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

[SnyderShrugged]

Uh, because the plan is an absolute, unmitigated disaster?

Hell, I can propose a plan that would pay off the national debt in three years, without making any spending cuts. All we have to do is confiscate all private property in the entire world.

Therefore, obviously, no discussion of cutting spending can possibly be discussed, right?

----------

However, back in reality, one of the facts of our discussion is that right now, government revenues as a percentage of GDP are the lowest they've been since WW2. And that's despite the fact that GDP is small, because of the depression.

LOL, The REALITY is that he proposed a budget that balances within 3 years without tax hikes. That is the plain truth. The rest of what you are griping about doesnt actually matter if the policy were implemented since we wouldnt need more revenue.

Your "opinion" that its an unmitigated disaster is supported by little fact and mostly your conjecture. Explain why its an unmitigated disaster with detail please.

[Larry]

LOL, The REALITY is that he proposed a budget that balances within 3 years without tax hikes. That is the plain truth.

And I proposed completely paying off the national debt, without cutting spending.

So, when are you going to piously call for the world to find a middle ground, and to "compromise" on a plan that involves zero spending cuts?

See how flexible I am? I'm willing to compromise. Just as long as everybody agrees with my demands that spending cuts cannot even be mentioned.

[SnyderShrugged]

And I proposed completely paying off the national debt, without cutting spending.

So, when are you going to piously call for the world to find a middle ground, and to "compromise" on a plan that involves zero spending cuts?

See how flexible I am? I'm willing to compromise. Just as long as everybody agrees with my demands that spending cuts cannot even be mentioned.

Why would I call for middle ground when a great plan has already been put forth that doesnt raise anyone's taxes? I dont see a need to compromise on it since it's the only actual plan put forth by a candidate. Show me a plan to compare it to and decide between the two and we'll talk.

\

Right now, this is it, the one and only plan presented by a candidate.

---------- Post added October-20th-2011 at 09:28 AM ----------

I'm curious Larry, Why are you so adamant on wanting taxes increased?

To be proactive, I am so adament of spending cuts because we are in a disaster economically and creating more debt just weakens our position. Its also a burden on people to keep less of their earned money.

[Larry]

Why would I call for middle ground when a great plan has already been put forth that doesnt raise anyone's taxes? I dont see a need to compromise on it since it's the only actual plan put forth by a candidate. Show me a plan to compare it to and decide between the two and we'll talk.

\

Right now, this is it, the one and only plan presented by a candidate.

---------- Post added October-20th-2011 at 09:28 AM ----------

I'm curious Larry, Why are you so adamant on wanting taxes increased?

To be proactive, I am so adament of spending cuts because we are in a disaster economically and creating more debt just weakens our position. Its also a burden on people to keep less of their earned money.

Why should I compromise when I've made a proposal that already includes my non-negotiable demands?

Gee, why doesn't everybody just compromise, and give me what I demand?

----------

And I've got a news flash for you. I'm not "adamant on wanting taxes increased".

Summary of Larry's position on the federal budget and related issues:

1. We're in a depression.

2. One of the effects of this depression has been to greatly increase the deficit.

Now, in general,

3. Federal spending is good for the economy. (So is private spending. Some spending may be better than other spending. But spending, in general, is good. And there is absolutely no hard and fast rule that the mere word "government" somehow turns spending into a bad thing).

4. Low taxes are good for the economy. (Again, some taxes may be better, or less bad, than others. But as a general rule, taxes are bad).

5. Deficits are bad for the economy.

Now, facts 3, 4, and 5, conflict. They say that the perfect system would have infinite spending, zero taxes, and zero deficit. But that can't happen. The best that can be achieved is to find some optimum balance of unpleasantness.

Which then brings us to our current situation. Looking at the current situation, and trying to balance things, Larry's assertions are:

1. The biggest problem we have, is that the economy is in a depression.

Note: this is probably the biggest disagreement with the many people spouting Republican slogans. No, the problem isn't some vast, nebulous, "the government is eating everything". And it certainly isn't a religious belief that all of the budget adjustments that were made solely by the Republican Party were Good, but that all changes made by two Parties are evil.

(Wonder why your hero wants to plant a flag in the year 2006 as the year of "everything done since then is bad"?).

The government has been growing, in terms of dollars spent, for our entire history. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about this growth which is evil, or even necessarily undesirable. There certainly can be specific things where growth is undesirable. Maybe even some where the term evil fits. (I suspect that we even agree on several). But there is nothing inherently evil about the simple fact of government.

2. However, BECAUSE OF the depression, the deficit has grown. Hugely.

3. However. The economy is very fragile, right now.

4. ANY spending cuts have at least the potential to make the economy far, far, worse. Immediately.

5. ANY tax increases have at least the potential to make the economy far, far, worse. Immediately.

6. The deficit MIGHT be a problem, DOWN THE ROAD.

Larry believes that, right now, a deficit is The Lesser Evil.

But, it is a cumulative evil, and an evil that needs to be dealt with. (Insert parallel to the illegal immigration problem. Solving it instantly is both impossible and harmful. The only way it CAN be dealt with is incrementally).

(In fact, a better analogy might be Social Security. It's not a problem right now, despite the deliberate attempts by some to manufacture an artificial crisis, so they can justify imposing their ideology on the nation. But, it is a problem down the road, it will need to be dealt with, for the long term health of the nation, AND, the sooner you start working on the problem, the easier it is to solve it. We need to be working on SS, today, not because it must be solved instantly, but because there's a problem in 20 years, and it's going to take 20 years to solve it).

We need to be working on reducing the deficit. It's going to take decades to do, and we need to get started. But the only way we're going to get there is incrementally. And, because the economy is so fragile, right now, we have to be even more tentative. We need to look very carefully at deficit reduction ideas.

All methods of reducing the deficit will likely harm the economy. But then, the deficit is harming it, too. And all deficit reduction proposals do not harm the economy EQUALLY.

--- I can probably keep babbling aimlessly on this subject for another 40 paragraphs, but I need to get off the computer fir a few hours. Thought I'd post what I'd written so far, come back later.

[Thiebear]

That Super Committee sure could come in handy right about now.

I'd love to see "LEADERSHIP" do weekly radio/t.v. on what we CAN do, not on what a minority voting party won't do on a bill that can't pass.

Where is the hard choices of recycling and groups working towards the debt reduction.

There are smart people out there that can show "55% income taxes on this income and above" during this type of cycle is optimal, if we reach a recession we change it to xyz.

There are smart people out there that can show 'Sales tax of 2% on non-food/milk would drop the debt this much each year'

Drop the corporate tax like 60minutes points out to something close to 20% like other countries that compete and get some back here.

Socialism : The Oil on Federal land and the easy stuff excluding deep water and Anwar.

I'm biased: I believe if there was a call to duty and motivational goals were given, we would meet them. So far I feel like we watch and complain.

[SnyderShrugged]

Why should I compromise when I've made a proposal that already includes my non-negotiable demands?

Gee, why doesn't everybody just compromise, and give me what I demand?

I didnt realize you were a presidential candidate?

----------

And I've got a news flash for you. I'm not "adamant on wanting taxes increased".

and I have one for you, you are.

Summary of Larry's position on the federal budget and related issues:

1. We're in a depression.

2. One of the effects of this depression has been to greatly increase the deficit.

Now, in general,

3. Federal spending is good for the economy. (So is private spending. Some spending may be better than other spending. But spending, in general, is good. And there is absolutely no hard and fast rule that the mere word "government" somehow turns spending into a bad thing).

First incorrect point, Federal spending when its based on debt is NOT good for the economy, as proven with recent events.

4. Low taxes are good for the economy. (Again, some taxes may be better, or less bad, than others. But as a general rule, taxes are bad).

5. Deficits are bad for the economy.

Now, facts 3, 4, and 5, conflict. They say that the perfect system would have infinite spending, zero taxes, and zero deficit. But that can't happen. The best that can be achieved is to find some optimum balance of unpleasantness.

There is no conflict if spending is reduced

Which then brings us to our current situation. Looking at the current situation, and trying to balance things, Larry's assertions are:

1. The biggest problem we have, is that the economy is in a depression.

Note: this is probably the biggest disagreement with the many people spouting Republican slogans. No, the problem isn't some vast, nebulous, "the government is eating everything". And it certainly isn't a religious belief that all of the budget adjustments that were made solely by the Republican Party were Good, but that all changes made by two Parties are evil.

(Wonder why your hero wants to plant a flag in the year 2006 as the year of "everything done since then is bad"?).

He's not a "Hero" and 2006 was chosen as a reasonable level for initial goals since it really wasnt that long ago.

The government has been growing, in terms of dollars spent, for our entire history. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about this growth which is evil, or even necessarily undesirable. There certainly can be specific things where growth is undesirable. Maybe even some where the term evil fits. (I suspect that we even agree on several). But there is nothing inherently evil about the simple fact of government.

2. However, BECAUSE OF the depression, the deficit has grown. Hugely.

The depression was caused by deficit spending

3. However. The economy is very fragile, right now.

Its fragile because we went into dramatic debt with no end in sight.

4. ANY spending cuts have at least the potential to make the economy far, far, worse. Immediately.

Not true at all, what do yuou base this on?

5. ANY tax increases have at least the potential to make the economy far, far, worse. Immediately.

Yes, true

6. The deficit MIGHT be a problem, DOWN THE ROAD.

The deficit is a problem NOW, it was "down the road" many years ago, that ship sailed,

Larry believes that, right now, a deficit is The Lesser Evil.

Lesser than what exactly?

But, it is a cumulative evil, and an evil that needs to be dealt with. (Insert parallel to the illegal immigration problem. Solving it instantly is both impossible and harmful. The only way it CAN be dealt with is incrementally).

3 years is far from "instantly"

(In fact, a better analogy might be Social Security. It's not a problem right now, despite the deliberate attempts by some to manufacture an artificial crisis, so they can justify imposing their ideology on the nation. But, it is a problem down the road, it will need to be dealt with, for the long term health of the nation, AND, the sooner you start working on the problem, the easier it is to solve it. We need to be working on SS, today, not because it must be solved instantly, but because there's a problem in 20 years, and it's going to take 20 years to solve it).

We need to be working on reducing the deficit. It's going to take decades to do, and we need to get started. But the only way we're going to get there is incrementally. And, because the economy is so fragile, right now, we have to be even more tentative. We need to look very carefully at deficit reduction ideas.

Why does it have to take decades to do? This plan already balances in 3 years?

All methods of reducing the deficit will likely harm the economy. But then, the deficit is harming it, too. And all deficit reduction proposals do not harm the economy EQUALLY.

I dont see where the proposed method that is the subject of this thread is harmful to the economy in any way. Specifically, how would it harm it?

--- I can probably keep babbling aimlessly on this subject for another 40 paragraphs, but I need to get off the computer fir a few hours. Thought I'd post what I'd written so far, come back later.

[ncr2h]

Larry, I think where you and many others disagree is on the role of the deficit in our current crisis. You seem to believe that the deficits are a symptom of the depression. Ron Paul, who predicted this crisis years ago, would likely argue that the deficits caused the depression. Your argument doesn't appear to make sense because we were deficit spending long before the depression hit us. I give Ron Paul the benefit of the doubt because he predicted our current crisis long before it happened, and not only did he predict it but he had an entire economic philosophy that is backed by Noble Prize-winning economists to support his theory.

And I think a lot of people would argue that government spending is not good for the economy. There are plenty of people who would argue that, in an ideal world, the government would spend no money and all money would be spent based on market supply and demand for goods, rather than from central economic planners taking money from people and spending it how they feel would best help our economy.

[GibbsFactor]

Yeah. That, and giant, Earth-destroying asteroids.

I prefer Rome, Egypt, England, France, Mongolia, the Ming Dynasty, the Huns, etc...

[Larry]

and I have one for you, you are.

Hey, since you have the power to tell me what I think, how about you take your question, and answer it yourself, and tell me why I think the things that you tell me to think?

And then, you can take your question, and your answer, and, uh, return them to the orifice you pulled them out of.

[SnyderShrugged]

Hey, since you have the power to tell me what I think, how about you take your question, and answer it yourself, and tell me why I think the things that you tell me to think?

And then, you can take your question, and your answer, and, uh, return them to the orifice you pulled them out of.

I am basing it on your actual words, not what I think your thoughts are. Throughout our conversation, your entire perspective is based on a feeling that the budget cant possibly be balanced without tax increases. This is derspite viewing a plan that proposes exactly that.

[oisn1]

Why would taxes need to be raised again? Arent you reading a thread that contains a proposal to balance the budget in 3 years without raising taxes?

First of all, I was responding to a post where we were talking about compromise and how the right doesn't want to compromise one inch. To literally prove my point, you immediately jump and state that tax increases cannot be considered. So yes, you are the problem when you want to boil a complex question (how to maintain a functional federal government, while preserving individual autonomy) to "Burn it down and let God sort it out."

Unlike you, I want to balance the budget in a way that both responsible and fair to our "society". Not just fair to you, or me, or the homeless man down the street, but fair to every American. It's something called... compromise. Balancing the budget only through spending cuts will severely hamper many government programs that Americans need today.

For example:

The FDA may put an undue burden on companies, but what about Pfizer's clinical trials of Trovan in Nigeria (to avoid the FDA)? I'm sure the families of the children who died during testing would disagree that regulations are needed.

The EPA; their work on reducing pollution is not just for us but for future generations. I'm not much of a fan of hacking pieces from the organization that makes sure water is clean and that companies aren't poisoning it (which is still prevalent today in countries without strong regulatory commisions).

the DOE. I keep hearing about the problems relating to the public education and how we are being surpassed by countries like China. Guess what? China's education is state-run. Again, destroying the DOE ignores the real problem of education in our country. It's not about public/private, it's about what we teach and how we do it. Additionally, getting rid of the DOE would only seek to further deepen the educational gap in our country. I'm not even talking about poor vs. rich. I'm talking about the gap between states. Do you think the educational funding of Alabama, Iowa, or Mississippi can compete with the funding of Northern Virginia?

I'm sorry, but taking a hatchet to the federal government as a cure to our economic problems is not a sane solution; it's a mythical solution that assumes the "good old days" actually existed. Yes, if you consider the 1900s to be a beacon of American prosperity, then let's cut taxes and cut government. They didn't need the FDA or EPA, and everything was just great back then, right? But of course, you have to ignore the rampant wealth inequality, the poor standard of living for most Americans, and the massive social unrest that existed in the nation.

I'm not talking about fairness as some sort of bleeding heart issue, I'm actually talking about the fairness associated with the social contract that we all signed up for as Americans. The social contract that led us to be the greatest nation in the world, not the one that allowed us to enslave other races, work families to death in sweatshops, or poison the environment beyond repair. A living, breathing contract that has evolved with our nation to create something great. And yes, that contract included compromises in spending cuts and tax increases. It didn't include hatchet jobs due to ideological purity.

[SnyderShrugged]

First of all, I was responding to a post where we were talking about compromise and how the right doesn't want to compromise one inch. To literally prove my point, you immediately jump and state that tax increases cannot be considered. So yes, you are the problem when you want to boil a complex question (how to maintain a functional federal government, while preserving individual autonomy) to "Burn it down and let God sort it out."

Unlike you, I want to balance the budget in a way that both responsible and fair to our "society". Not just fair to you, or me, or the homeless man down the street, but fair to every American. It's something called... compromise. Balancing the budget only through spending cuts will severely hamper many government programs that Americans need today.

For example:

The FDA may put an undue burden on companies, but what about Pfizer's clinical trials of Trovan in Nigeria (to avoid the FDA)? I'm sure the families of the children who died during testing would disagree that regulations are needed.

The EPA; their work on reducing pollution is not just for us but for future generations. I'm not much of a fan of hacking pieces from the organization that makes sure water is clean and that companies aren't poisoning it (which is still prevalent today in countries without strong regulatory commisions).

the DOE. I keep hearing about the problems relating to the public education and how we are being surpassed by countries like China. Guess what? China's education is state-run. Again, destroying the DOE ignores the real problem of education in our country. It's not about public/private, it's about what we teach and how we do it. Additionally, getting rid of the DOE would only seek to further deepen the educational gap in our country. I'm not even talking about poor vs. rich. I'm talking about the gap between states. Do you think the educational funding of Alabama, Iowa, or Mississippi can compete with the funding of Northern Virginia?

I'm sorry, but taking a hatchet to the federal government as a cure to our economic problems is not a sane solution; it's a mythical solution that assumes the "good old days" actually existed. Yes, if you consider the 1900s to be a beacon of American prosperity, then let's cut taxes and cut government. They didn't need the FDA or EPA, and everything was just great back then, right? But of course, you have to ignore the rampant wealth inequality, the poor standard of living for most Americans, and the massive social unrest that existed in the nation.

I'm not talking about fairness as some sort of bleeding heart issue, I'm actually talking about the fairness associated with the social contract that we all signed up for as Americans. The social contract that led us to be the greatest nation in the world, not the one that allowed us to enslave other races, work families to death in sweatshops, or poison the environment beyond repair. A living, breathing contract that has evolved with our nation to create something great. And yes, that contract included compromises in spending cuts and tax increases. It didn't include hatchet jobs due to ideological purity.

so outline why this proposal isnt "fair" and I ask again, if it can be done without increasing anyone's tax burden, then why the heck not go that way?

I trust you agree that we cannot keep on increasing our debt for much longer? I also trust you will acknowledge that we have tons of government waste, and lastly, I trust you would agree that our lives in 2006 werent all that bad overall, so why would a balanced budget plan the simply takes us back to levels of just a few years ago is unfair?

---------- Post added October-20th-2011 at 04:25 PM ----------

On another note (didnt want to start a new thread)....This proposal is going to become a facet of his campaign ads and a juxtaposition with the other candidates records on spending and fiscal discipline.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_PAUL_ADVERTISING?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-10-20-15-00-16

[Larry]

I am basing it on your actual words, not what I think your thoughts are. Throughout our conversation, your entire perspective is based on a feeling that the budget cant possibly be balanced without tax increases. This is derspite viewing a plan that proposes exactly that.

And no doubt you can produce a quote, saying that, from some source other than your telepathic powers?

A source that's good enough to allow you to call me a liar?

[SnyderShrugged]

And no doubt you can produce a quote, saying that, from some source other than your telepathic powers?

A source that's good enough to allow you to call me a liar?

dont be so dramatic!

In post 150, you responded to my question of "why would taxes need to be raised, considering this plan"?

You said..

"Uh, because the plan is an absolute, unmitigated disaster?

Hell, I can propose a plan that would pay off the national debt in three years, without making any spending cuts. All we have to do is confiscate all private property in the entire world.

Therefore, obviously, no discussion of cutting spending can possibly be discussed, right?

----------

However, back in reality, one of the facts of our discussion is that right now, government revenues as a percentage of GDP are the lowest they've been since WW2. And that's despite the fact that GDP is small, because of the depression."

I took your statement about revenues as regarding taxation. Was I in error there? I also took your statement that the plan that doesnt increases taxes was an "unmitigated disaster" of a plan, as indicating that it couldnt work without tax increases.

If I read those in error, I apologize and would appreciate an explanation of what you intended it to mean

[oisn1]

so outline why this proposal isnt "fair" and I ask again, if it can be done without increasing anyone's tax burden, then why the heck not go that way?

I trust you agree that we cannot keep on increasing our debt for much longer? I also trust you will acknowledge that we have tons of government waste, and lastly, I trust you would agree that our lives in 2006 werent all that bad overall, so why would a balanced budget plan the simply takes us back to levels of just a few years ago is unfair?

I literally just did that by explaining why cuts to certain programs are not beneficial (EPA, FDA, DOE). Again, you look at taxes as the end all be all of society. It's not, it's a portion of maintaining a functioning nation. But I'll go over some more of the cuts.

The Department of the Interior controls our parks and drilling locations and such. Essentially, you now leave it up to states to control control their parks. Tell me how a cash strapped state like California protects Yosemite or how Montana keeps it's parks. The answer is that they don't; they sell it to the highest bidder (oil or timber companies). If you want to argue that America doesn't need parks, please state that then.

Regulations - Under Paul's plan, every state has to regulate itself. That will turn state regulations into a joke as now states will fight to garner companies by changing up regulations. What happens when a company pays Illinois huge amounts of money to dump into the Mississippi River? Do you think the Mississippi or Louisiana will enjoy that? A rule of regulations in anything is everybody follows them, or it's not worth having. State regulation is a joke that ignores the fact that we are a United nation, working together, not competing.

Paul's plan privatizes Air travel communication. How is that even possible with all the different companies flying around? What kind of costs will that push on to customers as each companies creates it's own communication standard?

Our social safety nets get burnt up, though I'm sure many people agree with that. Still, that wouldn't be considered fair as the corporate and highest income tax rates will be reduced.

Paul talks about eliminating taxes on oversees monies so Companies will bring their jobs back to the US. Taxes are their lowest in years for companies, and it hasn't happened yet, what makes him think that further decreasing them will?

Should I keep going? Let's put it this way, Paul's plan has some good ideas and quite frankly, at least he put something out there. But quite frankly, it's a childish idea based on ideological purity, not on feasibility or future consequences. For example, Obama's health care plan (while being a joke), is cheaper than where our older healthcare was heading. Yet Paul wants to cut it for no other reason than partisan ideology. He won't replace it with an efficient system, he will let the "free market" decide (which is what got us into the healthcare mess in the first place). We are not a confederacy anymore, we are United nation. Again, we can't even talk about raising taxes, you won't even consider it. I keep bringing up compromises that spread pain (and prosperity) around, yet you won't let go of ideological extremism. Ron Paul tells it how he sees it (which is a breath of fresh air in politics), it doesn't make his ideas right though.

We are not Greece. We don't need the hacksaw approach, we have time to create a plan that balances the budget. In fact, we can create a plan that is both fair to poor and rich, and treats this country like a nation, not like a bunch of clans trying to eat each other.

[SnyderShrugged]

I literally just did that by explaining why cuts to certain programs are not beneficial (EPA, FDA, DOE). Again, you look at taxes as the end all be all of society. It's not, it's a portion of maintaining a functioning nation. But I'll go over some more of the cuts.

The Department of the Interior controls our parks and drilling locations and such. Essentially, you now leave it up to states to control control their parks. Tell me how a cash strapped state like California protects Yosemite or how Montana keeps it's parks. The answer is that they don't; they sell it to the highest bidder (oil or timber companies). If you want to argue that America doesn't need parks, please state that then.

Regulations - Under Paul's plan, every state has to regulate itself. That will turn state regulations into a joke as now states will fight to garner companies by changing up regulations. What happens when a company pays Illinois huge amounts of money to dump into the Mississippi River? Do you think the Mississippi or Louisiana will enjoy that? A rule of regulations in anything is everybody follows them, or it's not worth having. State regulation is a joke that ignores the fact that we are a United nation, working together, not competing.

Paul's plan privatizes Air travel communication. How is that even possible with all the different companies flying around? What kind of costs will that push on to customers as each companies creates it's own communication standard?

Our social safety nets get burnt up, though I'm sure many people agree with that. Still, that wouldn't be considered fair as the corporate and highest income tax rates will be reduced.

Paul talks about eliminating taxes on oversees monies so Companies will bring their jobs back to the US. Taxes are their lowest in years for companies, and it hasn't happened yet, what makes him think that further decreasing them will?

Should I keep going? Let's put it this way, Paul's plan has some good ideas and quite frankly, at least he put something out there. But quite frankly, it's a childish idea based on ideological purity, not on feasibility or future consequences. For example, Obama's health care plan (while being a joke), is cheaper than where our older healthcare was heading. Yet Paul wants to cut it for no other reason than partisan ideology. He won't replace it with an efficient system, he will let the "free market" decide (which is what got us into the healthcare mess in the first place). We are not a confederacy anymore, we are United nation. Again, we can't even talk about raising taxes, you won't even consider it. I keep bringing up compromises that spread pain (and prosperity) around, yet you won't let go of ideological extremism. Ron Paul tells it how he sees it (which is a breath of fresh air in politics), it doesn't make his ideas right though.

We are not Greece. We don't need the hacksaw approach, we have time to create a plan that balances the budget. In fact, we can create a plan that is both fair to poor and rich, and treats this country like a nation, not like a bunch of clans trying to eat each other.

He proposed cuts to some agencies just to back to 2006 levels. Thats unreasonable?

Air security was privatized not that long ago too. Its not a reach to go back to it in the face of us not being able to afford the TSA.

[oisn1]

He proposed cuts to some agencies just to back to 2006 levels. Thats unreasonable?

Air security was privatized not that long ago too. Its not a reach to go back to it in the face of us not being able to afford the TSA.

Yes to some. Hell, why not just cut everything back to 1990s levels, or 1980s levels. It also ignores the fact that the budget in 2006 was still broken. He also wants to get rid of the Department of Education, Commerce, Interior, Energy, and Housing and Urban Development. He wants to repeal ObamaCare (which increases the deficit). He wants to severely cut social programs and social security. In terms of air traffic control communication, you believe it is better to have dozens of different systems instead of one uniform one that all companies follow? More importantly, you believe it would be cheaper and more efficient to fly under that type of system? Brutus, your naivete is showing.

This once again proves my point. I'm not talking about instituting a Bolshevik revolution in America. We're talking about tax increases on a group that has been receiving tax breaks over the past 60 years; tax breaks that were promised to help the nation and bring jobs, yet haven't done a single thing. Seriously, this is sad. We can't even talk about compromise anymore, it has to be about party politics or, in your case, messiah worship.

[SnyderShrugged]

Yes to some. Hell, why not just cut everything back to 1990s levels, or 1980s levels. It also ignores the fact that the budget in 2006 was still broken. He also wants to get rid of the Department of Education, Commerce, Interior, Energy, and Housing and Urban Development. He wants to repeal ObamaCare (which increases the deficit). He wants to severely cut social programs and social security. In terms of air traffic control communication, you believe it is better to have dozens of different systems instead of one uniform one that all companies follow? More importantly, you believe it would be cheaper and more efficient to fly under that type of system? Brutus, your naivete is showing.

This once again proves my point. I'm not talking about instituting a Bolshevik revolution in America. We're talking about tax increases on a group that has been receiving tax breaks over the past 60 years; tax breaks that were promised to help the nation and bring jobs, yet haven't done a single thing. Seriously, this is sad. We can't even talk about compromise anymore, it has to be about party politics or, in your case, messiah worship.

I'm sure he would love top go back further, but that would leave those agencies in a lurch. At least this way, reasonable cuts back to levels of not that long ago, end the wars and viola, lots of money saved yet for the most part, peoples lives dont alter all that much.

He isnt proposing "getting rid" of any any of those agencies whatsoever, he is proposing reasonable cuts and elimination of cabinet positions, You need to read and understand the proposal before you bash it.

Regardless, I dont think many people who arent already desiring bigger and more expansive Federal Government would find these proposals unreasonable.

[Larry]

Larry, I think where you and many others disagree is on the role of the deficit in our current crisis. You seem to believe that the deficits are a symptom of the depression. Ron Paul, who predicted this crisis years ago, would likely argue that the deficits caused the depression. Your argument doesn't appear to make sense because we were deficit spending long before the depression hit us.

You're right. There was deficit spending before the current depression.

There was deficit spending 100 years before the current depression.

Obviously, deficit spending causes depressions. It just takes a really, really, long time, right?

Or perhaps you'd care to explain, to me, why all of the deficits on that chart were just fine for the economy, until we got to 2007, and that deficit clearly triggered Armageddon.

And I think a lot of people would argue that government spending is not good for the economy. There are plenty of people who would argue that, in an ideal world, the government would spend no money and all money would be spent based on market supply and demand for goods, rather than from central economic planners taking money from people and spending it how they feel would best help our economy.

And I think that a lot of people have argued that the complete abolition of private property would result in economic Utopia, too.

There are lots of people out there who have a theory that they're willing to impose on the world, because they're convinced that they're right.

And it's one of the nice thing about absolutists. They can never be proven wrong. Communism hasn't worked, yet, because it just hasn't been tried enough. If those Communist countries had only been more Communist, then it would have worked. If we just cut taxes on the rich to zero, then they'll pay their employees so much, that federal revenues will eliminate the deficit.

You know, Egon, this reminds me of the time you tried to drill a hole through your head.

That would have worked if you hadn't stopped me.

----------

I'd also like to point out some facts.

Far as I'm aware, there has been one period in American history that's somewhat comparable to our current economy: The Great Depression. (No, things aren't that bad right now. Not really that close. But for some reason, all kinds of experts say that it could be, if we aren't careful.)

(I'll also freely admit that I've read that things were really, really, bad, during reconstruction, too. But I know even less about that than I do about the Great Depression, and for some reason, that period doesn't seem to get talked about when we're discussing economic policy, it only seems to get talked about in the context of the Civil War. I'll admit that I don't know why.)

For the ten years prior to the Great Depression, the federal government ran a surplus, of around 1% of GDP, per year. GDP was growing by an annual rate of between 13% and 1%. (Average rate of a bit under 4%).

I'm now going to type a table (or try to, it's hard on ES). The columns are year, spending as a % of GDP, deficit as a % pf GDP, and the % change in GDP between that year and the next year.

29  3.7  -0.5  -8.6
30  4.3  -1.0  -6.5
31  5.4   0.2 -13.1
32  7.3   2.8  -1.3
33  9.0   3.3  10.9
34  9.0   3.1   8.9
35 10.3   4.1  13.0
36 10.9   4.8   5.1
37  9.6   2.8  -3.4
38  9.8   1.4   8.1
39 10.0   2.3   8.8

Now, what I see, there, is ten years of federal surplus, followed by a depression. I see a year of 4% spending, and a surpus, and GDP goes down by 8%. I see a second year of 4% spending, and a surplus, and GDP goes down by another 8%. I see a third year of now 5% spending, and a small deficit, and GDP goes down by 13%.

I then see a large increase in spending (going from around 4% of GDP, to around 7, then over 9 the next year.) I see a huge increase in the deficit. (From 0.2%, to the 3-4% range).

And I see GDP go from falling 8, 6, and 13%, to a fall of 1%, followed by growth of 11, 9, and 13%.

This trend continues, until 37. In 37, spending was cut from 11% of GDP to 10%. The deficit was reduced from 5% to 3%.

GDP immediately dropped, by 3%.

----------

As far as I'm aware, this is the only time in our nation's history where we've tried cutting spending during a depression. The result was to immediately cause the depression to "come back"

And this happened, after we'd had three years in which every single measure said that the economy was recovering, and had been recovering for three years.

Three years of steady, measurable, recovery, followed by a 10% reduction in federal spending, cancels the recovery and causes GDP to fall again.

----------

Now we're in a depression that certainly isn't identical, but many people say is similar, and could easily become, not only similar, but worse.

We don't have three years of recovery, behind us, to make us think that it's over.

And a guy comes along who says he wants a federal spending cut that's four times bigger than the one in 37. (in 37, spending was cut by 8%, in inflation-adjusted dollars. 12% if you compare % GDP vs % GDP. Right now, deficit spending is 43% of federal spending, and he claims he's going to completely eliminate it, all through spending cuts.)

You want to know where I get this idea that cutting spending during a depression is bad for the economy? Well, it has been 100% of the times it's been tried.

---------- Post added October-20th-2011 at 06:29 PM ----------

dont be so dramatic!

In post 150, you responded to my question of "why would taxes need to be raised, considering this plan"?

You said..

"Uh, because the plan is an absolute, unmitigated disaster?

Excellent.

You have now found a quote in which I expressed the opinion that balancing the budget instantly, during a depression, exclusively through massive spending cuts, isn't a good idea.

Unfortunately, that isn't what you claimed to read through your telepathic powers.

I took your statement about revenues as regarding taxation. Was I in error there?

Yes, my post pointing out the fact that revenues are the lowest they've been since WW2, was, in fact, a response to your claim that no tax increases can possibly be considered, no way, no how.

I also took your statement that the plan that doesnt increases taxes was an "unmitigated disaster" of a plan, as indicating that it couldnt work without tax increases.

Actually, my point was that in my opinion, any attempt to instantly balance the federal budget through any means would be an unmitigated disaster.

Show me where, say, Al Sharpton claims that he's going to balance the budget in the next year or two, strictly through tax hikes on the rich, (and who gives every indication that he'd try it, and has a large enough band of followers so that he's actually a contender), and I'll consider him equally dangerous as this idea.

[oisn1]

I'm sure he would love top go back further, but that would leave those agencies in a lurch. At least this way, reasonable cuts back to levels of not that long ago, end the wars and viola, lots of money saved yet for the most part, peoples lives dont alter all that much.

He isnt proposing "getting rid" of any any of those agencies whatsoever, he is proposing reasonable cuts and elimination of cabinet positions, You need to read and understand the proposal before you bash it.

Regardless, I dont think many people who arent already desiring bigger and more expansive Federal Government would find these proposals unreasonable.

Yes, if you don't consider poor people to be "people" then yes lives aren't altered too much. But let's assume no one is altered by these cuts. Why not have some reasonable tax increases? Before the Bush tax cuts on the rich, they were doing fine, so repealing those cuts wouldn't alter their lives too much right? Hmmm, very interesting, it's almost as if people are compromising and engaging in shared sacrifice.

Maybe you need to read the plan. Straight from Ron Paul's site, "...eliminating five cabinet departments (Energy, HUD, Commerce, Interior, and Education), abolishing the Transportation Security Administration..."

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/

Try again.

[SnyderShrugged]

Yes, if you don't consider poor people to be "people" then yes lives aren't altered too much. But let's assume no one is altered by these cuts. Why not have some reasonable tax increases? Before the Bush tax cuts on the rich, they were doing fine, so repealing those cuts wouldn't alter their lives too much right? Hmmm, very interesting, it's almost as if people are compromising and engaging in shared sacrifice.

Maybe you need to read the plan. Straight from Ron Paul's site, "...eliminating five cabinet departments (Energy, HUD, Commerce, Interior, and Education), abolishing the Transportation Security Administration..."

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/

Try again.

you did see the word cabinet, right? LOL

Ok, so tell me how tyhis will be a negative on poor people? Belt tightening for already bloated Federal agencies isnt going to harm the poor. Take the facts and please try to stay out of the emotional pleas. It's melodramatic to lay silly accusations of "not considering poor people as people.

[Larry]

you did see the word cabinet, right? LOL

You did see the words "eliminating" and "departments", right?

[ncr2h]

Although I don't have the time or the knowledge to rebut your analysis, I thank you for posting it. Your response caused me to do a lot more reading on the Great Depression, and what I found was startlingly similar to what we have today:

From Hoover's re-election speech in August 1932: (http://americanhistory.about.com/library/docs/blhooverspeech1932.htm)

Two courses were open to us. We might have done nothing. That would have been utter ruin. Instead, we met the situation with proposals to private business and to the Congress of the most gigantic program of economic defense and counterattack ever evolved in the history of the Republic. We put that program in action.

Our measures have repelled these attacks of fear and panic. We have maintained the financial integrity of the Government. We have cooperated to restore and stabilize the situation abroad. As a nation we have paid every dollar demanded of us. We have used the credit of the Government to aid and protect our institutions, both public and private. We have provided methods and assurances that none suffer from hunger or cold amongst our people. We have instituted measures to assist our farmers and our homeowners. We have created vast agencies for employment. Above all, we have maintained the sanctity of the principles upon which this Republic has grown great.

Sounds eerily similar to Obama.

Exerpts from FDR's democratic platform in 1932: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29595#axzz1bR6MVuZb

The Democratic Party solemnly promises by appropriate action to put into effect the principles, policies, and reforms herein advocated, and to eradicate the policies, methods, and practices herein condemned. We advocate an immediate and drastic reduction of governmental expenditures by abolishing useless commissions and offices, consolidating departments and bureaus, and eliminating extravagance to accomplish a saving of not less than twenty-five per cent in the cost of the Federal Government. And we call upon the Democratic Party in the states to make a zealous effort to achieve a proportionate result.

We favor maintenance of the national credit by a federal budget annually balanced on the basis of accurate executive estimates within revenues, raised by a system of taxation levied on the principle of ability to pay.

We advocate a sound currency to be preserved at all hazards and an international monetary conference called on the invitation of our government to consider the rehabilitation of silver and related questions.

We advocate a Navy and an Army adequate for national defense, based on a survey of all facts affecting the existing establishments, that the people in time of peace may not be burdened by an expenditure fast approaching a billion dollars annually.

We advocate the full measure of justice and generosity for all war veterans who have suffered disability or disease caused by or resulting from actual service in time of war and for their dependents.

We advocate a firm foreign policy, including peace with all the world and the settlement of international disputes by arbitration; no interference in the internal affairs of other nations; and sanctity of treaties and the maintenance of good faith and of good will in financial obligations; adherence to the World Court with appending reservations; the Pact of Paris abolishing war as an instrument of national policy, to be made effective by provisions for consultation and conference in case of threatened violations of treaties.

Pending repeal, we favor immediate modification of the Volstead Act; to legalize the manufacture and sale of beer and other beverages of such alcoholic content as is permissible under the Constitution and to provide therefrom a proper and needed revenue.

Very, very interesting.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Although I don't have the time or the knowledge to rebut your analysis, I thank you for posting it. Your response caused me to do a lot more reading on the Great Depression, and what I found was startlingly similar to what we have today:

From Hoover's re-election speech in August 1932: (http://americanhistory.about.com/library/docs/blhooverspeech1932.htm)

Sounds eerily similar to Obama.

Exerpts from FDR's democratic platform in 1932: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29595#axzz1bR6MVuZb

Very, very interesting.

Its interesting, but not terribly new. There's a reason people kept saying we were potentially heading to another depression, and/or that we probably averted a depression. It was a pretty similar situation, in a lot of ways. How we reacted has been somewhat similar too. Its true that government spending probably did help this recession. Its also true that there were attempts by Hoover to balance the budget in the face of this horrible economy, and it probably made the depression even worse. Unemployment went up to 25% during the Great Depression. Some of what FDR did probably helped, and some probably hurt.

These themes are present today as well as others. Its economic theory though, not truth.

[Larry]

Actually, I'll freely grant that this is personal memories and anecdotes, but the impression I have is that was seeing a pattern, over the previous decade or so, of what seemed to be a steady dismantling of the rules and checks that were put in place in the 30's, specifically to prevent what happened then, from happening again. Things like laws regulating what kinds of investments banks were allowed to make, rules to prevent over-leveraging, things like that. Being intentionally dismantled because "we don't need them any more."

(And then I reflect that, after this collapse, the government has made some relatively token gestures at passing rules to prevent it from happening a third time. And I see Republican Presidential candidates listing that repeal of even those token rules is part of their platform.)