General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRon Paul isn't anti-defense spending, he's anti-everything else
From Ron Paul's Restore America Now:
DELIVERS A TRUE BALANCED BUDGET IN YEAR THREE OF DR. PAULS PRESIDENCY:
Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who doesnt just talk about balancing the budget, but who has a full plan to get it done.
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.
ENTITLEMENTS:
Honors our promise to our seniors and veterans, while allowing young workers to opt out. Block grants Medicaid and other welfare programs to allow States the flexibility and ingenuity they need to solve their own unique problems without harming those currently relying on the programs.
CUTTING GOVERNMENT WASTE:
Makes a 10% reduction in the federal workforce, slashes Congressional pay and perks, and curbs excessive federal travel. To stand with the American People, President Paul will take a salary of $39,336, approximately equal to the median personal income of the American worker.
TAXES:
Lowers the corporate tax rate to 15%, making America competitive in the global market. Allows American companies to repatriate capital without additional taxation, spurring trillions in new investment. Extends all Bush tax cuts. Abolishes the Death Tax. Ends taxes on personal savings, allowing families to build a nest egg.
REGULATION:
Repeals ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank, and Sarbanes-Oxley. Mandates REINS-style requirements for thorough congressional review and authorization before implementing any new regulations issued by bureaucrats. President Paul will also cancel all onerous regulations previously issued by Executive Order.
MONETARY POLICY:
Conducts a full audit of the Federal Reserve and implements competing currency legislation to
strengthen the dollar and stabilize inflation.
- more -
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/
First, not only has Ron Paul signed Grover Norquist's pledge, he voted for both of Bush's tax cuts.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll149.xml
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll182.xml
On entitlements, why would anyone trust this man: Ron Paul Compares Social Security & Medicare To Slavery
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002101818
On defense, Paul made three points in his NH speech yesterday:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002151380
From Paul's plan, proposed defense spending:
Given Pauls statement on leaving Afghanistan calmly and deliberately, its interesting that all he basically does is subtract the war spending (about $117 billion currently) to come up with his defense budget, and spending still goes up more than $20 billion for the four-year period.
Notice hes using CBO projections (from 2010, not sure) that include war spending. The $1 trillion President Obama proposed cutting from defense will impact the overall numbers.
The 2012 base is $553 billion, so a base of $501 billion is only $42 billion less, and from there Paul's budget grows.
He cuts about $79 billion the first year, an additional $6 billion in each of the following two years, and about $13 billion in the fourth year. (Wow, that'll destroy the MIC - sarcasm). Even if one looks at that the savings carried over, its $79 billion, $86 billion, $92 billion and $105 billion, for each of the four years respectively. Thats $362 cumulatively. Its only by eliminating the Afghanisan war funding that makes it about $860 billion.
In essence, Paul leaves the base defense budget intact, spending $523 billion in 2016.
On the other hand, the Presidents proposal uses $523 billion as the base in 2013, and applies the $1 trillion in cuts (reduction in the nuclear arsenal, troop numbers, overseas military operations, etc.) going forward. This is likely the reason Paul hasn't commented on Obama's proposal. I mean, Paul proposal still allocates more than $500 billion a year in defense spending.
It also pales in comparison to what Barney Frank proposes.
BY BARNEY FRANK
In the United States, cuts in public-sector spending have caused the loss of 550,000 public-sector jobs -- think teachers, police, and firefighters -- since January 2009, adding to the raw unemployment numbers and removing the multiplier effect that takes place when employees spend their paychecks...Yet my Republican colleagues have insisted on retaining all of George W. Bush's tax cuts, thus all but guaranteeing that future revenues will continue to fall far short of what is necessary to reduce U.S. debt and create the conditions for a strong recovery.
One major change that can reverse this: a substantial reduction in America's military spending. In the current fiscal year, the United States is spending upwards of $650 billion on its military, including the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is far more than it spends on Medicare and, more importantly, considerably in excess of what is required for America's legitimate national security needs.
The United States should and will be the strongest country in the world. But it can achieve that status for significantly less than it is now spending. An early withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan over the next six months would save hundreds of billions of dollars. In addition, we could reach savings of more than $100 billion annually by adopting strategic concepts appropriate to the current world situation, rather than continuing to rack up bills fighting threats that no longer exist. We could also save tens of billions of dollars a year by curtailing our commitment to the defense of Western Europe -- which was perfectly sensible when President Harry Truman made it but is wholly inexplicable now that Europeans are wealthy, strong, and threatened by no one -- as well as by reducing our military presence in Japan and forgoing the new proposal for stationing U.S. Marines in Australia. We do not need to maintain the fighting capacity we had during the height of the Cold War to engage the Soviet Union in an all-out conflict. Terrorists are terrible people who should be confronted, but they are not a thermonuclear-armed Soviet empire. Fighting them, though in many ways more complicated, should be less expensive.
<...>
If we commit to reducing military spending to a rate of approximately $430 billion a year over the next decade, with suitable inflation adjustments, it would do a great deal to reassure people that we had our deficit problem under control, that the long-term drain this puts on our economy would be diminished, and that we could then afford the near-term economic stimulus we need to help accelerate our currently sluggish growth.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/03/4_cut_defense_spending
Using Paul's math, Frank's proposed $430 billion per year would result in a cumulative savings of $1.7 trillion in four years.
Truthiness and Ron Paul
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002153654
Truthiness and Ron Paul - Part 2
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002153853
dionysus
(26,467 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)dionysus
(26,467 posts)as possible not to vote, because of a grudge.
silly thing is, it so transparent it is to laugh....
ProSense
(116,464 posts)is a RW Republican.
Facts are facts.
Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)the MIC has nothing to worry about.
Merlot
(9,696 posts)everything else. By cutting military spending you cut a lot of civilian parts production and jobs.
And if you think the money he'd save from cutting military spending would be going to things like healthcare and education, think again. He doesn't believe in public education and medicare or social security.
He's anti choice when it comes to women, but not when it comes to drugs. Wonder if he's anti birth control too?
Although I like to hear rpaul ruffle the feathers of the repubs in the debates, everything that he says that sounds so good has a big downside.
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)In stark contrast to Romney, and every other candidate for that matter, the top three organizations that employ Congressman Ron Pauls supporters are the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Army, and the U.S. Navy.
Indeed, the latest figures once again show that the Ron Paul 2012 Campaign has raised more donations from active military than all other presidential candidatesRepublican or Democrat.
http://www.conservativeactionalerts.com/2011/10/federal-records-show-romney-campaign-bought-and-paid-for-by-big-banks/
ProSense
(116,464 posts)athenasatanjesus
(859 posts)WTF So we can now fight each other over territory?Does he want to build up private police,and military?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)TigerToMany
(124 posts)Ron Paul is a scumbag. He's a warmongering statist like the rest of the Rethuglicans party.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Response to TigerToMany (Reply #11)
Post removed