That last bit there doesn't exactly make sense to me. I'm not sure what you're trying to say exactly, but I assume its 'Taxing more than absolutely necessary as a means to balance a bloated budget is conceptually false'

To which I respond, it depends on what you think is necessary. From the slight bit you've had here, I don't believe we agree on what that point is, where it becomes too much.



LOL. I actually never figured out what his political views were, simply because I thought he was a joke from the start. And I knew he wasn't ever going to accomplish ANYTHING.

Say for example the budget is 3 trillion and the revenue is 2 trillion.
That three can be brought down in line with the revenue instead of taxes having to be brought up.

You said we absolutely have to increase taxes to make up the difference.
I'm saying you can balance that by simply lowering the spending, WITHOUT raising taxes.




If he can balance it while completely eliminating the income tax, surely there is a way to balance it without RAISING taxes.. or do you disagree still?

This is the same dishonest trickery as all the other politicians are using. Let's break down what "same level of big government in 1990s" actually means.

First of all, what year? 1990s spans 10 years. That's a big range of expenditures, and discrepancies. Let's assume the lowest cost year. What does "level of government" mean? Is this the core government, eg, without entitlements? Let's assume it also refers to entitlements. The problem is that we cannot go back to 1990s costs on these things, on any of the line items, whether it's a part of the government itself, or an entitlement program. Sure, we could cap spending at those levels, but that is effectively making a tremendous cut in those entitlements. For certain segments of the government, this means "shrinking" it back, or removing certain things that were added, but we still can't get back to 1990s levels due to inflation and other debt that has accumulated. Debt payments are part of the budget, and a growing portion with every passing day. I suspect when he makes these claims, he's entirely ignoring the current debt owed and payments on it, as a part of the budget.

So while, technically what he is saying is true, it's also not, because you can't really do what he's saying in such simple terms as "shrink the government", without doing so at huge rates. I can't remember the exact details, but I've heard it said that at this point we'll have to shrink the government and all it's expenditures by at least 50% to get back to sustainable, and this % number grows every day as we add more debt to the equation.

Yeah, but to make it feasible, you have to take your 3 trillion in spending to 1 trillion in spending to have a chance of paying off the debt that you aren't addressing before it becomes our grandchildrens problem, and thats assuming nothing really bad happens in between (which, given the past 30 years, is not really possible to assume)

So, you can get rid of the debt that way, but to do so requires you to stop spending 2/3 of what you normally do. Thats a fucklot for any country, regardless of its stature or place in the heirarchy of spending.

Also, him saying he can do it, and actually getting it implemented are two entirely different things. Just for example, lets look at simple COST, not randomly giving out money. Simple costs for things in their current state.

I remember during the 90s, $0.77/gallon for gas for about a week, but I frequently recall in the range of $1-1.25/gallon. I look out at the gas station now, it says $3.99. So, thats a 2-3x cost increase in one single resource the government needs to function.

Hmm, how bread, or milk? I recall $0.69 for a loaf of bread that now costs $1.89 today. Thats more than double. Milk is the same way.

So, you cannot fund the same level of government with the change in costs alone, so yes, I do disagree.

I think he has been pretty open about how he would make big cuts to balance the budget. (not dishonest trickery)
That includes big cuts on entitlement spending as well as overseas shenanigans and many other inefficient things, while still making huge cuts to taxes and promoting a healthier free-market economy.
More things could be kept if taxes remained similar or were cut less, however I agree with the bulk of his cuts and the reasoning behind it.

The guys like Obama and Paul Ryan make many fewer cuts, if you can even call them that. (as they are just lowering the rate of increasing spending or something along those lines)

You're right, he has been open about it, and thats why he'll never get it to happen. Its too many cuts in too many areas too quickly. The best analogy I can make is about gardening. When your bushes are getting out of hand, you don't cut them off at the root and let it start over. You prune it back enough that it will still survive the season.

Many of Ron Paul's ideas are cutting the bush off at the root. The only thing that accomplishes is killing the bush.

It seems so radical because the other candidates do so little to address our massive growing debt problem.

If you had massive debt on say a credit card, would you keep spending more and more every year? or would you cut back significantly on some unnecessary things to balance your budget and live within your means once again?(before racking up even more debt)

Which of the cuts do you disagree with for example?

But as I was saying, you wouldn't have to cut nearly as much as he does or as fast if you just kept taxes where they are or didn't lower them as much.
Perhaps you would agree with a slightly slower plan of reduction.
But surely waiting decades to balance the budget like the others propose, or taxing the hell out of the American people even more is not your best solution?

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Mar 29 2012 10:37am

Don't talk to me about what Keynesian economics would do, Obama understands those better than you. He's Kenyan after all.

You're not reading anything I'm saying. You're just defending Ron Paul because you think I'm attacking him or his way of doing things.

This is what you said:

"you have to increase taxes. Period."

I plainly disagree and logic and facts are on my side.
Its not just Ron Paul that is opposed to raising taxes