PDA

View Full Version : Concerned about one of Dr. Paul's stances...thoughts?




devil21
08-15-2007, 08:47 PM
I am a big RP supporter and I agree with almost every stance on the issues but after seeing a video on YouTube I became a bit concerned.

RP wants to abolish many oversized federal agencies (DEA, IRS, Energy, Education, etc) which I think is great. But what about the huge amount of lost jobs and unemployed federal employees? The US govt is the largest employer in the country! Thoughts on how this plays out and also thoughts on how to address this topic during debates on RP's stances??

Shink
08-15-2007, 08:52 PM
I'm sure I'm oversimplifying, but with secure borders, a free market economy, etc., wouldn't non-governmental jobs be in great shape?

Spirit of '76
08-15-2007, 08:53 PM
1.) These things will have to phased out, and it's doubtful that they'll go quietly. This is a long-term prospect, and Ron Paul really just represents a change in attitude and a step in the right direction.

2.) As the bureaucracy is phased out, more opportunities will open up in the private sector as individuals exercising their Freedom of Association begin to assume many of the functions previously monopolized by the federal government.

Kuldebar
08-15-2007, 08:53 PM
I am a big RP supporter and I agree with almost every stance on the issues but after seeing a video on YouTube I became a bit concerned.

RP wants to abolish many oversized federal agencies (DEA, IRS, Energy, Education, etc) which I think is great. But what about the huge amount of lost jobs and unemployed federal employees? The US govt is the largest employer in the country! Thoughts on how this plays out and also thoughts on how to address this topic during debates on RP's stances??

Having been a federal employee and later a government defense contractor, I can assure you that cutting away the parasites will improve things for everyone, including the former parasites.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

Mr. White
08-15-2007, 08:56 PM
That may be, but they will go kicking and screaming, and I don't blame them.

klamath
08-15-2007, 08:56 PM
It is not going to happen overnight. He has stated there needs to be a transition period.

quickmike
08-15-2007, 08:57 PM
I am a big RP supporter and I agree with almost every stance on the issues but after seeing a video on YouTube I became a bit concerned.

RP wants to abolish many oversized federal agencies (DEA, IRS, Energy, Education, etc) which I think is great. But what about the huge amount of lost jobs and unemployed federal employees? The US govt is the largest employer in the country! Thoughts on how this plays out and also thoughts on how to address this topic during debates on RP's stances??

Thats simple. If those federal agencies were to be terminated, the free market would take over to fill the needs of the service previously provided by that agency. Also, it would be done much cheaper than the federal govt could do it because they would have an incentive to do a good job at it, because in a free market, competition would keep everyone on their toes to provide a good service at a reasonable rate. So those people who lost their jobs in the federal govt would pretty much do the same services in the free market instead. If there is a demand for something, the free market always provides it. If theres not a demand for something the federal government previously provided, that service would not exist, so it would just be more efficient on so many different levels.

LibertyEagle
08-15-2007, 09:18 PM
Some of those things that the federal government are now doing will move to the free market, yes, but some of them will be taken over by state governments.

The thing to keep in mind is that while Dr. Paul wants to return our government to a Constitutional one, it cannot and will not, be done overnight.

But think of it this way, when we fight a war, a lot of jobs are created, right? Tons in the defense industry, planes, helicopters, tanks, bullets, bombs, guns, uniforms, boots, tires, the list goes on and on. When the war ends, the need for these things decreases and people will likely be laid off. What's the answer? Should we keep waging war so that people do not lose their jobs? I hope you agree that the answer is no.

JPFromTally
08-15-2007, 09:21 PM
What is the exact number of people on the US Government teet, I wonder?

derdy
08-15-2007, 09:30 PM
Nearly 2 million

http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs041.htm

ctb619
08-15-2007, 09:32 PM
Also, we're not electing a dictator. Everything Ron Paul intends to do will require the cooperation of a Congress that will be kicking and screaming with every proposed reform or downsizing. Like another poster said, these things will not be accomplished overnight, they will be incremental - this will lessen the impact of lost jobs and other potential short-term, deleterious effects of the policy change.

bbachtung
08-15-2007, 09:33 PM
All you have to do to transition gradually away from so many federal employees is to not replace those who retire from eliminated agencies. With the number of baby boomers in the labor force, many federal employees will be retiring in the next decade.

drednot
08-15-2007, 09:41 PM
... But what about the huge amount of lost jobs and unemployed federal employees? ...

The best way to answer that is with the following thought experiment:

1. All the money previously spent on these people would now be free to be used to buy other things.
2. The other things the money would be spent on have to be produced by additional workers.
3. The ex-federal employees become those new workers.

That's why no matter how many jobs get destroyed in capitalist countries, unemployment rarely gets very large unless government intervention messes things up.

Kregener
08-15-2007, 09:44 PM
From the 2006 Census:

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT

http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s167/Kregener/FedEmployees.jpg

devil21
08-15-2007, 10:05 PM
Some good thoughts there. Unfortunately, I know that this stance will be prey to his opponents later so I hope Dr. Paul has devised solid debate tactics and answers on it.