--- In [email protected], new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], off_world_beings <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], new.morning <no_reply@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Paul doesn't want to cut taxes -- he wants to TOTALLY eliminate > > income > > > taxes. And to do that, he would cut government spending by a third. > > > Given that entitlements and debt service take up a large portion > > of > > > the budget, this means most discretionary funding would be cut. > > Like > > > for education, energy policy, expanded health care, science > > resarch, > > > etc. Are you and others who like Paul really behind these ideas? > > Are > > > you in favor of such policies? > > > > > > Incorrect. If you actually listen to his reasoning you will see that > > his policy would actually INCREASE money available for education, > > energy policy, health care, science research, etc.....by FAR !!! > > This is his WHOLE POINT ! It is a rational approach. > > > > But you are right, most people in the country probably are not smart > > enough to understand this reasoning. > > > > OffWorld > > > OK, I will read more. I have seen 2-3 of his speeches and read a lot > of his congressional and campaign websights. They are kind of sparse > on his range of proposed policies. > > I one speech I heard today, he said that government spending would > have to be radically reduced. That we could not depend on government > for many of the things we do now. I perhaps incorrectly inferred that > this was education, health, energy, etc.
No, you weren't incorrect. I reproduced for off_world where he stands on many of these issues and, if anything, your 30% figure for reducing government wasn't enough: I produced a quote from him that indicated 60%. Be clear: this man is beyond being a libertarian: he is an anarcho- capitalist. And although he hasn't said it explicitly, if you read between the lines, he doesn't believe in global warming. > Since those -- and the > military are among the high ticket discretionary items. I assume he > would severely slash the military. Though savings on that would be > realized some time down the road -- with so much in fixed costs and > commited contracts -- and paymens for the forced retirement of > 100,000's armed forces. > > What would his propsed budget look like? > > From this, below, he sounds like a strong fiscal conservative, agaisnt > monetary policy and the military. > > > > ------------------------------ > April 2, 2007 > > The fiscal year 2008 budget, passed in the House of Representatives > last week, is a monument to irresponsibility and profligacy. It shows > that Congress remains oblivious to the economic troubles facing the > nation, and that political expediency trumps all common sense in > Washington. To the extent that proponents and supporters of these > unsustainable budget increases continue to win reelection, it also > shows that many Americans unfortunately continue to believe government > can provide them with a free lunch. > > To summarize, Congress proposes spending roughly $3 trillion in 2008. > When I first came to Congress in 1976, the federal government spent > only about $300 billion. So spending has increased tenfold in thirty > years, and tripled just since 1990. > > About one-third of this $3 trillion is so-called discretionary > spending; the remaining two-thirds is deemed "mandatory" entitlement > spending, which means mostly Social Security and Medicare. I'm sure > many American voters would be shocked to know their elected > representatives essentially have no say over two-thirds of the federal > budget, but that is indeed the case. In fact the most disturbing > problem with the budget is the utter lack of concern for the coming > entitlement meltdown. > > For those who thought a Democratic congress would end the war in Iraq, > think again: their new budget proposes supplemental funds totaling > about $150 billion in 2008 and $50 billion in 2009 for Iraq. This is > in addition to the ordinary Department of Defense budget of more than > $500 billion, which the Democrats propose increasing each year just > like the Republicans. > > The substitute Republican budget is not much better: while it does > call for freezing some discretionary spending next year, it increases > military spending to make up the difference. The bottom line is that > both the Democratic and Republican budget proposals call for more > total spending in 2008 than 2007. > > My message to my colleagues is simple: If you claim to support smaller > government, don't introduce budgets that increase spending over the > previous year. Can any fiscal conservative in Congress honestly > believe that overall federal spending cannot be cut 25%? We could cut > spending by two-thirds and still have a federal government as large as > it was in 1990. > > Congressional budgets essentially are meaningless documents, with no > force of law beyond the coming fiscal year. Thus budget projections > are nothing more than political posturing, designed to justify deficit > spending in the near term by promising fiscal restraint in the future. > But the time for thrift never seems to arrive: there is always some > new domestic or foreign emergency that requires more spending than > projected. > > The only certainty when it comes to federal budgets is that Congress > will spend every penny budgeted and more during the fiscal year in > question. All projections about revenues, tax rates, and spending in > the future are nothing more than empty promises. Congress will pay no > attention whatsoever to the 2008 budget in coming years. >
