Dear Ron Paul: Endorse Rand's Budget Proposal and RUN ON IT NOW.

[freshjiva]

I love liberty ideas. I love Ron Paul. But he really has GOT to stop with answering the Entitlement question with "Just cut X%".

Endorse Rand Paul's budget proposal to cut $500 billion in 2011 and balance the budget in 4 years. That way, he can lay out specifics, and not be brushed off as a "kook".

We all know he has a plan. He has written extensively about what it would take to usher a transition from the welfare-warfare State to a free society. But at the same time, he needs to be a politician. Endorse Rand Paul's plan now.

Run on that platform, and he will secure the support of MANY Tea Partiers who are huge fans of Rand Paul but are lukewarm (or less) on Ron.

[Sola_Fide]

100000% agree.

Let's stop with the intellectual arguments and offer some concrete plans like Rand is doing.

I think this is so vitally important right now. We need NUMBERS and PLANS from Ron!

[Travlyr]

I prefer Ron's plan to Rands.

[Sola_Fide]

I prefer Ron's plan to Rands.

I do too. But I at least would love for Ron to come out with a specific policy proposal with real numbers we can all chew on. I don't think Ron is going to be taken seriously without some numbers.

[Travlyr]

But we already know the numbers don't add up.

To quote Human Action, by Ludwig von Mises, the economist who actually predicted our current plight over 60 years ago,

There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit [or monetary] expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of voluntary abandonment of the further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved.

[rp08orbust]

I don't think Ron Paul would even need to specifically run on Rand Paul's budget plan. He could simply declare that he will use his veto power to ensure that the budget is balanced within four years, and when asked what his plan for balancing the budget is, he could simply say that he would sign Rand's budget bill if Congress passed it.

[Sola_Fide]

But we already know the numbers don't add up.

To quote Human Action, by Ludwig von Mises, the economist who actually predicted our current plight over 60 years ago,

Well, you are right. We are going to need to take some hard medicine...it is going to be very hard for a while. But I've heard Ron say in a couple interviews that it would only take 1 or 2 years for us to turn around if we were doing the right things. So let's hear a recovery plan from Ron with some pro-growth policies.

[Travlyr]

Well, you are right. We are going to need to take some hard medicine...it is going to be very hard for a while. But I've heard Ron say in a couple interviews that it would only take 1 or 2 years for us to turn around if we were doing the right things. So let's hear a recovery plan from Ron with some pro-growth policies.

He will have to do that... and likely will soon.

[rp08orbust]

Ron Paul did in fact come up with some very specific economic proposals in 2007, around the time he named Peter Schiff as his economic adviser.

[jmdrake]

Am I the only one that thinks that Ron probably helped Rand draft Rand's plan? :confused:

[Sola_Fide]

Oh, for sure^^^

[smartguy911]

Ron's plan don't make any sense. In all his interviews, he is never clear. Just get rid of social security, bring troops home, get rid of dept of education. WTF. Where are the steps? I have seen Rand give better interviews where he does go into some details. If Dr. Paul is serious, he needs to stop saying get rid of everything and it will fix the economy.

[TheState]

Ron's plan don't make any sense. In all his interviews, he is never clear. Just get rid of social security, bring troops home, get rid of dept of education. WTF. Where are the steps? I have seen Rand give better interviews where he does go into some details. If Dr. Paul is serious, he needs to stop saying get rid of everything and it will fix the economy.

Agreed, this time around, we can't talk in philosophical arguments. In interviews yesterday and today people wanted a plan. Ron has to come up with a couple concrete points he can talk about.

[zacharyrow]

He has said a plan before. Bringing the troops home can be done by the President so he would do that and cut a lot of spending right there. Then gradually get rid of all those programs, he has said plenty of times he wouldn't just cut it all right away and leave people on the streets. Plus he couldn't do that. He's going to have to talk the Congress into agreeing with him and to do that he'll have to come up with some type of plan that they all agree on.

I agree maybe he can do a little better at explaining it and I'm sure he will at debates. However anybody who thinks he's just going to go in and shut everything down doesn't understand how the White House works.

[Zippyjuan]

But we already know the numbers don't add up.

To quote Human Action, by Ludwig von Mises, the economist who actually predicted our current plight over 60 years ago,

Give Rand credit for at least coming up with a list which includes specific items to cut or reduce. Few if any other polititians have been willing to take the risk of making specific suggestions. They would rather keep it abstract- "reduce spending" or "promote a balanced budget" while ignoring the hard choices required to get there. Even Rand's proposal to balance in five years has its problems in the details. It promises $4 trillion in cuts- though after five years the budget is "only" about $200 billion smaller than it is today. It also figures that government revenues (taxes) go up by 50% in that time ($1.2 trillion more in taxes collected per year after five years) and that the economy grows by 26 percent.

Ron's numbers had troubles adding up in the last election too. He will need to be more accurate this time around.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/11/four_pinocchios_for_ron_paul.html

[jmdrake]

Ron's plan don't make any sense. In all his interviews, he is never clear. Just get rid of social security, bring troops home, get rid of dept of education. WTF. Where are the steps? I have seen Rand give better interviews where he does go into some details. If Dr. Paul is serious, he needs to stop saying get rid of everything and it will fix the economy.

Ron laid out his plan on social security to Spitzer. Protect the promises made to those over 55 by cutting elsewhere. Have a transition to help people ease of dependency on entitlements. Allow young people to opt out. Rand's plan doesn't have the opt out provision, though he hinted at that at CPAC. Ron's plan doesn't include means testing, but if the main idea is to help people over 55 who need it because they didn't plan well, means testing makes sense. Rand got skewered on talk radio for means testing. I wish he had included an opt out provision, but I can understand why he didn't. You have to look at both plans together to get the full picture.

As for the wars, I agree with Ron. We marched right in, we can march right out. Understanding that these places are not going to ultimately get better no matter what we do is the first step on our recovery from emporism.

As for getting rid of the department of education, why do we need any "steps"? Just get rid of it.

[Zippyjuan]

The short term problem with his Social Security (don't think it is quite a plan but a goal) if you allow people elgible for Social Security to keep any benefits earned (expenses of the program staying the same) and allow "young people" to opt out (Ron's idea)- you lose the funding for those payouts so you need to raise that money from someplace else (or make even more cuts someplace else though you cannot get a balanced budget with only cuts and without reducing Social Security). All of his proposals are long term goals- not any details of what he would actually do this year. He doesn't vote in favor of any spending bills but does not submit any detailed sugggestions for what he would spend money on (or cut) himself.

[smartguy911]

He has said a plan before. Bringing the troops home can be done by the President so he would do that and cut a lot of spending right there. Then gradually get rid of all those programs, he has said plenty of times he wouldn't just cut it all right away and leave people on the streets. Plus he couldn't do that. He's going to have to talk the Congress into agreeing with him and to do that he'll have to come up with some type of plan that they all agree on.

I agree maybe he can do a little better at explaining it and I'm sure he will at debates. However anybody who thinks he's just going to go in and shut everything down doesn't understand how the White House works.

Yes but he doesn't do that every time he is asked that question. They ask him, will you get rid of this dept? yes, yes yes yes and that's it. Average viewers don't sit there and watch all Ron Paul videos on youtube to find out how he will do it. Most of you know exactly how he will do it but i am pretty sure if you do a general survey, most of the population has no clue on how he will get rid of such dept or why we should get rid of those dept.

It's not in the constitution, so get rid of it. Just get rid of it.

Everyone here gets excited and go "yeah he nailed that interview, damn he kicked ass" but you guys never look at it from point of view of others.

I hope I am wrong and people are actually listening to him and saying "this guy makes sense and I hope he wins"

[Travlyr]

Give Rand credit for at least coming up with a list which includes specific items to cut or reduce. Few if any other polititians have been willing to take the risk of making specific suggestions. They would rather keep it abstract- "reduce spending" or "promote a balanced budget" while ignoring the hard choices required to get there. Even Rand's proposal to balance in five years has its problems in the details. It promises $4 trillion in cuts- though after five years the budget is "only" about $200 billion smaller than it is today. It also figures that government revenues (taxes) go up by 50% in that time ($1.2 trillion more in taxes collected per year after five years) and that the economy grows by 26 percent.

Ron's numbers had troubles adding up in the last election too. He will need to be more accurate this time around.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/11/four_pinocchios_for_ron_paul.html

That's a good point, Zippyjuan. When Rand first took a solid stand on the budget, I was impressed with a Senator for the first time in my life. Cutting people's entitlements is never going to be popular. In a way, I am hoping for a monetary system crash just so that Ron and Rand do not get the blame for destroying the debt money system by reducing spending. But at the same time I don't want people to suffer. It is a quandary of the highest order, for sure. Ron Paul does have the right answer which is the responsibility of each of us to learn ... obey the constitution.

So, it might not make much sense for Ron to propose an exact plan because he is dealing with secret organization who controls the information and markets in such a manner that everything is distorted. Ron Paul is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't come up with an accurate plan. Did you happen to listen to the Federal Reserve Chairman's first ever press conference? He spoke for quite a while and didn't say a damn thing, other than everything will be alright... trust us.

So, please do not attempt to give anyone here the impression that the Washington Post is a credible source of information. They are elite shills and obfuscation minions.

Even you have pointed out numerous times that there is no way to either increase taxes or reduce spending to solve the coming economic crisis.

In my view, there is only one viable option. And that plan is clearly spelled out in Dr. Edwin Vieira's "A Cross of Gold." ... Honest Sound Money.

[Zippyjuan]

Let me quote the last full paragraph from the article I link to (and you call an elite shill:)

Prior to receiving the Paul campaign's response, I was beginning to develop a soft spot for the Paulites. Judging from their comments on this blog, they combine passion with good manners, and enjoy a good debate. They have posed some great questions about America's core principles and values that deserve serious attention. But I am disappointed by Paul's refusal to provide factual and analytical support for his sweeping policy proposals. By failing back on incomprehensible jargon and disdaining "budget specifics," he loses the argument by default.

It is important to take this into consideration. People want more details, not just slogans.

[Travlyr]

The Washington Post likely inspired this quote,


"If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you're mis-informed."
— Mark Twain

[Travlyr]

People want more details, not just slogans.

Again, if the Federal Reserve comes clean and gives us a full unadulterated audit, then Ron can give specifics. But it is bullshit to ask for specifics when a secret organization controls the game.

[Zippyjuan]

The Fed is why Ron does not release a detailed plan to reduce the deficit? Please. His son has.

Don't take this as any knock on Ron- I just believe that it will add to his credibility to provide specific and realistic ways to achieve his goals. THAT will connect him with voters more than "well, I didn't vote for that!". People want answers to problems- not slogans. Be against bad legislation- excellent. What would you do instead?

[Travlyr]

The Fed is why Ron does not release a detailed plan to reduce the deficit? Please. His son has.

Don't take this as any knock on Ron- I just believe that it will add to his credibility to provide specific and realistic ways to achieve his goals. THAT will connect him with voters more than "well, I didn't vote for that!". People want answers to problems- not slogans. Be against bad legislation- excellent. What would you do instead?

Evidently, people want solutions to a problem that really doesn't have solutions, imo.

I still think Ludwig von Mises had it right,

There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit [or monetary] expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of voluntary abandonment of the further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved.

The best I can come up with is for everyone to read what Dr. Edwin Vieira suggests in "A Cross of Gold" and implement his plan. I don't have any better answer than that.
What would you recommend?

[Eric21ND]

He has said a plan before. Bringing the troops home can be done by the President so he would do that and cut a lot of spending right there. Then gradually get rid of all those programs, he has said plenty of times he wouldn't just cut it all right away and leave people on the streets. Plus he couldn't do that. He's going to have to talk the Congress into agreeing with him and to do that he'll have to come up with some type of plan that they all agree on.

I agree maybe he can do a little better at explaining it and I'm sure he will at debates. However anybody who thinks he's just going to go in and shut everything down doesn't understand how the White House works.

Let's hear specifics. Give me a timetable, how fast can we bring the troops home safetly from Iraq, Afghanistan, Lybia, etc? Give me an exact dollar amount we're spending in those places per week and per year. Tell me how much we can save, specifically numbers and not generalities "hundreds of billions".

[WilliamC]

Ron's plan don't make any sense. In all his interviews, he is never clear. Just get rid of social security, bring troops home, get rid of dept of education. WTF. Where are the steps? I have seen Rand give better interviews where he does go into some details. If Dr. Paul is serious, he needs to stop saying get rid of everything and it will fix the economy.

I think he is getting better based on what I've seen over the past few days but you are correct in that Ron Paul tends to overgeneralize and paint a broad picture of what he wants to happen instead of focusing on simple, well-sounded bites of positions that fit better into the typical TV interview. In fact this should be something his team does when accepting interviews; knowing how much time he has should influence how Ron Paul answers questions.

Some of the interviews I've seen over the past couple of days have been up to 15 minutes, and the host has allowed Ron time to answer questions fully. But many other interviews will be rushed and the host may not be polite (shocking I know) so Ron needs to be prepared to 'shift gears' as it were and have more pithy responses ready for predictable questions.

He's catching on I tell ya!

[freshjiva]

Bump. This needs to be pushed harder. Ron Paul must present a more detailed plan on how to transition this nation back to its Constitutional size.

I am a bit disappointed with Ron's performance last night during the debates. Not a single mention of tax cuts, only one reference to the Constitution, and not much else. You can argue he was asked stupid questions, but he needs to connect the dots and use the time he's given to inform and guide the tone of the entire debate.

We all know Ron knows what he's doing. That's not the point here. My point is that he needs to present a SOLID PLAN to TRANSITION away from big government, big debt, big deficits, big taxation, big regulation, and big inflation.