PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul's statement on the Cut Cap and Balance Act




sailingaway
07-19-2011, 12:19 PM
http://is.gd/79RNag

RileyE104
07-19-2011, 12:49 PM
What is the difference between this bill and the PLEDGE that Ron signed?

Which reminds me, I hope DeMint and Lee understand this.

Feeding the Abscess
07-19-2011, 01:15 PM
What is the difference between this bill and the PLEDGE that Ron signed?

Which reminds me, I hope DeMint and Lee understand this.

None.

More evidence that Ron's campaign is essentially independent of Ron himself. I'm really glad they know better than the man who kicked off an entire movement. How stupid of him to blaze his own trail. Who is this Ron Paul character, and why is he trying to save our country? What a fool.

tsai3904
07-19-2011, 01:27 PM
What is the difference between this bill and the PLEDGE that Ron signed?

The pledge is vague. It doesn't address how much will be cut. All it says is:



Cut - Substantial cuts in spending that will reduce the deficit next year and thereafter.
Cap - Enforceable spending caps that will put federal spending on a path to a balanced budget.
Balance - Congressional passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution -- but only if it includes both a spending limitation and a super-majority for raising taxes, in addition to balancing revenues and expenses.

Brian4Liberty
07-19-2011, 02:38 PM
The Pledge does not seem to include raising the Debt Ceiling. The Bill does.

tsai3904
07-19-2011, 02:42 PM
The Pledge does not seem to include raising the Debt Ceiling. The Bill does.

I left out the part above Cut Cap and Balance. It's still up for interpretation though.


I pledge to urge my Senators and Member of the House of Representatives to oppose any debt limit increase unless all three of the following conditions have been met:

Cut - Substantial cuts in spending that will reduce the deficit next year and thereafter.
Cap - Enforceable spending caps that will put federal spending on a path to a balanced budget.
Balance - Congressional passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution -- but only if it includes both a spending limitation and a super-majority for raising taxes, in addition to balancing revenues and expenses.

Brian4Liberty
07-19-2011, 02:45 PM
I left out the part above Cut Cap and Balance. It's still up for interpretation though.

Ah, I guess the key is believing (or not) that any cuts will take place. The Pledge should say "cut first".

libertygrl
07-19-2011, 04:00 PM
I have to be honest. When it comes to economic issues this stuff just goes right over my head. I want to understand the whole debt ceiling debate but listening to this stuff in the media makes me even more confused. However this goes down, I'm assuming things are going to get even tougher for the average American. In layman's terms - if the dems get their way and raise the debt ceiling, am I correct in assuming that it is only prolonging our problems? And if the debt ceiling is not raised, it means that while times will get tougher, it won't necessarily last as long? I'm just trying to make sense of the whole thing. I apologize for my ignorance on this important issue!

HOLLYWOOD
07-19-2011, 04:33 PM
I have to be honest. When it comes to economic issues this stuff just goes right over my head. I want to understand the whole debt ceiling debate but listening to this stuff in the media makes me even more confused. However this goes down, I'm assuming things are going to get even tougher for the average American. In layman's terms - if the dems get their way and raise the debt ceiling, am I correct in assuming that it is only prolonging our problems? And if the debt ceiling is not raised, it means that while times will get tougher, it won't necessarily last as long? I'm just trying to make sense of the whole thing. I apologize for my ignorance on this important issue!It's the typical BS of politics... just like that National Health Care Monstrosity, It's always the gimmick of "Front End Borrowing and Back Loaded Promises of Cuts and responsibility.

When time arrives to the back-loaded cuts, the economy will be in shambles and all the liars and false promisers will be gone.

JamesButabi
07-19-2011, 04:45 PM
I have to be honest. When it comes to economic issues this stuff just goes right over my head. I want to understand the whole debt ceiling debate but listening to this stuff in the media makes me even more confused. However this goes down, I'm assuming things are going to get even tougher for the average American. In layman's terms - if the dems get their way and raise the debt ceiling, am I correct in assuming that it is only prolonging our problems? And if the debt ceiling is not raised, it means that while times will get tougher, it won't necessarily last as long? I'm just trying to make sense of the whole thing. I apologize for my ignorance on this important issue!


You are on the right track for sure. There will definitely need to be a correction to restore the economy to sanity. That means some tough times for the average person. Ron Paul's method aims to accomplish this by reducing the size and scope of government and increasing the real economy. Just about everyone else aims to literally paper over the problem until it collapses completely which would be devastating.

Lord Xar
07-19-2011, 05:04 PM
This is a dudes response on Facebook in regards to the video: How do you reply to this? Arghh.

Well, the words were assembled in a way that was legible, but the sentiment is goofy. So we're going to default...just because? 'Well, we let the debt get too high, so now we're screwed, we're gonna default!' What if we pay the debt, Mr. Paul? 'Nope! Still hosed! If you need me, I'll be in my bunker communing with the Allmind of Regulus 7!'

and then:


Well, the words were assembled in a way that was legible, but the sentiment is goofy. So we're going to default...just because? 'Well, we let the debt get too high, so now we're screwed, we're gonna default!' What if we pay the debt, Mr. Paul? 'Nope! Still hosed! If you need me, I'll be in my bunker communing with the Allmind of Regulus 7!'

The government has WAY more options to modify what it pays, how it pays, and when it pays than I do. I have no options, just have bills. :) Stop or lower deficit spending, get a president in that can turn the economy around and boost rev...enues, and that debt can vanish pretty quickly. There -is- no critical mass where we're just hosed, period. There's -always- a chance to make changes to pay down a debt. Not with this president or this Senate, but overall, yes.

Unsustainable' doesn't really speak to current circumstances, so I don't think you're right on that one. Of course, I have no idea, because the guy is a complete screwjob

then:

I don't get how that's what he's saying, especially in that second sentence. What you say is also negated the second things swing out of balance. Right now we're deadlocked (GOP House, Dem Senate, Dem president). That'll change next... year. If we wind up with a GOP Senate, House, and White House, then there's no deadlock, and the budget can be balanced nice and tidy. As I replied to Dan above, the government has plenty of options for paying down debt in a hurry, if they have the resources to do it and the unified votes to back it up.

I'm still missing 'because people will get their money back' and that whole part. I mean, the English of it is just literal gibberish. You need a Paul to English translation. Maybe that's what they speak on Regulus-7, I don't know.

kill the banks
07-19-2011, 05:11 PM
Paul slammed Obama’s warning as “the most abhorrent bit of chicanery.” Paul cited the Chief Actuary of Social Security, who “confirmed last week that current Social Security tax receipts are more than enough to cover current outlays.” Paul acknowledged that only “if the [Obama] administration decided to spend those designated funds elsewhere” would the recipients of Social Security assistance not receive their checks.

Paul also accused the Obama administration of frightening seniors, instead of the administration’s “big banking friends.” Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid have become a key issue in the struggle to create a debt ceiling plan that will satisfy both sides of the aisle. However, cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid have always been a part of the Republicans’ debt ceiling plan. Back in March, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) confirmed this in an interview with The Wall Street Journal.

Paul concluded his column by emphasizing “how scary it is to be completely dependent on government promises and why many young people today would jump at the chance to opt out of Social Security altogether.”



Read more: http://www.thestatecolumn.com/capito...#ixzz1SasRSJ00

Brian4Liberty
07-19-2011, 09:21 PM
Obama is like a spoiled teenager who wants a new credit card, and says if you don't give it to him, he'll hold his breath.

headhawg7
07-19-2011, 10:34 PM
It's the typical BS of politics... just like that National Health Care Monstrosity, It's always the gimmick of "Front End Borrowing and Back Loaded Promises of Cuts and responsibility.

When time arrives to the back-loaded cuts, the economy will be in shambles and all the liars and false promisers will be gone.

Totally agree. Its all for show. The republicans will cave(except for a very small minority including paul) with a promise of future cuts that will be very small in relation to the current deficits and agree to some tax increases through the closing of loopholes and certain deductions. The reason they will cave is because they are worried about their re-election chances if they hold firm and something bad were to happen in terms of the economy falling back into a recession/depression. If they truly cared they would allow that to happen so that the zombie banks and garbage derivatives that are still out there would fail and their re-election chances be damed. We need to clear all the malinvestment out of the system. We are just delaying the pain for a short term feel good. It is just going to make the pain much much much worse when it does come.

kahless
07-19-2011, 10:40 PM
Read more: http://www.thestatecolumn.com/capito...#ixzz1SasRSJ00

That link is not working.