Candidate X is cutting the Federal Government in half - will you vote for him?

[TrumanB]

Would it really take us back to those levels? Wow, that's insane. Nice job republican party.

Please. Just look up the numbers. Republican and Democrat presidents. Republican and Democrat congresses.

Candidate X will fix all of that.

[luckydevil]

However, I do agree with Truman original post. Very few people actually believe in small and limited government, even among people who proclaim to be small government conservatives.

[SkinsHokieFan]

However, I do agree with Truman original post. Very few people actually believe in small and limited government, even people who proclaim to be small government conservatives.

We will be at about 3.2 trillion for FY 09

In 1999 we were at roughly 1.7 trillion. So not quite exact, but right around there

What will freak the hell out of politicians this coming year is when they see how far down revenues go. From 2.7 this year, to who knows in the next 2-4 years

I wouldn't be surprised to see it fall to 2.2

[GibbsFactor]

Please. Just look up the numbers. Republican and Democrat presidents. Republican and Democrat congresses.

Candidate X will fix all of that.

Admit it.

Candidate X is Ron Paul.

Let's start a

R 3/\07 UTION.

[luckydevil]

That's why Candidate X is proposing evenly cutting EVERY federal department and program. Everyone shares in the pain. That's why this is a starting point. The scalpel can be used after we're finished with the chainsaw.

That pain will bring backlash, backlash that would end any movement for small government. However, the tax cuts that you propose is a good idea to minimize the pain to some extent. I don't want the government to be cut in half in a day, but over a period of 4 to 8 years.

[techboy]

I vote for Candidate X.

[PokerPacker]

I would not agree with just a blanket cutting of all programs with no exceptions. A buttload of stuff does need to be cut (and even dropped completely), but it would be irresponsible to do it without considering what you are doing. that's why I voted other.

[Burgold]

No, I wouldn't vote for cCandidate X. 1- I wouldn't believe him and 2- It'd be too draconian and cause too much pain.

[AsburySkinsFan]

[theMrStupendous]

The problem with cutting govt, is candidate x probably proposes corporations taking those cut entities over. It just seems like whats the less of the two evils, govt or corporations ill take govt.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I would not agree with just a blanket cutting of all programs with no exceptions. A buttload of stuff does need to be cut (and even dropped completely), but it would be irresponsible to do it without considering what you are doing. that's why I voted other.

Quite wise.

[Koolblue13]

Is this some kind of jab at Bush for his first run at the White House, because I am fairly certain that was his bag. Give States their power back and reduce the dependency on the Fed. Didn't happen and shifted away even before 9/11, but damn would that have been nice.

[Old Bay]

However, I do agree with Truman original post. Very few people actually believe in small and limited government, even among people who proclaim to be small government conservatives

I believe you said it yourself, it needs to be regressed. To go in hacking and slashing and all at once is dangerous. It would have to be a slow process and within reason.

[GibbsFactor]

The funny thing is that he lists Candidate X and then says the "Crazies for Chuck Baldwin" who is candidate X.

:doh:

[Destino]

I'd vote for Obama not a lunatic.... but Truman, by how much would you cut military spending and VA budgets?

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

This strikes me as a somewhat short-sighted approach.

[AsburySkinsFan]

This strikes me as a somewhat short-sighted approach.

Ya think?!

[TMK9973]

1st I wanted to dismiss this, because it was truman.

But I thought about it and looked at it. Not half... Not every program... BUT, I wouldn't mind a reality check.

A candidate that gave it BOTH ways "Attention - Bush was a failure. Starting next year - All Spending AND Tax rates would be the same as 2000."

[TrumanB]

The funny thing is that he lists Candidate X and then says the "Crazies for Chuck Baldwin" who is candidate X.

:doh:

Uh, Chuck Baldwin is certifiable. He has a few good fiscal ideas (like getting rid of the Department of Education and a few other things), but his other views are simply frightening.

[TrumanB]

This strikes me as a somewhat short-sighted approach.

Doubling the federal budget in 10 years is a short-sighted approach (and crazy).

Candidate X is not proposing that this be done in a day. The budget for the current fiscal year when he is sworn in would already be in place. Candidate X is proposing a 25% annual reduction in the federal budget each year for his first term, with massive, sweeping tax cuts along the way.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

This strikes me as a somewhat short-sighted approach.

It reminds me of one of the first republican primary debates when Mitt Romney was asked if he would decrease the prisoners at Gitmo. He said "Why? I plan on doubling the amount of people there!"

And I just remember thinking, where is he gonna get these people? I mean, are we not trying to put terrorists in there? Is he going to pick people off the street and put them in?

[AsburySkinsFan]

Doubling the federal budget in 10 years is a short-sighted approach (and crazy).

Candidate X is not proposing that this be done in a day. The budget for the current fiscal year when he is sworn in would already be in place. Candidate X is proposing a 25% annual reduction in the federal budget each year for his first term, with massive, sweeping tax cuts along the way.

Oh now we're adding in tax cuts! You do realize just how many people your...errr X's plan would put out of work right? What are you going to do with them? You just sky rocketed the unemployment rate in this country and created more of a burden on those social programs that you just cut by half. Come to think of it, this plan isn't short sighted, its simply blind to reality.

This thread alone is going a long way to proving my point against populism.

[Zguy28]

Uh, Chuck Baldwin is certifiable. He has a few good fiscal ideas (like getting rid of the Department of Education and a few other things), but his other views are simply frightening.

A whole lot of people feel that way about McCain/Palin.

Its one of the reason's why he's gonna lose.

[TrumanB]

Oh now we're adding in tax cuts! You do realize just how many people your...errr X's plan would put out of work right? What are you going to do with them? You just sky rocketed the unemployment rate in this country and created more of a burden on those social programs that you just cut by half. Come to think of it, this plan isn't short sighted, its simply blind to reality.

This thread alone is going a long way to proving my point against populism.

You goddamn right we're talking about tax cuts. People with your mentality is what has gotten us into this mess. But, don't feel bad. The vast majority are on your side.

It isn't the government's money, it's the people's money. From a "social services" standpoint, government should provide a saftey net. It shouldn't support a lifestyle.

[laurent]

Definitely not, because if he makes that claim I know he's full of ****.