I have a hard time believing that US social safety net spending is "lean" when it encompasses roughly 58% of our federal budget (that's before considering state programs) and roughly 39% if you remove social security from the equation.
Also, let's not forget that this chunk of the federal budget also happens to be the most rapidly growing segment of the federal budget.
More to the point, doesn't anyone else find it wrong that we "need" our government to spend so many resources on these programs? What the hell has happened to this country?
I'm curious about what your views on Ron Paul now are, xDaunt. I used to be a pretty staunch Democrat leaning person, but after listening to Ron Paul I know support his ideas of small government a lot more. A few months ago at the start of the debate season I think you were a little less enthusiastic about him, but I've been looking out for you and haven't you seen make too much commentary about this, so what do you think about him?
I haven't been around much because I've been stupidly busy with work and because the primary process got incredibly depressing by mid-November. This may seem like a bit of a contradiction, but I was simultaneously disgusted by both the focus on the inadequacies of candidates and the lack of a "perfect" candidate. Go figure.
As for Ron Paul, I really like a lot of his domestic policies. In fact, he's the only candidate that I trust to actually fix the federal budget because he's the only candidate (or really the only politician) who has proposed meaningful spending cuts. However, like most republicans, Ron Paul loses me whenever he starts talking about foreign policy. There are lot of reasons why it is good to have a powerful military and even more reasons to have the type of global military presence that the US has -- including some incredibly strategic reasons that most people don't even bother to think about. Don't get me wrong, I'm not for warmongering and I definitely have been known to express some strong isolationist statements whenever I get mad with "foreign ingrates." Yet, there's no denying the benefits that America reaps from its global military presence.
Yes, I suspected you've been busy with something else as I normally see you post as much. Ok, thanks for responding it's good to hear what you think, as you're one of the most outspoken conservatives here on this site.
On January 03 2012 09:17 Saryph wrote:
On January 03 2012 07:52 aksfjh wrote:
On January 03 2012 07:33 Saryph wrote: [quote]
I'm confused, how is Ron Paul going to resolve the USA's deficit?
All I have heard is he is going to get rid of the income and capital gains taxes.
I assume since you're asking for his plan to solve the debt crisis that Ron Paul has already solved how to get rid of our trillions of dollars of debt?
(Hint: Leaving the UN and closing military bases won't balance the budget, much less wipe out our debt, especially if you're wiping out income and capital gains taxes)
He completely cuts specific departments. Many face about 50% budget cuts, while others get cut altogether. Dept. of Education gets completely cut, as do many other socially oriented departments. Here is a page with his budget:
It may take a long time to load (if it does at all).
An interesting rebuttal, though brief, of Ron Paul's plan.
Ron Paul -- the Devil in his Details
By EDWARD MORRISSEY, The Fiscal Times
October 20, 2011
Herman Cain has succeeded in making “9-9-9” into one of this political season’s catchphrases, even as it comes under increasing criticism for its unintended consequences. Ron Paul hopes to get even more traction through subtraction. Last week, Paul released his economic proposal, titled, “Plan to Restore America.”
He might just as well have titled it the “Zero-Zip-Naught-Nada-Nothing Plan.”
Election 2012 Complete Coverage Billed as the only plan that actually balances the budget, the actual highlight of the plan is what it doesn’t do, or more specifically, what Paul refuses to fund. Paul’s plan would defund five Cabinet departments and promises to return federal spending to 2006 levels, the last full year in which a Republican Congress fully controlled the budget process.
He’s not kidding, either. Paul’s budget draws a red line through five departments: Energy, HUD, Commerce, Interior, and Education. According to Paul’s projections, eliminating these five departments will save the U.S. just over $700 billion in the four years of his proposed presidency. Along with other deep cuts in government spending, Paul’s plan would reverse six years of spending growth and would result in a fiscal 2016 budget of just over $3 trillion and a surplus of $19 billion.
All of this sounds good to fiscal and small-government conservatives. Republicans have long discussed eliminating the Department of Education as an expensive flop, which would allow states and local communities to take more control over their schools with the withdrawal of federal mandates. Fulfilling that goal would certainly be a hit on the Right, and Paul must be thinking that eliminating even more Cabinet-level agencies will ratchet up the popularity of his plan.
However, Paul’s plan doesn’t come with any deep explanation of how to accomplish all that he proposes – or how to address the consequences. No one would really miss the Department of Energy except subsidy-dependent companies or researchers who live off of federal funding to pursue innovation better left to the private sector.
Eliminating the Department of Education would be fairly simple, since state and local structures already exist to take up the slack. That might be true with HUD as well, although perhaps not in every state and county. States could coordinate the handoff with Congress if this plan came to pass. It gets trickier with the last two agencies, however. The Department of Interior manages vast amounts of public land, and whether one believes that the federal government should own as much acreage as it does, the need for proper stewardship at least in the short term can’t be ignored. Even if we put every federal acre up for sale (Paul’s plan includes $40 billion in revenue from land sales over four years), we’d need to fund the management of the land until the sale could be made. Paul’s proposal would leave no funds at all for these tasks, nor does he transfer the responsibility for land management to any other agency.
The promise to eliminate the Department of Commerce is even more mystifying. For one thing, the Constitution explicitly gives the federal government jurisdiction over interstate commerce, as well as requiring a decennial census to reapportion representation in the House – a task assigned to Commerce. The department also produces data from and analysis of the national economy; analyzes weather and potential storm systems; and manages patents and trademarks – another explicit federal function in the Constitution. Not only does Paul not explain what happens to these subsidiary responsibilities, he doesn’t explain why he thinks the Department of Commerce is illegitimate in the first place.
Nor are these the only curiosities in the Paul plan. In the tables supplied with the plan – covered by only a page of introductory text – Paul redlines all international assistance programs, as he has often promised to do. He also redlines the Federal Aviation Administration with a note in his budget that says only, “FAA Privatized.” That would save nearly $10 billion a year but would instantly create massive chaos in air travel. How exactly would Paul propose privatizing the air-traffic control system and managing the thousands of commercial flights in the air at any one time? What kind of transition would it take for airlines to create their own systems, and how much would it end up costing travelers as the carriers duplicate efforts and create communication barriers in traffic handling? Paul’s plan not only doesn’t explain that process or his end goals, but the thin amount of explanatory text never addresses the FAA conversion at all, nor does it explain Paul’s plan to defund TSA and require carriers to provide their own security.
The Paul plan has a number of such examples, some petty, some more substantial. He eliminates the supplemental nutrition programs for women and children at the Department of Agriculture, along with “Food for Peace” grants without detailing the savings realized by doing so. Paul also proposes to reduce spending at the Food and Drug Administration by 40% from fiscal 2006 levels without explaining which functions he plans to cut. Also at HHS, the woeful Indian Health Service gets a 20% cut from fiscal 2006, as does the Centers for Disease Control. LIHEAP, the energy-assistance program for low-income earners, gets tossed out altogether.
There may be good reasons for these reductions and eliminations, but Paul never bothers to provide any specifics in his plan, and it won’t be too difficult for Democrats to paint this entire budget as an attack on the poor.
Paul’s plan encompasses the general concepts of downsizing government, but the details show it to be short on common sense and political reality – or any kind of reality at all. Michele Bachmann warned about the “devil in the details” of 9-9-9, but Cain at least provides an argument in his proposal for how his tax reform could work. Paul’s plan looks more like a slapdash effort to claim $1 trillion in savings –credibility be damned.
Soooo... what's your plan?
As someone not running for office, I don't really feel the need to put forward a specific plan. However I will say this, taxes need to go up, not down, and spending does need to be cut.
If you're running for president, you should be required to say more than 'I'm going to cut a bunch of money from some programs,' you also need to explain how you're going to compensate for the break down of critical infrastructure that is caused by your massive cuts.
And Ron Paul has a lot of ideas that lead me to never being able to vote for him besides his fiscal policy, though it is very hard to support 'get rid of the federal government.' (Yes I know he doesn't want that, but he wants to greatly weaken it comapared to what it is today, even to the extent of getting rid of federal programs that the Constitution demand exist.)
Paul would receive a lot more support if he was a leader in the American West a couple centuries ago, when people couldn't see their neighbors property, much less house, from their porch. Today the world is far too globalized for his 'let everyone live their own lives free from the law(unless they are hurting others)' ideas to work.
Please read this, your view on economics is ignorant:
There is no single model, no single truth that explains everything in economics. Claiming that there is, like you are doing, is probably the most ignorant thing you can do when it comes to making an argument. Not to mention there's been quite some progress since 1946.
I don't think you read what it was actually about - the writing he linked is actually about common economic fallacies, rather than putting forward one unifying economic model.
I obviously didn't read the entire book, as I doubt you have, but I've read enough economical (text)books to glean by reading a few pages what the general point is that a book is trying to make, and this book is obviously promoting neo-classical economics, heavily influenced by Schumpeter. The fallacies he 'explains' are all explained by starting from a certain theoretical approach to the world.
Which is only one of the many different models you can use to explain the world around us. You don't get to claim that model x is more valid then model y without supplying any arguments. I could find you a major (living) economic thinker per chapter that disagrees with the main point the author is trying to make.
Ok well I doubt you can argue with "The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups." It's mostly common sense to me. Which is what Ron Paul talks about, to get back on topic. None of the other candidates seem to have any monetary/economic policy that agrees with common sense.
Sentences like that are meaningless, and I personally can't think of a single field of (serious) economics that only considers the short term. Out of that sentence no prescriptions for action are derived and no policies can be inferred, they all follow out of the theoretical assumptions underlying the various chapters.
Ron Paul's economic policy isn't common sense. It's a simplistic view, best summarized as: markets = good, which unsurprisingly leads him to conclude that we need more markets. What's much more interesting, but what he doesn't speak to, is why he believes markets work. He just states that they do.
I'm much more interested in candidates that have a view of the economy that isn't completely predetermined and that actually put some thought into their economic policy. Romney is an idiot, but at least he's wise enough to be pragmatic about economic choices.
I sort of feel sorry for the republican party in general tho, there's an obvious split between the ron paul tea-partiers, the sanctorum social conservatives and the romney traditionalists. None of the candidates seem to have the cross-over appeal to do well in a general, both within and outside the republican party.
Being the policemen of the world sounds better suited for the modern world then. Right?
Well, he wants to stop doing that while simultaneously withdrawing from all organisations designed at taking collective responsibility, so what exactly is your/his plan? Just hope that everything is fine? It's not like it's only a problem when the barbarians arrive on your shores anymore, peace is pretty good for business. And for all that the current wars are terrible for the people caught up in them, they're pretty small compared the kind of wars we used to have before the United Nations and suchlike existed.
The underlying problem is that the United States is spending far too much time and money in places we shouldn't be, while our people at home suffer. It's easy for foreigners to say what is good about our current foreign policy, but the reality is this: if you haven't lived in the US for an extended period of time, you don't know the extent of the issues we have here. We are in a downward spiral, and if we don't effectively manage our economy (withdrawing from wars, etc. would help that) the United States is fucked. And when the United States is fucked, the rest of the world is, too.
Also, there is absolutely no need to have bases worldwide any more. Ground fighting is a thing of the past, so having personnel on location at all times is extremely unnecessary, especially when we can plan, launch, bomb Libya with accuracy and efficiency, and be back home in less than 24 hours. Any crisis anywhere in the world that absolutely needed our attention could be attended to quickly even if we didn't have a single base outside of the United States. We have the strongest military in the world, and it has nothing to do with how many troops we have or how many tanks we have. We rule the skies. Nothing poses a great threat to the United States.
Don't you dare even TRY to pin this policy as a way to save in the budget. Even if we adopted Paul's idea of "non-interventionist," we'd still spend more than most of the world combined. In fact, the plan would eliminate more than 60% of the total bases run, but only cut military spending by 15%. This basically means we would destabilize many regions in the world, only to bolster our defenses (by a tremendous margin), for what could be described as the inevitable global conflict that would emerge out of this. You talk as if this is some beautiful plan that would both save money and save lives, but in the end it ends up costing us both.
In the end, blowback doesn't specifically occur because we're even in other countries. You don't see German, Australian, or Japanese terrorists attacking the U.S. in droves. We get blowback because, in times of need, the only U.S. presence that exists is military in nature. In the past, while bombs blew up city buildings and U.S. forces attacked threats to overall peace, the people of these countries would be stuck in the middle. At the end of the fighting, we would just leave the tattered battle zone, leaving the people in a smoking husk of a city/town. Sure, they were no longer under the threat of an organized terror, but they had little left to lose now. If we simply had stuck around for a bit longer and repaired the damage that was done (like we are doing now), we would not see the massive retaliation that we encountered over the next 2-3 decades.
Ok, so you disagree with this way of going about things. For an honest discussion, what are your thoughts then about HOW the U.S. should go about resolving its deficit?
I'm confused, how is Ron Paul going to resolve the USA's deficit?
All I have heard is he is going to get rid of the income and capital gains taxes.
I assume since you're asking for his plan to solve the debt crisis that Ron Paul has already solved how to get rid of our trillions of dollars of debt?
(Hint: Leaving the UN and closing military bases won't balance the budget, much less wipe out our debt, especially if you're wiping out income and capital gains taxes)
He completely cuts specific departments. Many face about 50% budget cuts, while others get cut altogether. Dept. of Education gets completely cut, as do many other socially oriented departments. Here is a page with his budget:
It may take a long time to load (if it does at all).
If it ends up being Ron Paul vs Obama, I plan to vote for Paul...
Why limit yourself to the failed mainstream duopoly? There are some nice choices out there running as Independents. I'll give one some TL-air time. :D
Because I consider voting for independents a gigantic waste. I know 100% certain none will ever get elected. And if there are 2 people that have a chance of winning, that means that I would prefer one over the other, given the choice. By not voting for the one I would prefer of the two, I increase the odds of getting the worst case scenario.
And after hearing about how the president actually *can* get rid of the department of education, never mind lol.
Do you even know what the DOE Does?I 'm going to enlighten you a bit, to what the DOE actually does.
Here is what the Department of Education Actually Does
•The original system of land-grants to create colleges, more or less defunct.
•Enforcing Civil Rights Legislation in our public schools
•No Child Left Behind and related statistical gathering(some local school district funding is here or scattered to similar programs, but accounts for <=10%).
A little more statistical gathering.
Administers federal education funding like financial aide. Keep in mind that this funding would still exist without the DOE.
What the Department of Education Does NOT Do
•Provide funding to school districts(outside of NCLB)
•Determine curriculum
•Determine/recommend text books
•Hire/fire teachers
•Make administrative decisions regarding schools.
•Provide the majority of funding to schools.
Want Proof? Here's what was specified by Congress when creating the Department of Education.
No provision of a program administered by the Secretary or by any other officer of the Department shall be construed to authorize the Secretary or any such officer to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system, over any accrediting agency or association, or over the selection or content of library resources, textbooks, or other instructional materials by any educational institution or school system, except to the extent authorized by law. (Section 103[b], Public Law 96-88)
TLDR; The Department of Education is not our public school system. Our public school system is not the Department of Education. The connections between the 2 are not especially substantial.
On January 03 2012 01:52 QuXn wrote: i hope more people will watch this and pass it on...his foreign policy is perfectly in line with the constitution!
His foreign policy perfectly matches a document written in the late 1700s? Well, there's no way that could be anything other than perfectly suited for the modern world...
Being the policemen of the world sounds better suited for the modern world then. Right?
Well, he wants to stop doing that while simultaneously withdrawing from all organisations designed at taking collective responsibility, so what exactly is your/his plan? Just hope that everything is fine? It's not like it's only a problem when the barbarians arrive on your shores anymore, peace is pretty good for business. And for all that the current wars are terrible for the people caught up in them, they're pretty small compared the kind of wars we used to have before the United Nations and suchlike existed.
The underlying problem is that the United States is spending far too much time and money in places we shouldn't be, while our people at home suffer. It's easy for foreigners to say what is good about our current foreign policy, but the reality is this: if you haven't lived in the US for an extended period of time, you don't know the extent of the issues we have here. We are in a downward spiral, and if we don't effectively manage our economy (withdrawing from wars, etc. would help that) the United States is fucked. And when the United States is fucked, the rest of the world is, too.
Also, there is absolutely no need to have bases worldwide any more. Ground fighting is a thing of the past, so having personnel on location at all times is extremely unnecessary, especially when we can plan, launch, bomb Libya with accuracy and efficiency, and be back home in less than 24 hours. Any crisis anywhere in the world that absolutely needed our attention could be attended to quickly even if we didn't have a single base outside of the United States. We have the strongest military in the world, and it has nothing to do with how many troops we have or how many tanks we have. We rule the skies. Nothing poses a great threat to the United States.
Don't you dare even TRY to pin this policy as a way to save in the budget. Even if we adopted Paul's idea of "non-interventionist," we'd still spend more than most of the world combined. In fact, the plan would eliminate more than 60% of the total bases run, but only cut military spending by 15%. This basically means we would destabilize many regions in the world, only to bolster our defenses (by a tremendous margin), for what could be described as the inevitable global conflict that would emerge out of this. You talk as if this is some beautiful plan that would both save money and save lives, but in the end it ends up costing us both.
In the end, blowback doesn't specifically occur because we're even in other countries. You don't see German, Australian, or Japanese terrorists attacking the U.S. in droves. We get blowback because, in times of need, the only U.S. presence that exists is military in nature. In the past, while bombs blew up city buildings and U.S. forces attacked threats to overall peace, the people of these countries would be stuck in the middle. At the end of the fighting, we would just leave the tattered battle zone, leaving the people in a smoking husk of a city/town. Sure, they were no longer under the threat of an organized terror, but they had little left to lose now. If we simply had stuck around for a bit longer and repaired the damage that was done (like we are doing now), we would not see the massive retaliation that we encountered over the next 2-3 decades.
Can you actually dispute anything in my second paragraph? Even if we withdraw every base outside of the United States, we'd still be able to "police the world" if it were necessary. It's not like we would create a power vacuum. It's basically the golden plan. Spend less overseas, while still being able to maintain "presence" worldwide through our Air Force, and take that 15% of 700 billion (105 billion) and use it for better things.
I think you have little understanding of how the military works, and what our Air Force is capable of. Have you ever been in the military?
Not have followed the entire argument here, but just commenting that US military presence in strategic locations is what keeps the global military power in balance. Some countries do not want US to withdraw our forces simply because of that reason (would destablize that region). Although it could also be said that these overseas locations were mostly based on the old wars (USSR, Germany...etc)... It's also important to understand that the goal is to protect the US interest (we are not running a charity here) which is why there has always been Europe > Africa.
On January 03 2012 01:52 QuXn wrote: i hope more people will watch this and pass it on...his foreign policy is perfectly in line with the constitution!
His foreign policy perfectly matches a document written in the late 1700s? Well, there's no way that could be anything other than perfectly suited for the modern world...
Being the policemen of the world sounds better suited for the modern world then. Right?
Well, he wants to stop doing that while simultaneously withdrawing from all organisations designed at taking collective responsibility, so what exactly is your/his plan? Just hope that everything is fine? It's not like it's only a problem when the barbarians arrive on your shores anymore, peace is pretty good for business. And for all that the current wars are terrible for the people caught up in them, they're pretty small compared the kind of wars we used to have before the United Nations and suchlike existed.
The underlying problem is that the United States is spending far too much time and money in places we shouldn't be, while our people at home suffer. It's easy for foreigners to say what is good about our current foreign policy, but the reality is this: if you haven't lived in the US for an extended period of time, you don't know the extent of the issues we have here. We are in a downward spiral, and if we don't effectively manage our economy (withdrawing from wars, etc. would help that) the United States is fucked. And when the United States is fucked, the rest of the world is, too.
Also, there is absolutely no need to have bases worldwide any more. Ground fighting is a thing of the past, so having personnel on location at all times is extremely unnecessary, especially when we can plan, launch, bomb Libya with accuracy and efficiency, and be back home in less than 24 hours. Any crisis anywhere in the world that absolutely needed our attention could be attended to quickly even if we didn't have a single base outside of the United States. We have the strongest military in the world, and it has nothing to do with how many troops we have or how many tanks we have. We rule the skies. Nothing poses a great threat to the United States.
Don't you dare even TRY to pin this policy as a way to save in the budget. Even if we adopted Paul's idea of "non-interventionist," we'd still spend more than most of the world combined. In fact, the plan would eliminate more than 60% of the total bases run, but only cut military spending by 15%. This basically means we would destabilize many regions in the world, only to bolster our defenses (by a tremendous margin), for what could be described as the inevitable global conflict that would emerge out of this. You talk as if this is some beautiful plan that would both save money and save lives, but in the end it ends up costing us both.
In the end, blowback doesn't specifically occur because we're even in other countries. You don't see German, Australian, or Japanese terrorists attacking the U.S. in droves. We get blowback because, in times of need, the only U.S. presence that exists is military in nature. In the past, while bombs blew up city buildings and U.S. forces attacked threats to overall peace, the people of these countries would be stuck in the middle. At the end of the fighting, we would just leave the tattered battle zone, leaving the people in a smoking husk of a city/town. Sure, they were no longer under the threat of an organized terror, but they had little left to lose now. If we simply had stuck around for a bit longer and repaired the damage that was done (like we are doing now), we would not see the massive retaliation that we encountered over the next 2-3 decades.
Can you actually dispute anything in my second paragraph? Even if we withdraw every base outside of the United States, we'd still be able to "police the world" if it were necessary. It's not like we would create a power vacuum. It's basically the golden plan. Spend less overseas, while still being able to maintain "presence" worldwide through our Air Force, and take that 15% of 700 billion (105 billion) and use it for better things.
I think you have little understanding of how the military works, and what our Air Force is capable of. Have you ever been in the military?
Yeah, causing coups in Iran isn't similar to helping coups in Libya, is it?
It can be certainly argued both ways. I would argue the US needs to stay in certain key strategic locations (namely Germany & S Korea) but a lot of other areas (S America) can be cut back. I see the argument for more overseas, and also see it for more at home, but there should be some sort of happy medium.
My argument is that it is completely unnecessary. We have a pretty big fighter base on our West Coast that is capable of deploying aircraft to Asia in a matter of hours. If NK decided to attack SK (or any other conflict occurred over in Asia) we would be able to respond in less than 24 hours.
Or we can keep significant military forces in other countries, and those countries can grow to hate our military presence, as is the case in both Korea AND Germany.
It would be reasonable to reduce a presence. But it's darn awful hard to do anything substantial without having some sort of base of operations. (Although I too agree there are way too many idiot GI in both countries)
The underlying problem is that the United States is spending far too much time and money in places we shouldn't be, while our people at home suffer. It's easy for foreigners to say what is good about our current foreign policy, but the reality is this: if you haven't lived in the US for an extended period of time, you don't know the extent of the issues we have here. We are in a downward spiral, and if we don't effectively manage our economy (withdrawing from wars, etc. would help that) the United States is fucked. And when the United States is fucked, the rest of the world is, too.
Also, there is absolutely no need to have bases worldwide any more. Ground fighting is a thing of the past, so having personnel on location at all times is extremely unnecessary, especially when we can plan, launch, bomb Libya with accuracy and efficiency, and be back home in less than 24 hours. Any crisis anywhere in the world that absolutely needed our attention could be attended to quickly even if we didn't have a single base outside of the United States. We have the strongest military in the world, and it has nothing to do with how many troops we have or how many tanks we have. We rule the skies. Nothing poses a great threat to the United States.
Don't you dare even TRY to pin this policy as a way to save in the budget. Even if we adopted Paul's idea of "non-interventionist," we'd still spend more than most of the world combined. In fact, the plan would eliminate more than 60% of the total bases run, but only cut military spending by 15%. This basically means we would destabilize many regions in the world, only to bolster our defenses (by a tremendous margin), for what could be described as the inevitable global conflict that would emerge out of this. You talk as if this is some beautiful plan that would both save money and save lives, but in the end it ends up costing us both.
In the end, blowback doesn't specifically occur because we're even in other countries. You don't see German, Australian, or Japanese terrorists attacking the U.S. in droves. We get blowback because, in times of need, the only U.S. presence that exists is military in nature. In the past, while bombs blew up city buildings and U.S. forces attacked threats to overall peace, the people of these countries would be stuck in the middle. At the end of the fighting, we would just leave the tattered battle zone, leaving the people in a smoking husk of a city/town. Sure, they were no longer under the threat of an organized terror, but they had little left to lose now. If we simply had stuck around for a bit longer and repaired the damage that was done (like we are doing now), we would not see the massive retaliation that we encountered over the next 2-3 decades.
Ok, so you disagree with this way of going about things. For an honest discussion, what are your thoughts then about HOW the U.S. should go about resolving its deficit?
There should have been a tax increase that coincided with the increased involvement in the Middle East (Iraq and Afghanistan), and a conscription to shore up the numbers instead of a huge expansion of contracted help.
Since that option has expired (for the most part), a mix of tax increases and military cuts should be the focus. We're still developing weapons and techniques for conventional wars that are either too far away or extinct altogether. We focus too much on how we can pay somebody else to take over traditional military roles. The consequence is a budget that required an increase in income, that we neglected. For social reform, we already went through massive social/welfare reform in the 90s, which helped create a budget surplus for the early 2000s. What we have now is a relatively lean social safety net that still has some fat to trim, but not nearly as much as the exploding military budget. The balance shifted over the past 2 decades and should be corrected.
In short, I do not support an expansion of military at the cost of social.
I have a hard time believing that US social safety net spending is "lean" when it encompasses roughly 58% of our federal budget (that's before considering state programs) and roughly 39% if you remove social security from the equation.
Also, let's not forget that this chunk of the federal budget also happens to be the most rapidly growing segment of the federal budget.
More to the point, doesn't anyone else find it wrong that we "need" our government to spend so many resources on these programs? What the hell has happened to this country?
I'm curious about what your views on Ron Paul now are, xDaunt. I used to be a pretty staunch Democrat leaning person, but after listening to Ron Paul I know support his ideas of small government a lot more. A few months ago at the start of the debate season I think you were a little less enthusiastic about him, but I've been looking out for you and haven't you seen make too much commentary about this, so what do you think about him?
I haven't been around much because I've been stupidly busy with work and because the primary process got incredibly depressing by mid-November. This may seem like a bit of a contradiction, but I was simultaneously disgusted by both the focus on the inadequacies of candidates and the lack of a "perfect" candidate. Go figure.
As for Ron Paul, I really like a lot of his domestic policies. In fact, he's the only candidate that I trust to actually fix the federal budget because he's the only candidate (or really the only politician) who has proposed meaningful spending cuts. However, like most republicans, Ron Paul loses me whenever he starts talking about foreign policy. There are lot of reasons why it is good to have a powerful military and even more reasons to have the type of global military presence that the US has -- including some incredibly strategic reasons that most people don't even bother to think about. Don't get me wrong, I'm not for warmongering and I definitely have been known to express some strong isolationist statements whenever I get mad with "foreign ingrates." Yet, there's no denying the benefits that America reaps from its global military presence.
Yes, I suspected you've been busy with something else as I normally see you post as much. Ok, thanks for responding it's good to hear what you think, as you're one of the most outspoken conservatives here on this site.
On January 03 2012 09:17 Saryph wrote:
On January 03 2012 07:52 aksfjh wrote:
On January 03 2012 07:33 Saryph wrote:
On January 03 2012 07:26 nebffa wrote:
On January 03 2012 07:21 aksfjh wrote:
On January 03 2012 06:17 ryanAnger wrote:
On January 03 2012 05:44 Purple Haze wrote: [quote]
Well, he wants to stop doing that while simultaneously withdrawing from all organisations designed at taking collective responsibility, so what exactly is your/his plan? Just hope that everything is fine? It's not like it's only a problem when the barbarians arrive on your shores anymore, peace is pretty good for business. And for all that the current wars are terrible for the people caught up in them, they're pretty small compared the kind of wars we used to have before the United Nations and suchlike existed.
The underlying problem is that the United States is spending far too much time and money in places we shouldn't be, while our people at home suffer. It's easy for foreigners to say what is good about our current foreign policy, but the reality is this: if you haven't lived in the US for an extended period of time, you don't know the extent of the issues we have here. We are in a downward spiral, and if we don't effectively manage our economy (withdrawing from wars, etc. would help that) the United States is fucked. And when the United States is fucked, the rest of the world is, too.
Also, there is absolutely no need to have bases worldwide any more. Ground fighting is a thing of the past, so having personnel on location at all times is extremely unnecessary, especially when we can plan, launch, bomb Libya with accuracy and efficiency, and be back home in less than 24 hours. Any crisis anywhere in the world that absolutely needed our attention could be attended to quickly even if we didn't have a single base outside of the United States. We have the strongest military in the world, and it has nothing to do with how many troops we have or how many tanks we have. We rule the skies. Nothing poses a great threat to the United States.
Don't you dare even TRY to pin this policy as a way to save in the budget. Even if we adopted Paul's idea of "non-interventionist," we'd still spend more than most of the world combined. In fact, the plan would eliminate more than 60% of the total bases run, but only cut military spending by 15%. This basically means we would destabilize many regions in the world, only to bolster our defenses (by a tremendous margin), for what could be described as the inevitable global conflict that would emerge out of this. You talk as if this is some beautiful plan that would both save money and save lives, but in the end it ends up costing us both.
In the end, blowback doesn't specifically occur because we're even in other countries. You don't see German, Australian, or Japanese terrorists attacking the U.S. in droves. We get blowback because, in times of need, the only U.S. presence that exists is military in nature. In the past, while bombs blew up city buildings and U.S. forces attacked threats to overall peace, the people of these countries would be stuck in the middle. At the end of the fighting, we would just leave the tattered battle zone, leaving the people in a smoking husk of a city/town. Sure, they were no longer under the threat of an organized terror, but they had little left to lose now. If we simply had stuck around for a bit longer and repaired the damage that was done (like we are doing now), we would not see the massive retaliation that we encountered over the next 2-3 decades.
Ok, so you disagree with this way of going about things. For an honest discussion, what are your thoughts then about HOW the U.S. should go about resolving its deficit?
I'm confused, how is Ron Paul going to resolve the USA's deficit?
All I have heard is he is going to get rid of the income and capital gains taxes.
I assume since you're asking for his plan to solve the debt crisis that Ron Paul has already solved how to get rid of our trillions of dollars of debt?
(Hint: Leaving the UN and closing military bases won't balance the budget, much less wipe out our debt, especially if you're wiping out income and capital gains taxes)
He completely cuts specific departments. Many face about 50% budget cuts, while others get cut altogether. Dept. of Education gets completely cut, as do many other socially oriented departments. Here is a page with his budget:
It may take a long time to load (if it does at all).
An interesting rebuttal, though brief, of Ron Paul's plan.
Ron Paul -- the Devil in his Details
By EDWARD MORRISSEY, The Fiscal Times
October 20, 2011
Herman Cain has succeeded in making “9-9-9” into one of this political season’s catchphrases, even as it comes under increasing criticism for its unintended consequences. Ron Paul hopes to get even more traction through subtraction. Last week, Paul released his economic proposal, titled, “Plan to Restore America.”
He might just as well have titled it the “Zero-Zip-Naught-Nada-Nothing Plan.”
Election 2012 Complete Coverage Billed as the only plan that actually balances the budget, the actual highlight of the plan is what it doesn’t do, or more specifically, what Paul refuses to fund. Paul’s plan would defund five Cabinet departments and promises to return federal spending to 2006 levels, the last full year in which a Republican Congress fully controlled the budget process.
He’s not kidding, either. Paul’s budget draws a red line through five departments: Energy, HUD, Commerce, Interior, and Education. According to Paul’s projections, eliminating these five departments will save the U.S. just over $700 billion in the four years of his proposed presidency. Along with other deep cuts in government spending, Paul’s plan would reverse six years of spending growth and would result in a fiscal 2016 budget of just over $3 trillion and a surplus of $19 billion.
All of this sounds good to fiscal and small-government conservatives. Republicans have long discussed eliminating the Department of Education as an expensive flop, which would allow states and local communities to take more control over their schools with the withdrawal of federal mandates. Fulfilling that goal would certainly be a hit on the Right, and Paul must be thinking that eliminating even more Cabinet-level agencies will ratchet up the popularity of his plan.
However, Paul’s plan doesn’t come with any deep explanation of how to accomplish all that he proposes – or how to address the consequences. No one would really miss the Department of Energy except subsidy-dependent companies or researchers who live off of federal funding to pursue innovation better left to the private sector.
Eliminating the Department of Education would be fairly simple, since state and local structures already exist to take up the slack. That might be true with HUD as well, although perhaps not in every state and county. States could coordinate the handoff with Congress if this plan came to pass. It gets trickier with the last two agencies, however. The Department of Interior manages vast amounts of public land, and whether one believes that the federal government should own as much acreage as it does, the need for proper stewardship at least in the short term can’t be ignored. Even if we put every federal acre up for sale (Paul’s plan includes $40 billion in revenue from land sales over four years), we’d need to fund the management of the land until the sale could be made. Paul’s proposal would leave no funds at all for these tasks, nor does he transfer the responsibility for land management to any other agency.
The promise to eliminate the Department of Commerce is even more mystifying. For one thing, the Constitution explicitly gives the federal government jurisdiction over interstate commerce, as well as requiring a decennial census to reapportion representation in the House – a task assigned to Commerce. The department also produces data from and analysis of the national economy; analyzes weather and potential storm systems; and manages patents and trademarks – another explicit federal function in the Constitution. Not only does Paul not explain what happens to these subsidiary responsibilities, he doesn’t explain why he thinks the Department of Commerce is illegitimate in the first place.
Nor are these the only curiosities in the Paul plan. In the tables supplied with the plan – covered by only a page of introductory text – Paul redlines all international assistance programs, as he has often promised to do. He also redlines the Federal Aviation Administration with a note in his budget that says only, “FAA Privatized.” That would save nearly $10 billion a year but would instantly create massive chaos in air travel. How exactly would Paul propose privatizing the air-traffic control system and managing the thousands of commercial flights in the air at any one time? What kind of transition would it take for airlines to create their own systems, and how much would it end up costing travelers as the carriers duplicate efforts and create communication barriers in traffic handling? Paul’s plan not only doesn’t explain that process or his end goals, but the thin amount of explanatory text never addresses the FAA conversion at all, nor does it explain Paul’s plan to defund TSA and require carriers to provide their own security.
The Paul plan has a number of such examples, some petty, some more substantial. He eliminates the supplemental nutrition programs for women and children at the Department of Agriculture, along with “Food for Peace” grants without detailing the savings realized by doing so. Paul also proposes to reduce spending at the Food and Drug Administration by 40% from fiscal 2006 levels without explaining which functions he plans to cut. Also at HHS, the woeful Indian Health Service gets a 20% cut from fiscal 2006, as does the Centers for Disease Control. LIHEAP, the energy-assistance program for low-income earners, gets tossed out altogether.
There may be good reasons for these reductions and eliminations, but Paul never bothers to provide any specifics in his plan, and it won’t be too difficult for Democrats to paint this entire budget as an attack on the poor.
Paul’s plan encompasses the general concepts of downsizing government, but the details show it to be short on common sense and political reality – or any kind of reality at all. Michele Bachmann warned about the “devil in the details” of 9-9-9, but Cain at least provides an argument in his proposal for how his tax reform could work. Paul’s plan looks more like a slapdash effort to claim $1 trillion in savings –credibility be damned.
Soooo... what's your plan?
As someone not running for office, I don't really feel the need to put forward a specific plan. However I will say this, taxes need to go up, not down, and spending does need to be cut.
If you're running for president, you should be required to say more than 'I'm going to cut a bunch of money from some programs,' you also need to explain how you're going to compensate for the break down of critical infrastructure that is caused by your massive cuts.
And Ron Paul has a lot of ideas that lead me to never being able to vote for him besides his fiscal policy, though it is very hard to support 'get rid of the federal government.' (Yes I know he doesn't want that, but he wants to greatly weaken it comapared to what it is today, even to the extent of getting rid of federal programs that the Constitution demand exist.)
Paul would receive a lot more support if he was a leader in the American West a couple centuries ago, when people couldn't see their neighbors property, much less house, from their porch. Today the world is far too globalized for his 'let everyone live their own lives free from the law(unless they are hurting others)' ideas to work.
Ok the first place to really look is - how critical is this infrastructure? How did the country fare without it? For the most part, pretty well. That's the main reason why it's cuttable. Second you can look at the consequences of not cutting. The outcome will be DISASTROUS. Now this isn't to say you have no idea what you're talking about, in fact I think quite the opposite, because certainly these welfare programs do make a difference (you can debate how much). However... I find a lot of people make a mistake here, because how important are these welfare programs that the U.S. would consider choosing them over its financial stability? Aka. going bankrupt, because that is the REAL disaster waiting to happen. I have no doubt about peoples' good intentions with their foreign policy or their domestic policy, but you have to look at the reality of what is going to happen if you don't cut spending. If you really think taxes could make the difference why don't you run some brief numbers? I did - for the $4 trillion that was spent on the Iraq + Afghanistan wars, if they were paid purely by taxpayers money that would equate to over $13,000 paid by every living person in the U.S. (approximating U.S. population to be 300 million).
(Yes I know he doesn't want that, but he wants to greatly weaken it comapared to what it is today, even to the extent of getting rid of federal programs that the Constitution demand exist.)
Ok that is completely not true, and I didn't see it before. If you're going to make such a bold claim, back it up with evidence. That is either a lie or a wild, unsubstantiated claim
Please be careful about tossing insults at people, if you had bothered to read the posts that I have made today in this thread you would see that what I was talking about was the duties that the Constitution demands be carried out that the current departments he wants to eliminate are performing. As such he needs to thoroughly explain how he is going to cover such holes and all of the problems created by eliminating these agencies.
As for your first paragraph, the country fared fine without the infrastructure because is was not necessary, it become so and as such the government took a role in a critical function. A good example of this would be the FAA and its control of the air above our country. Ron Paul wants to privatize this, but how is he going to do this? There are thousands of planes in the air at all times, and tens of thousands of flights daily. That's not a small task to transfer this responsibility to a private company. I would like to see a lot more information on his plan to do this, not just a line in his budget showing money he will save.
Searching for data on your own, and informing yourself is key, not necessarily just looking for data that makes you feel good about your choices, and stopping there.
Searching for data on your own, and informing yourself is key, not necessarily just looking for data that makes you feel good about your choices, and stopping there.
Ron Paul has raised over $6mil from Small Individuals (almost 50% of his total contributions) compared to Romney who only has 10% from Small Individuals. Obama is about the same as Paul as far as % of Small Individuals.
Searching for data on your own, and informing yourself is key, not necessarily just looking for data that makes you feel good about your choices, and stopping there.
Searching for data on your own, and informing yourself is key, not necessarily just looking for data that makes you feel good about your choices, and stopping there.
Biased =/= inaccurate. It's all about showing the same information for all the candidates, not listing 'CONCERNED CITIZENS' for one person and not the others. It implies that either the other candidates receive no money from citizens, or such a small numerical amount it is not even listed on the chart.
Searching for data on your own, and informing yourself is key, not necessarily just looking for data that makes you feel good about your choices, and stopping there.
Biased =/= inaccurate. It's all about showing the same information for all the candidates, not listing 'CONCERNED CITIZENS' for one person and not the others. It implies that either the other candidates receive no money from citizens, or such a small numerical amount it is not even listed on the chart.
I think the picture is a pretty good representation of the difference between Paul and Romney, though I concede it's not fair to Obama.
Searching for data on your own, and informing yourself is key, not necessarily just looking for data that makes you feel good about your choices, and stopping there.
Searching for data on your own, and informing yourself is key, not necessarily just looking for data that makes you feel good about your choices, and stopping there.
Ron Paul has raised over $6mil from Small Individuals (almost 50% of his total contributions) compared to Romney who only has 10% from Small Individuals. Obama is about the same as Paul as far as % of Small Individuals.
So, seeing as your picture didn't mention that about Obama, that would make it....biased?
Searching for data on your own, and informing yourself is key, not necessarily just looking for data that makes you feel good about your choices, and stopping there.
That's because Obama's tie is crooked in the picture. That is pretty biased and I apologize for offending him with that pic.
Good to see you have nothing to contribute, try putting some of that effort into reading about the candidates before commenting.
I'm sorry but, Obama is a sellout that hires wall street goons to work under him from Goldman Sachs. If you still believe in this "hoax and chains" deal then you might want to look at the recent bill that just passed. NDAA which is Indefinite Detainment of US Citizens that Obama asked for to pass.
Searching for data on your own, and informing yourself is key, not necessarily just looking for data that makes you feel good about your choices, and stopping there.
Ron Paul has raised over $6mil from Small Individuals (almost 50% of his total contributions) compared to Romney who only has 10% from Small Individuals. Obama is about the same as Paul as far as % of Small Individuals.
So, seeing as your picture didn't mention that about Obama, that would make it....biased?
On January 03 2012 06:17 ryanAnger wrote: Also, there is absolutely no need to have bases worldwide any more. Ground fighting is a thing of the past, so having personnel on location at all times is extremely unnecessary, especially when we can plan, launch, bomb Libya with accuracy and efficiency, and be back home in less than 24 hours. Any crisis anywhere in the world that absolutely needed our attention could be attended to quickly even if we didn't have a single base outside of the United States. We have the strongest military in the world, and it has nothing to do with how many troops we have or how many tanks we have. We rule the skies. Nothing poses a great threat to the United States.
Of course I understand the power of the USAF and the mobility of our naval fleet, but it's not about simply being able to respond within 24 hours. It's not about being able to retaliate to avenge a crippled ally, or to give support to rebel forces against a delegitimized government. It's about preventing violence from breaking out in the first place. Without even a phone call, air power can be dispatched to aid an ally being attacked by surprise. Rangers can be sent in a matter of minutes to locations to aid in an attack/defense. In this situation, the offensive country can't just pray for non-intervention from the U.S. after their "raid/exercise" is finished, since the minute they show aggressive action within the range of a U.S. base, the U.S. is involved.
On January 03 2012 06:17 ryanAnger wrote: Also, there is absolutely no need to have bases worldwide any more. Ground fighting is a thing of the past, so having personnel on location at all times is extremely unnecessary, especially when we can plan, launch, bomb Libya with accuracy and efficiency, and be back home in less than 24 hours. Any crisis anywhere in the world that absolutely needed our attention could be attended to quickly even if we didn't have a single base outside of the United States. We have the strongest military in the world, and it has nothing to do with how many troops we have or how many tanks we have. We rule the skies. Nothing poses a great threat to the United States.
Of course I understand the power of the USAF and the mobility of our naval fleet, but it's not about simply being able to respond within 24 hours. It's not about being able to retaliate to avenge a crippled ally, or to give support to rebel forces against a delegitimized government. It's about preventing violence from breaking out in the first place. Without even a phone call, air power can be dispatched to aid an ally being attacked by surprise. Rangers can be sent in a matter of minutes to locations to aid in an attack/defense. In this situation, the offensive country can't just pray for non-intervention from the U.S. after their "raid/exercise" is finished, since the minute they show aggressive action within the range of a U.S. base, the U.S. is involved.
I would respect this argument if the United States was actually "altruistic" when it came to "preventing violence". We pick and choose where we want to "prevent violence" based on whether or not it serves our interests. There are numerous places throughout the world (mostly Africa) where people are being killed by dictators or military regimes for little to no reason, but we don't do shit about it. We're only concerned about "keeping the peace" (lol) in places where there is oil or other financial incentives.
And again, if we withdrew from international bases, and Russia decided to attack Germany, for instance, it's not our problem. We shouldn't be responsible for ensuring everyone plays nice. I know this isn't a favorable view by most people, but most people only pretend to care about the well-being of others. I, at least, have the balls to admit that I'm primarily concerned with the well-being of myself, the people I love, and my nation.
With the above said, I'll let it be known that I'm not entirely heartless when it comes to the woes of other nations. I do feel for them, and I do help out when I can (for instance, I donated over $1000 dollars to both Japanese and Haitian earthquake relief programs, how many pro-intervention Americans can say that?), but I stand by my belief that we can not be held responsible for everyone else's issues.
Searching for data on your own, and informing yourself is key, not necessarily just looking for data that makes you feel good about your choices, and stopping there.
Biased =/= inaccurate. It's all about showing the same information for all the candidates, not listing 'CONCERNED CITIZENS' for one person and not the others. It implies that either the other candidates receive no money from citizens, or such a small numerical amount it is not even listed on the chart.
It's listed from most to least, so it's not really biased unless Obama's "concerned citizens" category would have made the cut (I have no idea if it would have or not)
Searching for data on your own, and informing yourself is key, not necessarily just looking for data that makes you feel good about your choices, and stopping there.
Biased =/= inaccurate. It's all about showing the same information for all the candidates, not listing 'CONCERNED CITIZENS' for one person and not the others. It implies that either the other candidates receive no money from citizens, or such a small numerical amount it is not even listed on the chart.
It's listed from most to least, so it's not really biased unless Obama's "concerned citizens" category would have made the cut (I have no idea if it would have or not)
All of my facepalms are directed at you.
Even if you're too lazy to read the source material, you could at least be bothered to read the posts you're quoting, which have the answer to your question in them.
On January 03 2012 06:17 ryanAnger wrote: Also, there is absolutely no need to have bases worldwide any more. Ground fighting is a thing of the past, so having personnel on location at all times is extremely unnecessary, especially when we can plan, launch, bomb Libya with accuracy and efficiency, and be back home in less than 24 hours. Any crisis anywhere in the world that absolutely needed our attention could be attended to quickly even if we didn't have a single base outside of the United States. We have the strongest military in the world, and it has nothing to do with how many troops we have or how many tanks we have. We rule the skies. Nothing poses a great threat to the United States.
Of course I understand the power of the USAF and the mobility of our naval fleet, but it's not about simply being able to respond within 24 hours. It's not about being able to retaliate to avenge a crippled ally, or to give support to rebel forces against a delegitimized government. It's about preventing violence from breaking out in the first place. Without even a phone call, air power can be dispatched to aid an ally being attacked by surprise. Rangers can be sent in a matter of minutes to locations to aid in an attack/defense. In this situation, the offensive country can't just pray for non-intervention from the U.S. after their "raid/exercise" is finished, since the minute they show aggressive action within the range of a U.S. base, the U.S. is involved.
I would respect this argument if the United States was actually "altruistic" when it came to "preventing violence". We pick and choose where we want to "prevent violence" based on whether or not it serves our interests. There are numerous places throughout the world (mostly Africa) where people are being killed by dictators or military regimes for little to no reason, but we don't do shit about it. We're only concerned about "keeping the peace" (lol) in places where there is oil or other financial incentives.
And again, if we withdrew from international bases, and Russia decided to attack Germany, for instance, it's not our problem. We shouldn't be responsible for ensuring everyone plays nice. I know this isn't a favorable view by most people, but most people only pretend to care about the well-being of others. I, at least, have the balls to admit that I'm primarily concerned with the well-being of myself, the people I love, and my nation.
With the above said, I'll let it be known that I'm not entirely heartless when it comes to the woes of other nations. I do feel for them, and I do help out when I can (for instance, I donated over $1000 dollars to both Japanese and Haitian earthquake relief programs, how many pro-intervention Americans can say that?), but I stand by my belief that we can not be held responsible for everyone else's issues.
I am perfectly content with prioritizing our presence in places which we have a vested security and economic interest, on the grounds that we aren't occupying the territory (or if we are, we are following a path for inevitable independence). That includes places that don't only have raw materials, but also important trading partners (like Germany). Peace time is a great time for the U.S. economy, and it is only within our interest to keep our partners in peace.
I know you are not heartless, and I know that many in this topic are far from it. We have our own ideals and beliefs that influence our opinions on what the best course of action is.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wmpeN.png)
