes things better. The government can NOT spend us out of this mess.
 
you have to be a first rate dip **** to consider this man insane.
 
Camlon said:
A massive cut in spending will definitely make business owners sit on their money. The reason they are not spending, is because they are not sure if they will get returns on their investments. If Ron Paul gets his spending cut through, the business owners are going to downsize, because they know a crisis is approaching.

The problem is that Obama plans to increase the deficit from 2015. Who plans to have increased deficits?! What if we experience another crisis? To solve the deficit problem US needs to gradually keep cutting spending/increase taxes till we reach budget surplus.
Click to expand...
Right. I'm a budget hawk, but things need to be done gradually and cutting 1 trillion in one year, while it sounds good is just unrealistic and not healthy.
 
Camlon said:
A massive cut in spending will definitely make business owners sit on their money.
Click to expand...

Massive spending is causing them to sit on their money because they know that someone is going to have to pay all of this money back.

The reason they are not spending, is because they are not sure if they will get returns on their investments. If Ron Paul gets his spending cut through, the business owners are going to downsize, because they know a crisis is approaching.
Click to expand...

Crises!! I get so sick and tired of this arguement. "Unless the government spends all the money your children will ever make we will have a crises". No screw that. We are only puting off our problems for another day. Dragging it out as opposed to dealing with it.

The problem is that Obama plans to increase the deficit from 2015.
Click to expand...

Bullsit, he won't even be around. Yes, though, he does not want to deal with this. He wants to put if off for later only making it worse for those who will be forced to deal with it. "I want to put this off until I'm no longer in charge" is not a valid position.

Who plans to have increased deficits?! What if we experience another crisis? To solve the deficit problem US needs to gradually keep cutting spending/increase taxes till we reach budget surplus.
Click to expand...

Let me know when this cutting take place. Even though I do not believe it's the best route but if someone came up with a plan to raise taxes with 100% of it going to the debt I'd support it.
 
cpwill said:
where does government get it's money from, redress?
Click to expand...

Taxes and borrowing. And you have a slight point in that some of the money would be taken from the economy itself. Where your point fails is in assuming that the money would not still be taken out(it would) and in assuming that all that taken out would be spent if it wasn't taken out(it wouldn't). If you really do not think taking 1 Trillion out of federal spending in one year would not have a devastating effect on the economy, you have not thought the issue through.
 
Cold Highway said:
You make the incorrect assumption that the rest of the field actually believes in small government not just parrots it.
Click to expand...

I'm under the impression that most of them just parrot it and not many actually believe it.
 
Ikari said:
I'm under the impression that most of them just parrot it and not many actually believe it.
Click to expand...

The most I heard was Mitt saying he said he would submit legislation to reduce nonsecurity, discretionary spending by $20 billion. :lamo


Also people don't get cut all at once but through attrition. A process which will take several years. The impact on the economy would be a positive overall.
 
Last edited:
I think most people here do not really understand how serious a problem our government spending is right now. Raising taxes and cutting meager amounts of spending (there is not even close to enough waste to generate the kind of savings we need) will, at best, get us back to Bush-level deficits. That is closer to what Greek austerity is doing than Ron Paul's plan. It may represent a technical decrease in GDP, but the actual impact will be far less meaningful.
 
Taking my time to review what was being said I can safely say that the objections being made by Redress and don are complete nonsense. Ron Paul's plan does not include "200,000 layoffs" and this mistake appears to arise from his mention of a 10% reduction in the federal workforce. From what I can tell around 80% of the reduction would come from privatizing the FAA, TSA, and public lands. In other words, the bulk of the workforce reduction involves transferring government-sector jobs to the private sector. Also the claim about cutting "7% of GDP" is based off the amount of government cuts. However, it seems at least a quarter of the spending cuts Ron Paul includes involve the end of spending overseas.

Suffice to say, some of you, in your rush to attack Ron Paul for some inexplicable reason (I chalk it up to brainwashing) overlooked a few important details.
 
that and most of the cutting is done by attrition.'

@3:21

 
Last edited:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom