http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/10/ron-paul-spending-cuts-/1
He's saying he can cut $1,000,000,000,000 by axing all of the Departments not covered by the Constitution and other changes. It actually seems like a really good plan.
Details (pdf warning): http://c3244172.r72.cf0.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/RestoreAmericaPlan.pdf
Love it.
It will never happen unless the People of the United States actually woke up and paid attention to something other than Fox Snooze and random, paid advertisements masquerading as Journalism.
Its a good start
Non-starter. Congress would never do it. And if he was able to do it and did it too quickly, he'd put us into a depression.
Sweet, so the most developed nation in the world would have the social services on par with Democratic Republic of Congo.
tuna55 wrote: Love it.
Agreed. I work with half of those Departments on a daily basis, and I can tell you that they don't deserve to exist.
Why does Ron Paul not get air time?
PHeller wrote: Sweet, so the most developed nation in the world would have the social services on par with Democratic Republic of Congo.
How so?
The details don't seem to suggest to me how the important bits and pieces of control handled by those departments will be dealt with in the absence of the departments.
Is there a default? Where Paul is concerned, am I supposed to assume any control removed from the Federal government is to be handled at the state level? Local? Or do I just assume that the control previously held by the department of the interior will now be divvied up between BP and Shell?
For state/local control, the first thing I think of is that now instead of playing the U.S. off against offshore competitors for labor, corporations could then play states and municipalities off against one another for the least regulation of any sort.
A competitive market is generally a good thing, but without some degree of controls, it becomes a race to the bottom. The entities benefitting from the deregulation don't have to live in the resulting area.
I think there are cases to be made that the current arrangement is unwieldy to the point of being badly disconnected, not to mention the whole continuing revolving door between segments of the federal government and the markets they regulate, but I don't see what would keep those doors from being installed at the state level, and I definitely don't see just giving up on attempting to control that stuff.
Apologies if I don't understand the proposition, but the details as linked above didn't give me any further understanding of what would happen beyond the dissolution of these agencies.
Just out of curiosity, which departments are not covered by the term "general Welfare"?
Being that it comes both time Common Defence (sic) is mentioned in the constitution, it's pretty easy to justify.
Both are in Article 1, section 8, as well as the preamble.
RP is a brilliant man and politician. He truly understands our government and economy. I don't think he actually expects to ever get the whole hog. I believe he pushes so far so that when compromise happens, we've actually moved in the direction he wanted. I believe that middle ground is where we belong so I support him to actually get there.
Javelin wrote:PHeller wrote: Sweet, so the most developed nation in the world would have the social services on par with Democratic Republic of Congo.How so?
Or rather "Why is it important to have a lot of social services if your populace is overall more wealthy than anywhere else?"
Also... charity is my standard answer.
alfadriver wrote: Just out of curiosity, which departments are not covered by the term "general Welfare"? Being that it comes both time Common Defence (sic) is mentioned in the constitution, it's pretty easy to justify. Both are in Article 1, section 8, as well as the preamble.
There are a lot of writings on this by the people who wrote the constitution. Welfare does not mean what it did then. I don't have the time to find the writings for you now, but I will look.
bluej wrote: RP is a brilliant man and politician. He truly understands our government and economy. I don't think he actually expects to ever get the whole hog. I believe he pushes so far so that when compromise happens, we've actually moved in the direction he wanted. I believe that middle ground is where we belong so I support him to actually get there.
Wasn't there just a thread where almost everyone on these boards universally condemned the nutjobs that were going to such extremes, and this is why the middle voices are never heard?
We can't hear the sane ones over all the shouting of the left and right extremes...
bluej wrote: I don't think he actually expects to ever get the whole hog. I believe he pushes so far so that when compromise happens, we've actually moved in the direction he wanted. I believe that middle ground is where we belong so I support him to actually get there.
It's in some ways an understandable mindset. It's one of the things that aggravates me that the way we seem to approach all negotiations is with an understood adversarial arrangement; everyone assumes that they need to try to take everything on the table plus the opponent's shirt just to wind up with something near middle ground.
It seems unlikely to ever have honest, earnest, cooperative negotiations when that is the understood mode of operation.
tuna55 wrote:alfadriver wrote: Just out of curiosity, which departments are not covered by the term "general Welfare"? Being that it comes both time Common Defence (sic) is mentioned in the constitution, it's pretty easy to justify. Both are in Article 1, section 8, as well as the preamble.There are a lot of writings on this by the people who wrote the constitution. Welfare does not mean what it did then. I don't have the time to find the writings for you now, but I will look.
LOL- everyone brings that idea up, and we seem to think that our consitution can not be changed because the founding fathers didn't intend it to be that way. They also didn't intend to not have slavery, or allow women to vote, or a whole lot of things that are now Amendments to the Consitution.
Or did they intend for the US to temporarily ban alcohol consumption?
Yea, you justify the Consitution the way you want, I'll do it the way I want. We'll meet in the middle.
Welfare can mean good air and water, rules that govern how food is made- things that keep the population safe and healthy. Welfare can mean that there are rules that govern banks so that if you deposit money there, they can't invest it so that you will loose it.
There are a whole lot of things general welfare can mean. One of it CAN mean that we give some to people who don't have means to survive on. That has survived Constitutional attacks for around 80 years now.
tuna55 wrote: Or rather "Why is it important to have a lot of social services if your populace is overall more wealthy than anywhere else?"
THANK YOU.
If people are serious about means testing in the US some of these social programs, and then at the same time want to compare us to some of these economically intractable social welfare societies... then, how hypocritical is it to not give a sense of proportion to the social services offered in the context of the overall wealth the population when compared to these other countries?
alfadriver wrote: Just out of curiosity, which departments are not covered by the term "general Welfare"?
Lets go to one of the major sources, James Madison:
If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions. It is to be remarked that the phrase out of which this doctrine is elaborated, is copied from the old articles of Confederation, where it was always understood as nothing more than a general caption to the specified powers. -JM
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. -JM
From the Annals of Congress: Mr. Madison wished to relieve the sufferers, but was afraid of establishing a dangerous precedent, which might hereafter be perverted to the countenance of purposes very different from those of charity.
The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government. -JM
And my favorite:
With respect to the words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. -JM
In principle, I agree with both of you, but if that's the way it's played currently then I'll go with the only guy who's playing it that way. He's also the only person I actually believe will try as hard as he can to follow through on what he says.
alfadriver wrote: LOL- everyone brings that idea up, and we seem to think that our consitution can not be changed because the founding fathers didn't intend it to be that way. They also didn't intend to not have slavery, or allow women to vote, or a whole lot of things that are now Amendments to the Consitution.
Wondering why I have you "LOL"ing, but dude, if you want to constitution to say something other than what it says, it can be changed as such. The founding fathers, the people who wrote it, decided what that phrase meant. If you wish it to mean something else, amend it and say it. That way we can have an honest debate as to the merits of that plan. Just assuming that you can change the verbiage to suit you? That's slimy and underhanded.
Indeed thats not working from the rule of law.
not only that, like JM says, it doesn't acknowledge a finite boundary of government powers.
tuna55 wrote:alfadriver wrote: LOL- everyone brings that idea up, and we seem to think that our consitution can not be changed because the founding fathers didn't intend it to be that way. They also didn't intend to not have slavery, or allow women to vote, or a whole lot of things that are now Amendments to the Consitution.Wondering why I have you "LOL"ing, but dude, if you want to constitution to say something other than what it says, it can be changed as such. The founding fathers, the people who wrote it, decided what that phrase meant. If you wish it to mean something else, amend it and say it. That way we can have an honest debate as to the merits of that plan. Just assuming that you can change the verbiage to suit you? That's slimy and underhanded.
I think because of this "living document" crap, the nation as a whole has forgotten about amendments. A good example comes from the "well where does it end, do you want civilians with nuclear weapons?" talk about the 2nd Amendment. Well, no E36 M3 I don't, how about we let the Amendment that's on the books say what it says, and write a new one saying you can't have an ICBM?
Let's not forget that the founding fathers were for the most part very wealthy men who wanted to run the country the way they saw fit without the meddling of an offshore monarchy.
They are also all dead. The world of the 18th century is a vastly different place from our modern world. What would have worked well in the 18th century might not work terribly well now.
What would Ron Paul do with the CDC? That wasn't explicitly covered in the Constitution, but I, for one, would hate to see it go away.
Where is Ron Paul in the latest polls?
It still seems like the majority in this country is not buying what he is selling.
Snowdoggie wrote: Where is Ron Paul in the latest polls? It still seems like the majority in this country is not buying what he is selling.
him, Cain, Perry, and Romney tend to bounce around the top depending on the structure/location of the poll.
despite consistently holding 3rd and polling in the double digits nationally, he has received the least time at debates of all candidates and is quite obviously being ignored as hard as possible by all major media outlets.
You'll need to log in to post.
