PDA

View Full Version : What departments would Paul keep?




Zera
04-02-2008, 07:15 PM
Today I was asked by a peer what government departments and corporations and stuff Paul would keep. Well... I wasn't entirely sure, because I recall him saying he'd eliminate many, but not all.

familydog
04-02-2008, 07:26 PM
I'm assuming he would keep the Treasury, Defense, and State department since they were the only departments at the founding of the country. I don't recall him ever saying he'd get rid of the Department of Veteren Affairs or the Interior, but all the others ones he has said he wouldn't keep. Ah, also he's keep the Justice Department.

JosephTheLibertarian
04-02-2008, 08:03 PM
Can the POTUS eliminate any department at his whim?

familydog
04-02-2008, 08:14 PM
Can the POTUS eliminate any department at his whim?

No he can't Constitutionally. Departments are created by Acts of Congress, so Acts of Congress are needed to dismantle them. I don't see why the president couldn't just refuse to appoint a secretary, thus putting the entire department in grid-lock, but that's incredibly risky politically.

JosephTheLibertarian
04-02-2008, 08:16 PM
No he can't Constitutionally. Departments are created by Acts of Congress, so Acts of Congress are needed to dismantle them. I don't see why the president couldn't just refuse to appoint a secretary, thus putting the entire department in grid-lock, but that's incredibly risky politically.

Well, this is one area where I'd probably stray from a "strict" interpretation of the Constitution. I'd sack them lol.

Banana
04-02-2008, 08:23 PM
I also understand that he intends to satisfy all obligations to people dependent on government (e.g. veteran affairs, social security and medicare for example) until everyone has a chance to bail out, so those will stay around for a while.

JosephTheLibertarian
04-02-2008, 08:25 PM
I also understand that he intends to satisfy all obligations to people dependent on government (e.g. veteran affairs, social security and medicare for example) until everyone has a chance to bail out, so those will stay around for a while.

Yeah, going about it the wrong way will be good propaganda for socialists.

Banana
04-02-2008, 08:27 PM
Joseph, care to elaborate?

JosephTheLibertarian
04-02-2008, 08:31 PM
Joseph, care to elaborate?

If you cut off Social Security overnight, you will be cannon fodder for the socialists. Same goes for minimum wage, I think it should be done in a methodical sort of way in order to avoid...distress.

I always say: you can only do as much as the people will tolerate!

Truth-Bringer
04-02-2008, 10:03 PM
If you cut off Social Security overnight, you will be cannon fodder for the socialists. Same goes for minimum wage, I think it should be done in a methodical sort of way in order to avoid...distress.

I always say: you can only do as much as the people will tolerate!

It would be interesting to see how the public would perceive these changes if Paul were to announce that he will pardon every American from income tax evasion. I think many more people would be open to it if they knew they'd never again have to pay the income tax.

Zippyjuan
04-02-2008, 11:10 PM
The first thing you have to do is get the spending down low enough to be able to cut taxes.
The 2007 budget of $2.8 trillion:

$586.1 billion (+7.0%) - Social Security
$548.8 billion (+9.0%) - Defense[2]
$394.5 billion (+12.4%) - Medicare
$294.0 billion (+2.0%) - Unemployment and welfare
$276.4 billion (+2.9%) - Medicaid and other health related
$243.7 billion (+13.4%) - Interest on debt
$89.9 billion (+1.3%) - Education and training
$76.9 billion (+8.1%) - Transportation
$72.6 billion (+5.8%) - Veterans' benefits
$43.5 billion (+9.2%) - Administration of justice
$33.1 billion (+5.7%) - Natural resources and environment
$32.5 billion (+15.4%) - Foreign affairs
$27.0 billion (+3.7%) - Agriculture
$26.8 billion (+28.7%) - Community and regional development
$25.0 billion (+4.0%) - Science and technology
$23.5 billion (+0.0%) - Energy
$20.1 billion (+11.4%) - General government


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget,_2007

Revenue Sources 2007:

Receipts for fiscal year 2007 were $2,407 billion. FY2007 on-budget receipts were $1,798 billion. FY2007 off-budget receipts were $608 billion. Off-budget receipts include Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes, as well as the net profit or loss of the U.S. Postal Service.

$1,163 billion - Individual income tax
$869.6 billion - Social Security and other payroll taxes
$370.2 billion - Corporate income tax
$65.1 billion - Excise taxes
$26.0 billion - Customs duties
$26.0 billion - Estate and gift taxes
$47.2 billion - Other
Source: preliminary FY2007 year-end estimate from the U.S. Treasury Dept.



You have to cut $400 billion just to get the budget balanced.
Then another $1.2 trillion if you want to get rid of the income tax.
And those numbers do NOT include the $200 billion being spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Banana
04-03-2008, 12:36 AM
I always say: you can only do as much as the people will tolerate!

Gotcha! When I first read your post, I went at it the wrong end and was glad I asked first before making an ass of myself. :D

Yes, it is an unfortunate thing; even if it was the thing necessary to save the world, you really can't do it without people's support. Not to mention that we've grown up in the world where socialism is more or less the norm, so the whole idea of "let's strike out on your own!" is utterly foreign and scary to them, even if it practically guarantee that they'll be 100x richer than before.

AutoDas
04-03-2008, 01:56 AM
He would not enforce collecting taxes so these departments will have no money if no one is paying for them. They will shut down by themselves.

acptulsa
04-03-2008, 07:26 AM
I sincerely doubt CIA and NSA would go, they being arguably necessary to the common defense in a modern world. Assuming, of course, that both can be reformed. Otherwise, the Defense Department might get the apparatus.

JosephTheLibertarian
04-03-2008, 11:50 AM
Gotcha! When I first read your post, I went at it the wrong end and was glad I asked first before making an ass of myself. :D

Yes, it is an unfortunate thing; even if it was the thing necessary to save the world, you really can't do it without people's support. Not to mention that we've grown up in the world where socialism is more or less the norm, so the whole idea of "let's strike out on your own!" is utterly foreign and scary to them, even if it practically guarantee that they'll be 100x richer than before.

Yup. "Everything in moderation." We need to go in the RIGHT direction in a gradual pace. Hey, I'd love to liquidate minimum wage, but you have to think about how others will react to your policy. Worst case scenarios.

SimpleName
04-07-2008, 09:29 PM
Geez...Social Security and Medicare make up just about the total revenue brought in by individual income taxes. ERRR! Stop taking my money to redistribute wealth!

Banana
04-07-2008, 09:47 PM
Geez...Social Security and Medicare make up just about the total revenue brought in by individual income taxes. ERRR! Stop taking my money to redistribute wealth!

Well, it bears to remember that it was Government that basically railroaded people into those programs. If we were to shut down both program on the day one, people is going to be pissed and we will have much bigger problems as the government has broke the promise. So it will have to be a steady phasing out as government completes the obligations to people who already has been in systems for years and has nothing to show it if they get kicked out.

JosephTheLibertarian
04-07-2008, 09:49 PM
Well, it bears to remember that it was Government that basically railroaded people into those programs. If we were to shut down both program on the day one, people is going to be pissed and we will have much bigger problems as the government has broke the promise. So it will have to be a steady phasing out as government completes the obligations to people who already has been in systems for years and has nothing to show it if they get kicked out.

My proposition is that we just cut off the people that didn't vote for RP. Then we can phase out the rest over time. :p

AutoDas
04-08-2008, 12:20 AM
How about the libs can pay their 100% income taxes. Taxes make them happy:p

Kludge
04-08-2008, 12:29 AM
Dr. Paul has always endorsed a very slow, gradual approach (too slow for my eager and impatient heart... Which is why I'LL probably be dead of a heart attack by Dr. Paul's age). He has said publicly, many times, that we cannot just cut off funding to people dependent on "the system". Can you imagine if the mentally handicapped were suddenly cut off of their case managers or were no longer hospitalized if the situation called for it? I believe he wants to give an option to... opt-out of paying certain taxes for "the young people".

Zippyjuan
04-08-2008, 12:00 PM
If you want to opt out of paying for Medicare, you can earn little enough money to not owe taxes. The same for Social Security. Income above a certain amount is also not subject to Social Securtiy taxes. The Social Security program is funded by a seperate tax from the income tax and currently takes in more than it pays out and the excess is "borrowed" to help fund other programs.
I know people are opposed to taxes, but which is better- taxing to pay for programs or adding debt by not paying for programs and letting future generations pay for them with interest? Over two thirds of our current national debt has been aquired under Republican presidents (two Bushes and one Reagan). I think that is more dishonest than saying you will tax something or someone to pay for what you propose.

If they were required to either cut some program to pay for a new one (or expand a current one) or be required them to pay for them via new taxes and state per person how much it would cost I think that would slow the growth of government spending. And then you could issue a tax report card- post at election time how much in your taxes your representative voted to spend for you. Right now the costs of things are too hidden.

JosephTheLibertarian
04-08-2008, 12:04 PM
I prefer a voluntary contributions as opposed to taxation. The government would avertise and solicite for funds. "Are we doing a good job? Please send us money to show your support!" just an example! So then they would have to budget the money they are given. Government stays small, government is forced to be competitive. win/win

AisA1787
04-08-2008, 01:40 PM
If you want to opt out of paying for Medicare, you can earn little enough money to not owe taxes. The same for Social Security.

The "Atlas Shrugged" approach :D

nickcoons
04-08-2008, 09:00 PM
If you want to opt out of paying for Medicare, you can earn little enough money to not owe taxes. The same for Social Security.

While technically accurate, the premise behind this statement is absurd. By the same token, one could hold a gun to your head and demand your money in exchange for not killing you. They could argue that you can opt-out of being killed by complying with their request, and therefore they are not infringing on your right to life.


I know people are opposed to taxes, but which is better- taxing to pay for programs or adding debt by not paying for programs and letting future generations pay for them with interest?

How about a third option.. not taxing and not having the program.

JosephTheLibertarian
04-08-2008, 09:04 PM
I would keep all the departments, minus the departments I can get away with eliminating lol

Kludge
04-08-2008, 09:59 PM
How about a third option.. not taxing and not having the program.

Ooooh..... I like this guy ;)