Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Politco: Ron Paul to propose $1T in specific budget cuts


Recommended Posts

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66114.html

Many of the ideas are familiar from Paul’s staunch libertarianism, as well as tea party favorites like eliminating the departments of education and energy. But Paul goes further: he’ll propose immediately freezing spending by numerous government agencies at 2006 levels, the last time Republicans had complete control of the federal budget, and drastically reducing spending elsewhere. The EPA would see a 30 percent cut, the Food and Drug Administration would see one of 40 percent and foreign aid would be zeroed out immediately. He’d also take an ax to Pentagon funding for wars.

Medicaid, the children’s health insurance program, food stamps, family support programs and the children’s nutrition program would all be block-granted to the states and removed from the mandatory spending column of the federal budget. Some functions of eliminated departments, such as Pell Grants, would be continued elsewhere in the federal bureaucracy.

And in a noticeable nod to seniors during an election year when Social Security’s become an issue within the Republican primary, the campaign says that plan “honors our promise to our seniors and veterans, while allowing young workers to opt out.”

The federal workforce would be reduced by 10 percent, and the president’s pay would be cut to $39,336 — a level that the Paul document notes is “approximately equal to the median personal income of the American worker.”

Paul would also make far-reaching changes to federal tax policy, reducing the top corporate income tax rate to 15 percent, eliminating capital gains and dividends taxes, and allowing for repatriation of overseas capital without tax penalties. All Bush-era tax cuts would be extended.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66114.html#ixzz1b2kttWbd

That is a crazy amount of cuts....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like it. But it seems we still leave the poor with their dignity. Isn't there a way we can take that and give it away to corporations too?

This message brought to you by the party that considers long term unemployment stimulus.:pfft:

I thought we already had by removing the right,will and ability to provide for themselves for far too many?

Corps ain't the problem,policies that drive employment and investments to other counties is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sounds like a good start.

You don't mind him slicing up the EPA and the FDA?

---------- Post added October-17th-2011 at 11:10 AM ----------

he's the only one with the courage to put forth a bold plan like this. I like it.

What has he proposed that you haven't liked?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't mind him slicing up the EPA and the FDA?

Why would we, the EPA hurts businesses with all of their unnecessary regulations that supposedly protect our water and natural resources, I mean is it really necessary for a Federal administration to make sure that our benevolent corporate masters won't pollute our drinking water or use cancer causing materials in their products? Seriously, why do we really need the FDA they are just cutting profits with all of their unnecessary food testing that supposedly keeps our nation's food chain free from contamination and disease. And really is that really necessary? I think not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This message brought to you by the party that considers long term unemployment stimulus.:pfft:

Considering a fairly sizeable group of Team Elephant members spooge themselves when they see bad unemployment numbers, I would think it qualifies as a "stimulus." :pfft:

---------- Post added October-17th-2011 at 09:47 AM ----------

Cutting spending is a must, but it's nothing short of crazy to think now is a good time to cut $1T in spending and layoff tens of thousands of federal employees and government contracts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just can't take seriously any plan that doesn't raise revenue to pay down the credit card bill. It's one thing to cut future expenses but we aren't getting out of this without raising some cash to pay down our debt.

Add:

I wish "leaders" would also take into account long term harm and cost when considering what programs to cut.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just can't take seriously any plan that doesn't raise revenue to pay down the credit card bill. It's one thing to cut future expenses but we aren't getting out of this without raising some cash to pay down our debt.

so you will be liking the Perry plan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would we, the EPA hurts businesses with all of their unnecessary regulations that supposedly protect our water and natural resources, I mean is it really necessary for a Federal administration to make sure that our benevolent corporate masters won't pollute our drinking water or use cancer causing materials in their products? Seriously, why do we really need the FDA they are just cutting profits with all of their unnecessary food testing that supposedly keeps our nation's food chain free from contamination and disease. And really is that really necessary? I think not.

Not to single you out, but have you ever dealt with the EPA?

They are extremely bloated, inefficient, and loaded with useless beauracracy. They could most definitely use some cuts, judging from the dealings I have had with them.

The EPA is definitely a needed organization, but it is in SERIOUS need of efficiency training, and to install regulations based on science and facts not on public opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to single you out, but have you ever dealt with the EPA?

They are extremely bloated, inefficient, and loaded with useless beauracracy. They could most definitely use some cuts, judging from the dealings I have had with them.

The EPA is definitely a needed organization, but it is in SERIOUS need of efficiency training, and to install regulations based on science and facts not on public opinion.

You've just described EVERY SINGLE AGENCY IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

Undoubtedly, reforms need to be made within these agencies. Undoubtedly more performance oversight is necessary. Potentially some cuts in some parts of some agencies are needed. However, just blindly axing budgets and completely getting rid of agencies (like RP supports completely cutting FEMA) and seriously thinking these things are going to affect change with status quo of these agencies is ridiculous.

IMO, only people who really are just mad, know some general change of some kind needs to occur but aren't really knowledgeable about how these types of agencies work (or the impact of cutting agencies outright or the long term impact of making drastic cuts with little to no alternate plans to internally change these agencies), and like RP because he makes waves with his sweeping plans, can get behind this kind of crap. They are only looking at the surface of $$$ cuts instead of effective change.

It's like the typical Redskins fan on this site: "All we need is a good quarterback and we're winning the Superbowl!!!! Screw all those other skill positions we also need to fill to make a completely solid team!! The QB is the magic position and he will fix everything!" This, to me, is akin to the "Just ax everything" crowd. "Just cut the budgets, that is the magic answer!! Screw actually delving into what really needs to be changed to make these agencies more effective and efficient for long term production! Cut the budgets! And when they continue to be less effective than they could be, let's continue to take out our anger on them and cut their budgets more!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to single you out, but have you ever dealt with the EPA?

They are extremely bloated, inefficient, and loaded with useless beauracracy. They could most definitely use some cuts, judging from the dealings I have had with them.

The EPA is definitely a needed organization, but it is in SERIOUS need of efficiency training, and to install regulations based on science and facts not on public opinion.

That's an entirely different proposition than what the far Right/Tea Party wants which is the elimination of the EPA. I'm all for more efficiency in all gov't administrations, but their goal is not efficiency, their goal is elimination, which is absurd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...