Ron Paul “We Don’t Have To Cut Medicare Or Social Security To Get Our House In Order” [Archive]

kahless

07-24-2011, 01:04 PM

Exactly. I don't like the fact that Ron wants to leave these two gigantic government programs alone. Limited government advocates should advocate doing away with these programs.

It is absolutely outrageous and inhumane that we maintain vast wasteful unnecessary federal departments and a global empire, but rather than cut those first, people are discussing cutting services to the elderly and those in dire need. Those services are the last that should be cut. Once the rest of government is gutted, only then if there is not enough money to fund them should anyone bring up cuts to these programs. Fix what we have first then discuss long term phase out of these programs in favor of private alternatives or allow people to opt-out or opt-in to them.

Secondly Ron would lose the election if he advocates elimination even if his proposal to do so is over time without effecting those reliant on them. All people are going to hear is that they are going to lose these programs now instead of later.

It concerns me that I may lose the 30 years I have paid into Social Security. Even a hard core Ron Paul supporter such as myself will have doubts about supporting him if his plans are to eliminate what I paid in. If we are still broke after the rest of the federal government is gutted then I can understand it. But do not tell me these other unnecessary programs and global empire still need to be funded and therefore the money I paid into social security is going to be robbed from me by these congressional and Presidential thieves.

sailingaway

07-24-2011, 01:07 PM

You can want to cut police, roads, fire control, etc. but cuts to medicare and social security? that's just unacceptable.

There is a difference when people were forced to pay in rather than save for retirement in a different way, and it was billed when being passed as a separate social insurance system. Police etc are local, anyhow.

sailingaway

07-24-2011, 01:09 PM

Exactly. I don't like the fact that Ron wants to leave these two gigantic government programs alone. Limited government advocates should advocate doing away with these programs.

Did you even watch the video? Ron wants to let younger generations opt out. That would end it going forward, and people could handle their own money instead of being forced to turn it over 'for safekeeping' to an untrustworthy government that raids it constantly.

kahless

07-24-2011, 01:13 PM

You can want to cut police, roads, fire control, etc. but cuts to medicare and social security? that's just unacceptable.

Police and fire are typically state, county and local. Roads same thing and can be transitioned to local control or privatized.

musicmax

07-24-2011, 01:26 PM

It concerns me that I may lose the 30 years I have paid into Social Security.

You already have.
You didn't know that?

sailingaway

07-24-2011, 01:36 PM

You already have.
You didn't know that?

Actually, the money was used to purchase bonds, no more worthless than any other bonds purchased by anyone else, unless that is the one kind of bond of all of them the government decides not to pay back.

kahless

07-24-2011, 01:38 PM

You already have.
You didn't know that?

You are spouting propaganda of those that wish to keep the money flowing to them. The people in this country will be fools if they give up the money they put in to Social Security while money still flows for bailouts and aid for foreign countries, corporate America, overseas banks and the military industrial complex.

I suspect that is what is what people are going to be tricked into believing is necessary with full support from many people here. Everyone else is going to get trillions while we all lose the Social Security we paid in.

erowe1

07-24-2011, 01:42 PM

Exactly. I don't like the fact that Ron wants to leave these two gigantic government programs alone. Limited government advocates should advocate doing away with these programs.

I haven't watched the video, but I don't think he does.

If he's not going to raise taxes, will actually cut taxes, and will not sign any unbalanced budgets, then he's going to have to find some savings in Social Security and Medicare. All the more so if he allows current workers to opt out of the programs, which would essentially be a huge tax cut.

I agree that we should advocate eliminating them entirely. I absolutely do advocate that, and the sooner the better. But I don't pretend that anyone could get elected or anything close to it without some compromise on that.

erowe1

07-24-2011, 01:44 PM

You are spouting propaganda of those that wish to keep the money flowing to them. The people in this country will be fools if they give up the money they put in to Social Security while money still flows for bailouts and aid for foreign countries, corporate America, overseas banks and the military industrial complex.

I suspect that is what is what people are going to be tricked into believing is necessary with full support from many people here. Everyone else is going to get trillions while we all lose the Social Security we paid in.

What do you mean "if they give up the money they put into Social Security"? They already did give it up when they paid it into social security. It's not like they were putting it in some kind of savings account or something.

erowe1

07-24-2011, 01:45 PM

Police and fire are typically state, county and local. Roads same thing and can be transitioned to local control or privatized.

Transferring of wealth from workers to retirees can also be privatized.

angelatc

07-24-2011, 01:45 PM

Exactly. I don't like the fact that Ron wants to leave these two gigantic government programs alone. Limited government advocates should advocate doing away with these programs.

He has said repeatedly that those are the last things that should go, not that they shouldn't go. To paraphrase him, we have a social contract with 3 generations of people who were told they could depend on that money and made financial decisions accordingly.

I love ya man, but shame on you for either not knowing his position on this, or continuing to confuse your position with his position.

Brett85

07-24-2011, 01:51 PM

It is absolutely outrageous and inhumane that we maintain vast wasteful unnecessary federal departments and a global empire, but rather than cut those first, people are discussing cutting services to the elderly and those in dire need. Those services are the last that should be cut. Once the rest of government is gutted, only then if there is not enough money to fund them should anyone bring up cuts to these programs. Fix what we have first then discuss long term phase out of these programs in favor of private alternatives or allow people to opt-out or opt-in to them.

Secondly Ron would lose the election if he advocates elimination even if his proposal to do so is over time without effecting those reliant on them. All people are going to hear is that they are going to lose these programs now instead of later.

It concerns me that I may lose the 30 years I have paid into Social Security. Even a hard core Ron Paul supporter such as myself will have doubts about supporting him if his plans are to eliminate what I paid in. If we are still broke after the rest of the federal government is gutted then I can understand it. But do not tell me these other unnecessary programs and global empire still need to be funded and therefore the money I paid into social security is going to be robbed from me by these congressional and Presidential thieves.

I wasn't saying that he should support eliminating those programs for people who have paid into the system their entire lives. But I just don't agree that there can't be any immediate cuts to Social Security and Medicare. How can we make any meaningful dent in the deficit if we exclude those two programs? At the very least, we need to slow the rate of growth of those two programs. We can't really afford the automatic increases in these programs right now. Also, there should be some type of immediate means testing as well. There's no reason why millionaires and billionaires should be receiving Social Security checks when we have a 1.6 trillion dollar deficit. Ultimately, the goal of limited government advocates should be to phase these programs out for younger workers.

Brett85

07-24-2011, 01:54 PM

Did you even watch the video? Ron wants to let younger generations opt out. That would end it going forward, and people could handle their own money instead of being forced to turn it over 'for safekeeping' to an untrustworthy government that raids it constantly.

I should've watched the video. I just don't hear Ron talk about it much. But I've heard Ron talk about saving money by ending the wars and putting that money into Social Security and Medicare. When Ron puts it like that, it's not very attractive to conservative voters that he needs to win a GOP primary. Ron should talk about his plans to phase out these programs for younger people in the GOP primary, because that would put him to the right of the other GOP candidates in the primary and would give him more votes from those on the right.

Brett85

07-24-2011, 01:58 PM

He has said repeatedly that those are the last things that should go, not that they shouldn't go. To paraphrase him, we have a social contract with 3 generations of people who were told they could depend on that money and made financial decisions accordingly.

I love ya man, but shame on you for either not knowing his position on this, or continuing to confuse your position with his position.

I'm cricitizing him for continuing to phrase the issue in a way that mostly appeals to those on the left, when he needs to get votes from those on the right to actually win a GOP primary.

Seraphim

07-24-2011, 01:59 PM

It would take a 75% reduction in military spending and leaving taxes as is for 20 years, while giving the newer generation the OPTION of leaving that service system and getting an appropriate tax credit/cut.

If that is done, Medicare and Medicade will have a shot of surviving in full

My numbers aren't bullet proof, but I doubt they are that far off.

erowe1

07-24-2011, 02:00 PM

Did you even watch the video? Ron wants to let younger generations opt out. That would end it going forward, and people could handle their own money instead of being forced to turn it over 'for safekeeping' to an untrustworthy government that raids it constantly.

Sorry, I still haven't watched it either. But this point only exacerbates the problem.

RP has been adamant that he would support no tax increases and no unbalanced budgets. Letting people opt out of those programs is good, but it would exacerbate the deficit. If he wants to do that without signing any unbalanced budgets and without any tax increases, then he's going to have to make some cuts right now, not later, and I don't think he can do it if those programs aren't on the table.

Seraphim

07-24-2011, 02:01 PM

A 75% reduction in military spending (mostly overseas spending) would get the house in order rather quickly.

EDIT: a 25% reduction would easy the pain of Americans soooo much. Let alone 75%...

Sorry, I still haven't watched it either. But this point only exacerbates the problem.

RP has been adamant that he would support no tax increases and no unbalanced budgets. Letting people opt out of those programs is good, but it would exacerbate the deficit. If he wants to do that without signing any unbalanced budgets and without any tax increases, then he's going to have to make some cuts right now, not later, and I don't think he can do it if those programs aren't on the table.

erowe1

07-24-2011, 02:05 PM

Brett85

07-24-2011, 02:07 PM

Could you back that up? I think the entire military budget is less than the deficit right now.

That's right. The entire defense budget is about 800 billion, and only about 200-300 billion of that is our overseas spending. The deficit is 1.6 trillion right now. You simply can't balance the budget without making any cuts at all to Social Security and Medicare.

malkusm

07-24-2011, 02:09 PM

(1) People at or near retirement age vote
(2) People at or near retirement age have (rightly or wrongly) assumed for years that they will receive these transfer payments
(3) People vote based on their own self-interest, and monetary interest tops the list

This is why Ron frames it the way he does: Cut overseas spending, foreign aid, wasteful bureaucratic programs, etc., so that we can keep the promises that past governments have made.

kahless

07-24-2011, 02:11 PM

I wasn't saying that he should support eliminating those programs for people who have paid into the system their entire lives. But I just don't agree that there can't be any immediate cuts to Social Security and Medicare. How can we make any meaningful dent in the deficit if we exclude those two programs? At the very least, we need to slow the rate of growth of those two programs. We can't really afford the automatic increases in these programs right now. Also, there should be some type of immediate means testing as well. There's no reason why millionaires and billionaires should be receiving Social Security checks when we have a 1.6 trillion dollar deficit. Ultimately, the goal of limited government advocates should be to phase these programs out for younger workers.

So lets hurt the people that rely on these programs here in America rather than reduce the size of the global empire, cut all foreign aid and gut the federal government? I think people have their priorities screwed up on whom should be taken care of first.

I just amazes me the love that people have to feed the unnecessary military industrial complex global empire rather than the elderly and disabled here at home.

erowe1

07-24-2011, 02:12 PM

specsaregood

07-24-2011, 02:15 PM

Could you back that up? I think the entire military budget is less than the deficit right now.

you are correct.
http://www.federalbudget.com/chart.gif

erowe1

07-24-2011, 02:16 PM

So lets hurt the people that rely on these programs here in America rather than reduce the size of the global empire, cut all foreign aid and gut the federal government? I think people have their priorities screwed up on whom should be taken care of first.

I just amazes me the love that people have to feed the unnecessary military industrial complex global empire rather than the elderly and disabled here at home.

First of all, where are you getting this false dichotomy that we have to do either one or the other and not both?

Second of all, not giving somebody something is not the same thing as hurting them.

Third of all, what makes you so sure that your well-being depends on some government program that forces other people to give you money? Isn't it possible that if we voluntarized that program and cut out the government middle man, you would actually end up better off, rather than worse?

malkusm

07-24-2011, 02:16 PM

Rand's 5 year budget plan doesn't cut current Medicare or SS outlays. Problem solved....

Brett85

07-24-2011, 02:18 PM

So lets hurt the people that rely on these programs here in America rather than reduce the size of the global empire, cut all foreign aid and gut the federal government? I think people have their priorities screwed up on whom should be taken care of first.

I just amazes me the love that people have to feed the unnecessary military industrial complex global empire rather than the elderly and disabled here at home.

No. I'm just saying that the entire federal budget has to be on the table for spending cuts. I support ending the wars, ending foreign aid, abolishing departments, etc. But when you do the math, that still doesn't add up to a 44% cut, which is what's needed to balance the budget. Mathematically, Social Socurity and Medicare would have to be cut a little bit to balance the budget overnight, and balancing the budget overnight would be necessary if Congress actually voted against raising the debt ceiling.

kahless

07-24-2011, 02:18 PM

What do you mean "if they give up the money they put into Social Security"? They already did give it up when they paid it into social security. It's not like they were putting it in some kind of savings account or something.

I want it back. You will concede it so that trillions in bailouts for everything else will continue and the federal government will not be reduced. Ultimately SS/medicare will be cut and taxes will be raised. The military industrial complex will grow, the federal government will grow and bailouts will continue. The American people will be swindled again.

Transferring of wealth from workers to retirees can also be privatized.

Which is what I said in my first post. Phasing these programs out long term in favor of private solutions.

LibertyEagle

07-24-2011, 02:22 PM

Exactly. I don't like the fact that Ron wants to leave these two gigantic government programs alone. Limited government advocates should advocate doing away with these programs.

Limited-government advocates would never have forced the American people into paying into these scams to begin with. But, x we are here.

Paul's long-range goal is to phase these programs out for the younger generations. But, to save them for those people already on them or very close to retiring. In order to do that, major spending cuts have to occur elsewhere and there are plenty of places to choose from. Ending the wars and bringing our troops home from around the world and ending unconstitutional federal agencies and sending those functions where they belong, back to the states and the people.

specsaregood

07-24-2011, 02:24 PM

The quote in the OP is not 100% correct; there is a word missing "START"

Wrong: “We Don’t Have To Cut Medicare Or Social Security To Get Our House In Order”
Correct: “We Don’t Have To Cut Medicare Or Social Security To START To Get Our House In Order”
At 3:50.
I think this one word changes the meaning quite a abit and is the cause of much of the disagreement in this thread.

Johncjackson

07-24-2011, 02:24 PM

Exactly. I don't like the fact that Ron wants to leave these two gigantic government programs alone. Limited government advocates should advocate doing away with these programs.

Priorities, and yes, politics. There is no workable AND palatable solution that = abolish all programs tomorrow.

I would much rather advocate and support someone who politically advocates cutting military adventurism and the much more violent/immediately harmful spending first. This is the political reality, AND the most decent approach to take.

FWIW, I'm an anarchist.. so I'm certainly not in favor of any of these programs.

ETA:
On the privatization issue others have mentioned, I support that if "private" means no government involvement in retirement schemes at all/ no mandated participation. Otherwise the government is still picking winners and losers and it is still very much a government program...and a welfare program for the wealthy.

Brett85

07-24-2011, 02:25 PM

In order to do that, major spending cuts have to occur elsewhere and there are plenty of places to choose from. Ending the wars and bringing our troops home from around the world and ending unconstitutional federal agencies and sending those functions where they belong, back to the states and the people.

You could save a lot of money by doing that, but you couldn't balance the budget all at once by doing that. Ron has said that he won't ever vote for an unbalanced budget, but I don't even think Ron himself could propose a budget that balanced within a year without making any cuts at all to Social Security and Medicare.

LibertyEagle

07-24-2011, 02:25 PM

What do you mean "if they give up the money they put into Social Security"? They already did give it up when they paid it into social security. It's not like they were putting it in some kind of savings account or something.

Actually, that IS what people were told when Social Security first began. It was placed into a Social Security Trust Fund and it was supposed to be there earning money until the people retired. Of course, as always happens with government, they looted the till and spent the money; leaving only IOUs in its place.

There were a great many people who did not want this scam. But, government used their force to impose it.

puppetmaster

07-24-2011, 02:25 PM

I am 100% confident that when Ron gets elected that he will do whats right and constitutional. This does not mean that he cannot do this in an orderly fashion. SS will have to be modified slowly

erowe1

07-24-2011, 02:27 PM

Rand's 5 year budget plan doesn't cut current Medicare or SS outlays. Problem solved....

Correct me if I'm wrong. But hasn't RP said that he wouldn't sign any unbalanced budgets?

That doesn't just mean budgets on the way to being balanced, but budgets that aren't already balanced.

Maybe I'm wrong about that. I can't remember exactly.

LibertyEagle

07-24-2011, 02:27 PM

You could save a lot of money by doing that, but you couldn't balance the budget all at once by doing that. Ron has said that he won't ever vote for an unbalanced budget, but I don't even think Ron himself could propose a budget that balanced within a year without making any cuts at all to Social Security and Medicare.

True enough. But, making changes to them is a far cry from abolishing them altogether for people who actually live off of that money.

We all agree that they shouldn't exist. The question is how can they best be humanely phased out over time without devastating Americans who planned their retirements on this money. It is not like many are young or healthy enough to start a new career. All the more reason for people to vote for Ron Paul, because he is the only one who has a plan that will allow these programs to remain on their feet financially for those currently on them, or close to retiring.

erowe1

07-24-2011, 02:28 PM

Actually, that IS what people were told when Social Security first began.

I keep hearing this. Where do you get that? Who told these people this lie? The law itself is and always has been publicly available for any and all to read.

angelatc

07-24-2011, 02:29 PM

I'm cricitizing him for continuing to phrase the issue in a way that mostly appeals to those on the left, when he needs to get votes from those on the right to actually win a GOP primary.

I think that you're confusing libertarian with Republican. There's very little interest in abolishing those programs, especially from the older GOP voters who are collecting their monthly stipends.

kahless

07-24-2011, 02:29 PM

First of all, where are you getting this false dichotomy that we have to do either one or the other and not both?

Second of all, not giving somebody something is not the same thing as hurting them.

Cutting funds to the disabled and elderly whom have come to rely on them will hurt them. Most I know can barely feed themselves and buy their prescription drugs. Meanwhile we watch trillions of our taxpayer dollars go overseas, to bailouts, etc. This countries priorities are screwed up.

These programs should not have been created by government in the first place and if they had not there would have been free market solutions. But this is where we are at now.

Third of all, what makes you so sure that your well-being depends on some government program that forces other people to give you money? Isn't it possible that if we voluntarized that program and cut out the government middle man, you would actually end up better off, rather than worse?

I agree with you, I said that in my first post.

phase out of these programs in favor of private alternatives or allow people to opt-out or opt-in to them.

malkusm

07-24-2011, 02:32 PM

I think that you're confusing libertarian with Republican. There's very little interest in abolishing those programs, especially from the older GOP voters who are collecting their monthly stipends.

+1 - In my canvassing experience in New Hampshire yesterday, a lot of GOP voters who are at or near retirement age said "DON'T cut my Social Security," when asked what they cared most about.

erowe1

07-24-2011, 02:33 PM

Cutting funds to the disabled and elderly whom have come to rely on them will hurt them. Most I know can barely feed and buy their prescription drugs.
Meanwhile we watch trillions of our taxpayer dollars go overseas, to bailouts, etc. This countries priorities are screwed up.

These programs should not have been created by government in the first place and if they had not there would have been free market solutions. But this is where we are at now.

I agree with you, I said that in my first post.

I don't think you understand.

You keep saying "phase them out." But then you want to get your SS and Medicare. That money will be taken from current taxpayers. Are you for privatizing it now, so that whatever they give you they do voluntarily? Or are you for continuing to have the federal government pay you with money it has to steal?

It seems like you want the latter, but you somehow take consolation in the idea that they can pay you with money they steal, but these people won't get anything back, since the program will be phased out by then, after you don't need it anymore.

eworthington

07-24-2011, 02:34 PM

He has said repeatedly that those are the last things that should go, not that they shouldn't go. To paraphrase him, we have a social contract with 3 generations of people who were told they could depend on that money and made financial decisions accordingly.

I love ya man, but shame on you for either not knowing his position on this, or continuing to confuse your position with his position.

Social Security and Medicare's impact on individual liberty is rather small compared to all of the regulations, subsidies, bailouts, and empire building going on; it makes a lot more sense to go after them since the public isn't exactly enthusiastic about corporate welfare, bank bailouts, and the three wars.

Brett85

07-24-2011, 02:34 PM

I think that you're confusing libertarian with Republican. There's very little interest in abolishing those programs, especially from the older GOP voters who are collecting their monthly stipends.

He would get more support from the Red State/Free Republic crowd if he talked more about cutting welfare and entitlements rather than just cutting foreign spending.

erowe1

07-24-2011, 02:35 PM

I think that you're confusing libertarian with Republican. There's very little interest in abolishing those programs, especially from the older GOP voters who are collecting their monthly stipends.

Yep. The biggest argument the Republicans used when they won in 2010 was that Obamacare included cuts for Medicare, and they opposed those cuts. It wasn't just moderates doing this, it was the standard party line that almost all the tea party candidates used too.

LibertyEagle

07-24-2011, 02:37 PM

He would get more support from the Red State/Free Republic crowd if he talked more about cutting welfare and entitlements rather than just cutting foreign spending.

So we should put building bridges in Iraq above taking care of Americans?

If Red State/Free Republic advocate taking care of foreign countries before their own countrymen, they can kiss my backside.

erowe1

07-24-2011, 02:37 PM

He would get more support from the Red State/Free Republic crowd if he talked more about cutting welfare and entitlements rather than just cutting foreign spending.

I don't think he would. He has a far better record on entitlements than any number of politicians those folks adore. They don't hate him because he's not for enough reduction in government, they hate him because he proves they're hypocrites.

Brett85

07-24-2011, 02:38 PM

Social Security and Medicare's impact on individual liberty is rather small compared to all of the regulations, subsidies, bailouts, and empire building going on; it makes a lot more sense to go after them since the public isn't exactly enthusiastic about corporate welfare, bank bailouts, and the three wars.

Social Security and Medicare have a bigger impact on the budget than subsidies, bailouts, and even the wars. I'm in favor of ending all this stuff and going back to Constitutional government, but Medicare and Social Security can't be taken completely off the table when they make up almost 50% of the entire budget.

Brett85

07-24-2011, 02:39 PM

So we should put building bridges in Iraq above taking care of Americans?

If Red State/Free Republic advocate taking care of foreign countries before their own countrymen, they can kiss my backside.

No, I never said that. Why can't we just advocate cutting everything and limiting the size of government across the board?

malkusm

07-24-2011, 02:39 PM

He would get more support from the Red State/Free Republic crowd if he talked more about cutting welfare and entitlements rather than just cutting foreign spending.

They do not represent the average voter. Perhaps neither do we. Let's outmaneuever them and own the issues that the average voter cares about, though...

As I said in the thread about NH canvassing, you'd be amazed how many of these people who were concerned about their entitlement checks were open to cutting foreign spending.

specsaregood

07-24-2011, 02:41 PM

Brett85

07-24-2011, 02:43 PM

and he doesn't. he says that we can START to get our house in order by starting with foreign spending first. he does not say it can be done completely with those off the table. the OP quote is incorrect.

Thanks. That's good to know. Perhaps the title of this thread should be changed.

specsaregood

07-24-2011, 02:44 PM

Thanks. That's good to know. Perhaps the title of this thread should be changed.

fwiw: it is at 3:50 into the video.

LibertyEagle

07-24-2011, 02:52 PM

No, I never said that. We can't we just advocate cutting everything and limiting the size of government across the board?

Some things are more worthy of cutting, than others. In other words, some things like the Department of Education, should be completely shut down YESTERDAY. That sucker didn't even exist when I was a child and somehow we managed to learn one hell of a lot more than kids graduating today. But, then again, we didn't have to deal with federal government programs like Outcome-based Education, School-to-work, Goals 2000, No Child Left Behind, etc. Nor, did we have to spend time away from learning how to actually spell, so that we could be indoctrinated to believe the United Nations was the best thing since sliced bread.

Foreign aid and mllitary adventurism fall within that category too.

I cannot imagine how anyone could justify giving foreign aid, while our own people are starving.

LibertyEagle

07-24-2011, 02:56 PM

They do not represent the average voter. Perhaps neither do we. Let's outmaneuever them and own the issues that the average voter cares about, though...

As I said in the thread about NH canvassing, you'd be amazed how many of these people who were concerned about their entitlement checks were open to cutting foreign spending.

Yup. :)

angelatc

07-24-2011, 03:30 PM

There was a discussion on local TV last weekend. The MI governor just signed a law that puts a cap on the length of time people can collect certain benefits. The liberals were (of course) having a fit over it, pointing out that if they were going to do something like this, it should have been done during the economic boom days, not now. I'm not convinced that cutting people off after three years is a bad thing, but the point I wanted to make was that the entitlement programs should be cut when the economy is good. That doesn't happen. In fact, Bush and his cadre added the Medicare Prescription Drug plan, because everything was so rosy nobody cared about a little more government spending.

That's what has to happen though - cut foreign spending, watch as the economy starts to react favorably, and then cut more. The problem we have, and have always had, is that nobody wants to cut anything when times are good.

Sam I am

07-24-2011, 03:34 PM

Medicare in particular takes in a lot less money than comes out.

speciallyblend

07-24-2011, 04:08 PM

It is absolutely outrageous and inhumane that we maintain vast wasteful unnecessary federal departments and a global empire, but rather than cut those first, people are discussing cutting services to the elderly and those in dire need. Those services are the last that should be cut. Once the rest of government is gutted, only then if there is not enough money to fund them should anyone bring up cuts to these programs. Fix what we have first then discuss long term phase out of these programs in favor of private alternatives or allow people to opt-out or opt-in to them.

Secondly Ron would lose the election if he advocates elimination even if his proposal to do so is over time without effecting those reliant on them. All people are going to hear is that they are going to lose these programs now instead of later.

It concerns me that I may lose the 30 years I have paid into Social Security. Even a hard core Ron Paul supporter such as myself will have doubts about supporting him if his plans are to eliminate what I paid in. If we are still broke after the rest of the federal government is gutted then I can understand it. But do not tell me these other unnecessary programs and global empire still need to be funded and therefore the money I paid into social security is going to be robbed from me by these congressional and Presidential thieves.

exactly spot on, bottom line cut some defense spending and you make a good sized dent in the debt. Cut 5%-100% of the entitlements and you don't even make a scratch on the debt! Ron Paul has it right. There is no need to cut these programs! Cut defense spending is where this must happen!! If a republican cannot talk about cutting defense spending first. Then i look at them with 0 credibility and they will alienate themselves in a general election. bottom line stop wasting money on defense and make cuts there period! Stop the roman empire oops i meant the us empire. end the war machine and wasteful spending!

sailingaway

07-24-2011, 05:31 PM

sailingaway

07-24-2011, 05:32 PM

I don't think you understand.

You keep saying "phase them out." But then you want to get your SS and Medicare. That money will be taken from current taxpayers. Are you for privatizing it now, so that whatever they give you they do voluntarily? Or are you for continuing to have the federal government pay you with money it has to steal?

It seems like you want the latter, but you somehow take consolation in the idea that they can pay you with money they steal, but these people won't get anything back, since the program will be phased out by then, after you don't need it anymore.

No, that isn't it. I wish you would watch the video, Ron explains it.

sailingaway

07-24-2011, 05:34 PM

No, I never said that. Why can't we just advocate cutting everything and limiting the size of government across the board?

Well, that would be more fair than what they are proposing. But I like Ron's way better. Let people opt out, patch the system for those already forced to pay in too much to make it up, and hack off the regulations chaining the economy.

Feeding the Abscess

07-24-2011, 06:25 PM

Our foreign policy costs nearly $1.2 trillion. Cut it to $250 billion, and you've solved most of the federal deficit.

Just saying.

Brett85

07-24-2011, 06:38 PM

Our foreign policy costs nearly $1.2 trillion. Cut it to $250 billion, and you've solved most of the federal deficit.

Just saying.

That simply isn't accurate. The entire defense budget is only 800 billion, so there isn't any possible way that we spend 1.2 trillion on foreign policy every year. The very maximum we spend on foreign policy each year is 300 billion. I'm all in favor of ending all this foreign spending, but it would only cut the deficit by about 20% at most.

kahless

07-24-2011, 06:51 PM

Feeding the Abscess

07-24-2011, 07:06 PM

That simply isn't accurate. The entire defense budget is only 800 billion, so there isn't any possible way that we spend 1.2 trillion on foreign policy every year. The very maximum we spend on foreign policy each year is 300 billion. I'm all in favor of ending all this foreign spending, but it would only cut the deficit by about 20% at most.

When the defense budget is written with endless and expanding wars in mind, rest assured that most of that $800 billion has nothing to do with defense.

Brett85

07-24-2011, 07:07 PM

There is out of budget expenses that brings the total anywhere from $1.030–$1.415 trillion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

I wonder what else is off-budget. For example I wonder if Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc are included in that number.

But the 1.030-1.415 number isn't simply foreign spending. It also includes homeland security spending like border security, missile defense, etc. We could save a lot of money by ending all this foreign spending, absolutely. But I still don't see how the numbers add up to balance the budget simply by cutting foreign spending and discretionary spending.

Brett85

07-24-2011, 07:09 PM

When the defense budget is written with endless and expanding wars in mind, rest assured that most of that $800 billion has nothing to do with defense.

Some of it is defense related, and some of it is wasted on endless wars overseas. My view is that we should end the wars overseas but be more careful about cutting legitimate defense spending here at home. But I really don't see any statistic that shows that our foreign spending is anywhere near 1 trillion dollars a year.

Seraphim

07-24-2011, 07:13 PM

And that MONSTROUS deficit is largely created by bailouts and stimulus packages. None of which have worked. Military spending is EQUAL to the ridiculous bailouts and foolish stimulus packages. Neither one primes America for success.

Cut both insane Federal Expenditures, along with the miserable failure that is Federal education - voila, the books seem to make more sense now. Grandma and Grandpa will get their retirement money. The debt starts to get paid down...

Cut that out entirely plus cut Military by minimum 25% and your current tax rates would start paying DOWN the debts to other countries while NOT defaulting on obligations. Who in the right mind can make a staunch position FOR government stimulus at this point? Infrastructure is the only decent investment from a stimulus point of view, and the USA is barely investing in that...).

Could you back that up? I think the entire military budget is less than the deficit right now.

guitarlifter

07-24-2011, 07:23 PM

eworthington

07-24-2011, 07:51 PM

Social Security and Medicare have a bigger impact on the budget than subsidies, bailouts, and even the wars. I'm in favor of ending all this stuff and going back to Constitutional government, but Medicare and Social Security can't be taken completely off the table when they make up almost 50% of the entire budget.

Traditional Conservative,

You didn't get my point. I wasn't referring to their financial impact; I was referring to how government actions/programs interfere with our personal liberty -- Social Security and Medicare have a relatively small impact compared to the various regulations and foreign adventures. I don't agree with keep the programs around, but I think getting rid of them over time is the key; very few people would support winding these programs down in a few years. They will likely -- even under the best circumstances -- be around for decades. Ron Paul is right to start by allowing people to opt-out when they are young, and I think eventually cutting benefits to wealthier seniors would be a good second step. Once the romanticism ("We had starving seniors, It allowed people to grow old with dignity, etc..") is gone, a future generation can pass the necessary legislation to abolish Social Security and Medicare.

We've been living with a monster state for a long time; even is Ron Paul becomes president, and the Tea Party is serious about spending, it's going to be a long time before the state is confined to its proper functions.

Brett85

07-24-2011, 07:57 PM

Traditional Conservative,

You didn't get my point. I wasn't referring to their financial impact; I was referring to how government actions/programs interfere with our personal liberty -- Social Security and Medicare have a relatively small impact compared to the various regulations and foreign adventures. I don't agree with keep the programs around, but I think getting rid of them over time is the key; very few people would support winding these programs down in a few years. They will likely -- even under the best circumstances -- be around for decades. Ron Paul is right to start by allowing people to opt-out when they are young, and I think eventually cutting benefits to wealthier seniors would be a good second step. Once the romanticism ("We had starving seniors, It allowed people to grow old with dignity, etc..") is gone, a future generation can pass the necessary legislation to abolish Social Security and Medicare.

We've been living with a monster state for a long time; even is Ron Paul becomes president, and the Tea Party is serious about spending, it's going to be a long time before the state is confined to its proper functions.

I agree that Social Security and Medicare can't be abolished right away. But I think the entire federal budget has to be on the table for cuts, including Social Security and Medicare. We should have some kind of immediate means testing for Social Security and Medicare. There's no reason why millionaires and billionaires should be receiving Social Security checks when we have a 1.6 trillion dollar deficit. We should only give out the SS and Medicare benefits to the lower income people who absolutely need the benefits. Also, Social Security and Medicare have a bigger impact on our economic liberty since they take up over 40% of the budget.

sailingaway

07-24-2011, 08:03 PM

The fact of the matter with social security is that someone is going to get screwed over in order to stop it, but it still has to happen. Of course this program was doomed from the start. It makes people dependent on the government, which is horrible. The actual amount that is owed in social security is many times more than what the government can really fork out. I think that people need to take their lumps before it's too late and everyone goes down.

Generally the people who feel that way are not the people who would be taking their lumps but those who would take the same lumps if the situation continued. It is still a matter of 'I want it to fall on you, not me.' The beauty of Ron's solution is it doesn't fall on anyone, except those getting corporatist benefits they can't pretend they paid for, in the military industrial complex, big pharma, etc. And if it needs to still be cut it would at least be after the outright looting of taxpayers for special interests were cut out. There is no way any of that should be funded if benefits aren't for programs people were forced to pay in for that aren't enough only because of government created inflation.

Ron's fall back is across the board cuts and even that is better than just cutting what people paid for and leaving special interest boondoggles alone, but it wouldn't be at all as popular to the electorate.

LibertyEagle

07-24-2011, 08:06 PM

Well, that would be more fair than what they are proposing. But I like Ron's way better. Let people opt out, patch the system for those already forced to pay in too much to make it up, and hack off the regulations chaining the economy.

Well, that was well-said.

+1

sailingaway

07-24-2011, 08:06 PM

I agree that Social Security and Medicare can't be abolished right away. But I think the entire federal budget has to be on the table for cuts, including Social Security and Medicare. We should have some kind of immediate means testing for Social Security and Medicare. There's no reason why millionaires and billionaires should be receiving Social Security checks when we have a 1.6 trillion dollar deficit. We should only give out the SS and Medicare benefits to the lower income people who absolutely need the benefits. Also, Social Security and Medicare have a bigger impact on our economic liberty since they take up over 40% of the budget.

I don't really have a problem with that if done properly, but the way they were talking about it is not to look at your income after retirement but to look at how much you made during your working life, which if it was all wiped out in the stock market crash with companies going bankrupt and bankrupting your pension at the same time, or whatever, may be no measure at all of your need or lack of need in retirement.

The point is, it was paid for, and should be cut thoughtfully and not before all the corporate subsidies. Why pay the federal reserve interest on money they printed, but not pay this, for example?

I'm sure it can't remain 'intact' no matter the best Ron does even if he gets votes to do what he wants. But I also trust he will try to work out the most sensible way of dealing with this, from the point of view of the interests of the people rather than interests of those who just want more room to steal for special interests.

Brett85

07-24-2011, 08:06 PM

My grandma is hardly a wealthy person, and even she said that she would do without her Social Security check if it meant that we could have a balanced budget. That's hardly evidence that seniors at large feel that way, but there's probably at least a few conservative seniors who realize that everybody may have to sacrifice, including them.

Brett85

07-24-2011, 08:10 PM

Why pay the federal reserve interest on money they printed, but not pay this, for example?

The interest on the debt is something that must be paid so that we don't default on the debt. There would be severe economic consequences if we actually defaulted on the debt. But that really shouldn't happen if we simply prioritize the interest on the debt as the first thing that we'll pay.

sailingaway

07-24-2011, 08:23 PM

The interest on the debt is something that must be paid so that we don't default on the debt. There would be severe economic consequences if we actually defaulted on the debt. But that really shouldn't happen if we simply prioritize the interest on the debt as the first thing that we'll pay.

I'm not at all talking about the interest on the bonds pension funds or China bought, only on the bonds the federal reserve bought with money it printed out of thin air. Ron had suggested not paying the interest on that as an interim matter rather than raising the debt ceiling, as we turn to real cuts. And it would give the fed less room for its boondoggles as well. It could raise reserve requirements to do as much to stave off inflation (as if they wanted to) as reeling in the bonds would do.

sailingaway

07-24-2011, 08:26 PM

But, honestly, I don't think what we argue here is going to become policy. I'm just putting Ron's position out there because it is very different from the way it is spun, and I think it will help him in the election if people were more familiar with it.

eworthington

07-24-2011, 08:33 PM

The size of an item in the budget isn't necessarily a good indication of its impact on individual liberty. It's the small decisions made by officials -- elected and appointed -- every day that add up to a loss of liberty. As an example, the Patriot Act, DHS, and the Drug War cost less than either Social Security and Medicare; however, we were much freer before they existed, and Social Security and Medicare preceded them.

jmdrake

07-24-2011, 09:36 PM

I'm cricitizing him for continuing to phrase the issue in a way that mostly appeals to those on the left, when he needs to get votes from those on the right to actually win a GOP primary.

Newsflash. There are a lot of people who vote in the GOP who don't like the idea of seeing grandma being kicked out in the street because she believed the government lies. You'll lose a lot more votes from the "Let's cut grandma's pension even though she paid into it in good faith" then you will "Let's cut the military by 80%". Really, you want to kill Ron's campaign? Push they "Let's kick the greatest generation into the streets so that we can maintain a 700 billion military budget for no apparent reason" angle. :rolleyes:

kahless

07-24-2011, 09:38 PM

But the 1.030-1.415 number isn't simply foreign spending. It also includes homeland security spending like border security, missile defense, etc. We could save a lot of money by ending all this foreign spending, absolutely. But I still don't see how the numbers add up to balance the budget simply by cutting foreign spending and discretionary spending.

I agree. My point was not just military spending. Gut everything else first before cutting SS/Medicare for people whom are reliant on it. So if they are going to means test SS then fine. I suspect though the poor elderly and disabled, those that need it most will receive cuts while millionaires still get their check. Just like everything else when it comes to government common sense as far as priorities is non-existent.

jmdrake

07-24-2011, 09:49 PM

So we should put building bridges in Iraq above taking care of Americans?

If Red State/Free Republic advocate taking care of foreign countries before their own countrymen, they can kiss my backside.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to LibertyEagle again.

Well I tried.

Brett85

07-24-2011, 09:51 PM

Newsflash. There are a lot of people who vote in the GOP who don't like the idea of seeing grandma being kicked out in the street because she believed the government lies.

It's nice that you've bought into the Democrat talking points.

Feeding the Abscess

07-24-2011, 09:59 PM

It's nice that you've bought into the Democrat talking points.

Yeah, because there weren't a ton of Tea Party derps holding signs that said "HANDS OFF MY MEDICARE," "KEEP THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF MY MEDICARE," etc. There is no large movement to end entitlements, playing that angle will assure that Ron is slaughtered in the primaries.

And yes, "defense" and foreign expenditures combined account for the $1+ trillion yearly hit to the budget.

Seriously dude, we've tried with you. We aren't going to be very nice if you continue to be intentionally obtuse.

sailingaway

07-24-2011, 10:01 PM

It's nice that you've bought into the Democrat talking points.

TC, did you look at the video? Because Ron says foreign spending wouldn't be enough, you also have to get rid of departments, etc. I suspect DHS is one of the ones he is thinking of since he thinks 9/11 occurred because of stupidity and you can't cure stupid by adding another layer of governmental bureaucrats.

However, I don't think any perfect solution is going to happen even if Ron is president. I think his position shows that he is thinking of the people, and not special interests, so his fall back solutions will do so as well.

Brett85

07-24-2011, 10:05 PM

TC, did you look at the video? Because Ron says foreign spending wouldn't be enough, you also have to get rid of departments, etc. I suspect DHS is one of the ones he is thinking of since he thinks 9/11 occurred because of stupidity and you can't cure stupid by adding another layer of governmental bureaucrats.

However, I don't think any perfect solution is going to happen even if Ron is president. I think his position shows that he is thinking of the people, and not special interests, so his fall back solutions will do so as well.

I was just referring to JMDrake's statement about "kicking grandma out on the street." That's very similar to the Democrats' claim that Republicans want seniors to "eat dog food." All I said was that we should means test SS to make sure that we're giving out the checks to the people who actually need the money. I never said anything about cutting SS benefits for lower income people.

Brett85

07-24-2011, 10:07 PM

Seriously dude, we've tried with you. We aren't going to be very nice if you continue to be intentionally obtuse.

If you have a problem with me, take it up with the moderators. I'm going to continue to post here as long as I still have an account.

Brett85

07-24-2011, 10:12 PM

There is no large movement to end entitlements.

Then we need to start that movement. It will never happen if nobody talks about it. We won't ever have a fiscally responsible government if we have two massive entitlement programs that take up over 40% of the budget. But I've said that these programs can't be abolished overnight. They have to be phased out over time. But they still have to be on the table for cuts if we're going to be serious about balancing the budget. We have to look at the entire budget in depth in order to balance the budget. Also, I've made it very clear that I support ending all of this foreign spending. I support ending the wars, ending foreign aid, and closing down all of our foreign military bases. But unlike other people, I won't take two massive entitlement programs completely off the table for cuts simply because it's "politically unpopular."

Zippyjuan

07-25-2011, 09:02 AM

The numbers don't support the idea that you can balance the budget and leave Social Security and Medicare alone- unless you raise taxes by a signficant amount. The budget shortage is about $1.3 trillion- and that is the entire budget outside mandatory programs like Social Security, Medicare, and interest on the debt meaning you would have to cut 100% of everything else (which is also not politically doable). But it is politically difficult to cut those programs so they won't be touched aside from minor adjustments like perhaps raising the age limits. To say that you can balance the budget without touching those programs or raising taxes is dishonest- it can't be done.

Mandatory spending: $2.173 trillion (+14.9%)
$695 billion (+4.9%) – Social Security
$571 billion (+58.6%) – Unemployment/Welfare/Other mandatory spending
$453 billion (+6.6%) – Medicare
$290 billion (+12.0%) – Medicaid
$164 billion (+18.0%) – Interest on National Debt

Discretionary spending: $1.378 trillion (+13.8%)
$663.7 billion (+12.7%) – Department of Defense (including Overseas Contingency Operations)
$78.7 billion (−1.7%) – Department of Health and Human Services
$72.5 billion (+2.8%) – Department of Transportation
$52.5 billion (+10.3%) – Department of Veterans Affairs
$51.7 billion (+40.9%) – Department of State and Other International Programs
$47.5 billion (+18.5%) – Department of Housing and Urban Development
$46.7 billion (+12.8%) – Department of Education
$42.7 billion (+1.2%) – Department of Homeland Security
$26.3 billion (−0.4%) – Department of Energy
$26.0 billion (+8.8%) – Department of Agriculture
$23.9 billion (−6.3%) – Department of Justice
$18.7 billion (+5.1%) – National Aeronautics and Space Administration
$13.8 billion (+48.4%) – Department of Commerce
$13.3 billion (+4.7%) – Department of Labor
$13.3 billion (+4.7%) – Department of the Treasury
$12.0 billion (+6.2%) – Department of the Interior
$10.5 billion (+34.6%) – Environmental Protection Agency
$9.7 billion (+10.2%) – Social Security Administration
$7.0 billion (+1.4%) – National Science Foundation
$5.1 billion (−3.8%) – Corps of Engineers
$5.0 billion (+100%-NA) – National Infrastructure Bank
$1.1 billion (+22.2%) – Corporation for National and Community Service
$0.7 billion (0.0%) – Small Business Administration
$0.6 billion (−14.3%) – General Services Administration
$0 billion (−100%-NA) – Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)
$0 billion (−100%-NA) – Financial stabilization efforts
$11 billion (+275%-NA) – Potential disaster costs
$19.8 billion (+3.7%) – Other Agencies
$105 billion – Other

Brett85

07-25-2011, 09:30 AM

To say that you can balance the budget without touching those programs or raising taxes is dishonest- it can't be done.

Yes, exactly. That's the point I've been trying to make.

erowe1

07-25-2011, 09:50 AM

kahless

07-25-2011, 09:53 AM

Then we need to start that movement. It will never happen if nobody talks about it. We won't ever have a fiscally responsible government if we have two massive entitlement programs that take up over 40% of the budget. But I've said that these programs can't be abolished overnight. They have to be phased out over time. But they still have to be on the table for cuts if we're going to be serious about balancing the budget. We have to look at the entire budget in depth in order to balance the budget. Also, I've made it very clear that I support ending all of this foreign spending. I support ending the wars, ending foreign aid, and closing down all of our foreign military bases. But unlike other people, I won't take two massive entitlement programs completely off the table for cuts simply because it's "politically unpopular."

I think it is mistake for the Republicans to push for cuts in SS/medicare or raising the age now unless it is for means testing. The media will spin it as the Republicans are kicking the grandma out onto the street in favor of needless foreign wars. It will then ensure another 4 years of Obama. Once Ron becomes President then have the discussion of phasing out these programs.

btw - like I said I am a hard core supporter since 07 but if the plan is to raise the age or tell me the money I put in is gone then I will find another candidate to support. The average American is a fool if they continue to allow congress to bailout and spend on everyone and everything else but are willing to give up money they invested in SS.

specsaregood

07-25-2011, 09:59 AM

To say that you can balance the budget without touching those programs or raising taxes is dishonest- it can't be done.

Yes, exactly. That's the point I've been trying to make.

But could it be done if you increased revenue without increasing taxes?
Like one example I mentioned in another thread, closing our foreign bases and foreign militarism could result in a great amount of purchases from our US-based weapons makers by foreign countries who suddenly have to create/supply a military on their own. So not only do we not have to borrow money to buy weapons fro other countries, we are actually bringing in taxable money.

Other examples might be relaxing regulations on coal and oil and natural gas.....creating a taxable resource instead of exporting money to foreign countries for these products.

I think you are wrong that it couldn't be done without touching those programs -- BUT it would require other changes that help our economy and increase the tax base without actually raising taxes.

Brett85

07-25-2011, 10:04 AM

The media will spin it as the Republicans are kicking the grandma out onto the street in favor of needless foreign wars.

I still don't understand why you think we can't do both. I'm strongly in favor of ending the wars, and I keep pushing my rep in Congress to vote in favor of ending the wars. But ending the wars, ending foreign aid, and abolishing departments still won't be enough to balance the budget. The government spends more on entitlements than it spends on anything else. At the very least we could abolish the Medicare prescription drug bill immediately. The Democrats should go along with that since almost all of them originally opposed it, and the Republicans should go along with that since they now at least claim to believe in limited government.

Acala

07-25-2011, 10:11 AM

The numbers don't support the idea that you can balance the budget and leave Social Security and Medicare alone- unless you raise taxes by a signficant amount. The budget shortage is about $1.3 trillion- and that is the entire budget outside mandatory programs like Social Security, Medicare, and interest on the debt meaning you would have to cut 100% of everything else (which is also not politically doable). But it is politically difficult to cut those programs so they won't be touched aside from minor adjustments like perhaps raising the age limits. To say that you can balance the budget without touching those programs or raising taxes is dishonest- it can't be done.

Those numbers don't tell the whole story.

First of all, you have included $571 billion that is not SS, interest, or medicare. So put that into the other category because you certainly CAN cut unemployment and welfare. Not sure why you would put that in the mandatory category.

Secondly, the SS program and Medicare can be trimmed without eliminating the core support payments. For example, SS currently pays college tuition for kids. You can cut that without cutting the support payments people depend upon. You can also eliminate waste and control prices in Medicare without cutting benefits. So those aren't hard numbers.

Finally, you can raise revenue by selling off public land and using it to retire debt thereby reducing interest payments.

So, while I agree - as would Dr. Paul - that eliminating SS and Medicare is essential in the long run, you COULD put the fiscal house in order without cutting the core of SS and Medicare.

And what Dr. Paul is really doing is trying to get the public to focus on the first few steps of the journey. And it is hard enough to get people to focus on the first step, let alone the long term agenda. So he is just trying to waive away the academic discussion. Stop the massive arterial bleeding before you worry about the seeping wound. Yes, you need to close the seeping wound eventually, but let's pinch off the spraying artery that is easiest to reach NOW!

jmdrake

07-25-2011, 10:12 AM

It's nice that you've bought into the Democrat talking points.

You're being an idiot. I believe you are smarter than this, but right now you're being an idiot. This isn't a "democrat talking point". Some seniors are dependent on Social Security and Medicare. They shouldn't be but they are. And Ron Paul realizes that. He's a doctor. If someone has a chemical dependency you need to wean them off. You don't take them off cold turkey.

Remember when Rand talked about "means testing" Social Security? Those who gave Rand the biggest hell were REPUBLICANS and NOT DEMOCRATS! So live in your fantasy world all you want to. But you're pushing a recipe for disaster in the republican primary. We would never get to the general election following your position. These seniors had their money stolen from them by the government, but the government promised it would fulfill certain obligations if America allowed them to steal it. So America did. Now to turn our backs on that obligation would be immoral. The key is to stop stealing the money in the first place. And we can do that. Ron has a plan to do that. All you have a plan to do is to give Obama 4 more years. -rep.

erowe1

07-25-2011, 10:13 AM

btw - like I said I am a hard core supporter since 07 but if the plan is to raise the age or tell me the money I put in is gone then I will find another candidate to support.

So you don't want someone to tell you the truth?

What did you think you were putting money in a savings account or something?

kahless

07-25-2011, 10:23 AM

So you don't want someone to tell you the truth?

What did you think you were putting money in a savings account or something?

I would love to live in your perfect anarchist world but the reality is it is not going to happen, it is fantasy. What is going to happen is Americans are going to give up the money they put in to Social Security because they are suckers for your kind of talking points. Because they are righteous talking points but they are not the reality of this corrupt government and how politics work. Government will continue to tax, spend and bailout others. Politicians will continue to promote such behavior and you - the American people will again be swindled.

What I am saying is do not allow it. Demand the money that was put in and gut everything else.

kahless

07-25-2011, 10:26 AM

I still don't understand why you think we can't do both. I'm strongly in favor of ending the wars, and I keep pushing my rep in Congress to vote in favor of ending the wars. But ending the wars, ending foreign aid, and abolishing departments still won't be enough to balance the budget. The government spends more on entitlements than it spends on anything else. At the very least we could abolish the Medicare prescription drug bill immediately. The Democrats should go along with that since almost all of them originally opposed it, and the Republicans should go along with that since they now at least claim to believe in limited government.

These are the worst economic times, cutting of Medicare prescription drugs to the elderly will ensure an Obama victory. Do you want Ron Paul to win the Presidency? Going after these programs now will ensure an Obama victory. I think politically the Republicans can get away with "means testing" and ending corruption in these programs.

jmdrake

07-25-2011, 10:27 AM

The numbers don't support the idea that you can balance the budget and leave Social Security and Medicare alone- unless you raise taxes by a signficant amount. The budget shortage is about $1.3 trillion- and that is the entire budget outside mandatory programs like Social Security, Medicare, and interest on the debt meaning you would have to cut 100% of everything else (which is also not politically doable). But it is politically difficult to cut those programs so they won't be touched aside from minor adjustments like perhaps raising the age limits. To say that you can balance the budget without touching those programs or raising taxes is dishonest- it can't be done.

You're being dishonest with your own numbers. You're lumping in 571 billion for "unemployment/welfare and other mandatory spending" and 290 billion for medicade with social security and medicare. Social security and medicare were never supposed to be part of the general budget. Yes they were unsustainable lies from the beginning. But the payroll taxes being taken to fund them and the liabilities those programs create should be looked at separately. Unemployment, welfare and medicaid largely go to able bodied people who could and should fend for themselves. We're not talking about people near the end of their lives. If you look at a more honest accounting, we have 1.15 trillion in social security/medicare. You want to add in interest on the national debt? That's brings it to 1.31 trillion which is still less than discretionary spending.

The first thing to realize is that people who are able bodied need to fend for themselves. The government needs to quit trying to "stimulate" the economy and instead cut regulations to help small businesses restart the economic engine themselves. And that needs to happen at the state and local as well as federal level. Let people opt out of social security and it will eventually be phased out. And I've got nothing against means testing that Rand proposed (although that idea is very unpopular among a large segment of republicans), but the idea that we can balance the budget on the backs of seniors is ludicrous. Especially when you consider that some like "Traditional Conservative" have gone on record wanting defense spending to be 700 billion. (That's actually higher then the current level you've reported).

jmdrake

07-25-2011, 10:28 AM

Yes, exactly. That's the point I've been trying to make.

:rolleyes: And in the thread on the standing army you made it clear that you want defense spending to be 700 billion. So you want to increase defense spending while cutting Social Security? And you think that's a path to the Whitehouse?

Brett85

07-25-2011, 10:33 AM

You're being an idiot. I believe you are smarter than this, but right now you're being an idiot. This isn't a "democrat talking point". Some seniors are dependent on Social Security and Medicare. They shouldn't be but they are. And Ron Paul realizes that. He's a doctor. If someone has a chemical dependency you need to wean them off. You don't take them off cold turkey.

You're simply lying. I never said that people should be "cut off" of Social Security and Medicare. I was just saying that there should be some sore of immediate means testing to ensure that we aren't giving out Social Security checks to millionaires and billionaires. You really aren't any kind of a fiscal conservative if you think that SS and Medicare should be completely off the table for cuts. -Rep.

jmdrake

07-25-2011, 10:33 AM

So you don't want someone to tell you the truth?

Do you think Ron Paul is telling the truth?

What did you think you were putting money in a savings account or something?

It's going into that big wastebucket called the federal budget when it was supposed to be in a separate account. The federal budget has been doing stupid things with the money like funding ridiculous wars and borrowing money since the taxes aren't enough for this lunacy. End the freaking wars. Bring the troops home. Reduce defense spending dramatically. End welfare for people who are able bodied and haven't contributed jack to the economy in the first place and could be productive under the right circumstances. Change those circumstances so that the can be productive. Don't leave anyone with even the impression that you're going to pull the rug out from under seniors just because they weren't wise enough to rise up and revolt against FDR. Then phase out this program so that nobody else will be sucked into it.

Brian4Liberty

07-25-2011, 10:34 AM

There's no reason why millionaires and billionaires should be receiving Social Security checks when we have a 1.6 trillion dollar deficit.

The government should create a "Patriotic Sacrifice" kind of program and market it. Make it super-easy for people who don't need Social Security to opt-out of receiving their payments. Put their name (or alias of their choosing) on a Social Security Patriots list. It's better than raising taxes.

Obviously, it is not fair for massive amounts of taxpayer money to go to Wall St, international Bankers, the MIC and crony corporatists, and those handouts need to be stopped ASAP. As Ron Paul might say, cut those before cutting SS to people who need it.

Brett85

07-25-2011, 10:37 AM

These are the worst economic times, cutting of Medicare prescription drugs to the elderly will ensure an Obama victory. Do you want Ron Paul to win the Presidency? Going after these programs now will ensure an Obama victory. I think politically the Republicans can get away with "means testing" and ending corruption in these programs.

This is ridiculous. We can't even advocate abolishing a program that was created five years ago and was opposed by 90% of the Democrats in Congress. Our country is in real trouble if we can't even abolish a 5 year old program. By that standard we can't even abolish Obamacare since some of the benefits have already started to take affect.

Brett85

07-25-2011, 10:39 AM

:rolleyes: And in the thread on the standing army you made it clear that you want defense spending to be 700 billion. So you want to increase defense spending while cutting Social Security? And you think that's a path to the Whitehouse?

I just threw a number out there. I don't support increasing defense spending. I didn't realize the exact number that we spend on defense right now. I'm in favor of cutting about 33% from the defense budget since I support ending all of our foreign spending. I would also abolish the entire Department of Homeland Security. We don't need two defense departments.

jmdrake

07-25-2011, 10:42 AM

You're simply lying. I never said that people should be "cut off" of Social Security and Medicare. I was just saying that there should be some sore of immediate means testing to ensure that we aren't giving out Social Security checks to millionaires and billionaires. You really aren't any kind of a fiscal conservative if you think that SS and Medicare should be completely off the table for cuts. -Rep.

Nope. I'm not lying I can prove it. Earlier quote from you.

I'm cricitizing him for continuing to phrase the issue in a way that mostly appeals to those on the left, when he needs to get votes from those on the right to actually win a GOP primary.

The words "means testing" are nowhere in the above quote. And if you think taking social security from "millionaires and billionaires" is going to be enough to balance the budget...well I let Peter Schiff explain why that alone won't work.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?276811-Peter-Schiff-thinks-Rand-Paul-has-sold-out-on-Social-Security

Of course Schiff's problem (and yours as well) is that he (and you) look at Ron and Rand's plans in isolation. I don't know why folks are so myopic. The plans make sense taken together. We have to radically cut military spending if we are going to save this country. You can't bring yourself to admit that. And yes social security needs to be adjusted. But the bulk of social security doesn't go to millionaires and billionaires because the bulk of Americans are not "millionaires and billionaires". Note that you don't see Rand and Ron attacking each others positions. That's because they are showing two sides of the same coin.

kahless

07-25-2011, 10:42 AM

This is ridiculous. We can't even advocate abolishing a program that was created five years ago and was opposed by 90% of the Democrats in Congress. Our country is in real trouble if we can't even abolish a 5 year old program. By that standard we can't even abolish Obamacare since some of the benefits have already started to take affect.

It is politically foolish in these tough economic times to cut benefits to those that you need to vote for you to win the general election. Obamacare is universally rejected by most people so there would be little to no political fallout in eliminating that now and in fact would be a big plus in gaining votes for a candidate

Brian4Liberty

07-25-2011, 10:44 AM

This is ridiculous. We can't even advocate abolishing a program that was created five years ago and was opposed by 90% of the Democrats in Congress. Our country is in real trouble if we can't even abolish a 5 year old program. By that standard we can't even abolish Obamacare since some of the benefits have already started to take affect.

Yep, it's ridiculous. The Medical Industry is right next to the Military Industry as the most powerful crony corporatists. One for the Mommy-Statists, one for the Daddy-Statists.

Cost are so high in the medical industry because of government subsidies. Medicare Part D does not make drugs less expensive, it makes them more expensive.

kahless

07-25-2011, 10:46 AM

The government should create a "Patriotic Sacrifice" kind of program and market it. Make it super-easy for people who don't need Social Security to opt-out of receiving their payments. Put their name (or alias of their choosing) on a Social Security Patriots list. It's better than raising taxes.

Obviously, it is not fair for massive amounts of taxpayer money to go to Wall St, international Bankers, the MIC and crony corporatists, and those handouts need to be stopped ASAP. As Ron Paul might say, cut those before cutting SS to people who need it.

Americans will give up these benefits and the behavior I underlined will continue unless Ron Paul is elected. This is why people should not be so quick to give up what they paid into social security. Sure you will be patriotic but you will also be getting royally screwed since not only will you lose this money, your taxes will increase to pay for bailing out those whom do not really need it such as what I underlined above.

nocompromises

07-25-2011, 10:47 AM

Brett85

07-25-2011, 10:51 AM

Nope. I'm not lying I can prove it. Earlier quote from you.

The words "means testing" are nowhere in the above quote. And if you think taking social security from "millionaires and billionaires" is going to be enough to balance the budget...well I let Peter Schiff explain why that alone won't work.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?276811-Peter-Schiff-thinks-Rand-Paul-has-sold-out-on-Social-Security

Of course Schiff's problem (and yours as well) is that he (and you) look at Ron and Rand's plans in isolation. I don't know why folks are so myopic. The plans make sense taken together. We have to radically cut military spending if we are going to save this country. You can't bring yourself to admit that. And yes social security needs to be adjusted. But the bulk of social security doesn't go to millionaires and billionaires because the bulk of Americans are not "millionaires and billionaires". Note that you don't see Rand and Ron attacking each others positions. That's because they are showing two sides of the same coin.

I talked about means testing in my later posts. But it's still intersting that you and a few others still want to make deep cuts to Constitutional spending and leave the unconstitutional spending alone. Defense spending is something that's actually authorized by the Constitution. Social Security and Medicare are not authorized by the Constitution.

To clarify: I don't consider all of our foreign spending to be "defense spending." We shouldn't spend money defending other countries. We should end the wars, close all the foreign military bases, and end all foreign aid. This would actually strengthen our defenses and make us safer.

Brett85

07-25-2011, 10:55 AM

It is politically foolish in these tough economic times to cut benefits to those that you need to vote for you to win the general election. Obamacare is universally rejected by most people so there would be little to no political fallout in eliminating that now and in fact would be a big plus in gaining votes for a candidate

It's also politically unpopular to cut off foreign aid to Israel, but I still support doing it. I'm sure it's a minority position to support abolishing the Department of Education, but I don't think such a department is necessary. I understand the political ramifications of all this, but I'm still going to advocate going back to Constitutionally limited government. I'll try to bring the majority over to my side.

jmdrake

07-25-2011, 11:02 AM

I just threw a number out there. I don't support increasing defense spending. I didn't realize the exact number that we spend on defense right now. I'm in favor of cutting about 33% from the defense budget since I support ending all of our foreign spending. I would also abolish the entire Department of Homeland Security. We don't need two defense departments.

Fair enough. But you should at least get your numbers together before you start talking about who is or is not parroting "democratic talking points".

I talked about means testing in my later posts. But it's still intersting that you and a few others still want to make deep cuts to Constitutional spending and leave the unconstitutional spending alone. Defense spending is something that's actually authorized by the Constitution. Social Security and Medicare are not authorized by the Constitution.

We've already had this discussion. A standing army is not constitutional. We can agree to disagree on what level of defense spending is necessary, but what we are doing now is far outside constitutional bounds. But to take it further nothing int he constitution prevents the federal government from engaging in a contract. In fact the constitution strictly forbids interfering with contract. The contract in this case was for a retirement plan. The "consideration" for the contract was the payroll taxes that initially were only to go to that contract. The taxes were taken (by force) and now people are talking about welching on the deal. Now for the record I support means testing, but not because I have any false illusions that it will solve the debt crisis. It won't. And it a way means testing is more of a liberal democratic solution in that it "spreads the wealth" from people who were responsible to people who arguably were not as responsible. After all, if you save up a multi million dollar nest egg is that your fault? Still I support means testing as a way to divorce those who were responsible from the idea of social security. But if you means test you will still have hundreds of billions to pay out.

Oh, and for the record BARACK OBAMA SUPPORTS MEANS TESTING (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/15/obama-medicare-means-testing_n_899839.html). So let's drop the "You're being a liberal democrat if you don't support my specific plan" rhetoric okay?

jmdrake

07-25-2011, 11:06 AM

I agree that there are many programs that need to be cut before social security and medicade.

For example...

1) The military
2) All foreign aid
3) The DEA and other agencies
4) Hundreds of wasteful programs

However, I do think that immediately before social security is cut, everyone should be given the opportunity to opt out. Social Security is an unconstitutional program and being forced to participate is slavery!

+rep Glad to see that at least some of us get it! It's not about preserving social security! It's about a "phased withdrawal" to coin a popular phrase. Some folks are too old to be able to "opt out". Means test the few millionaires/billionares we have? I've got no problem with that (although many republicans do). But that's not going to help short term or long term. Ron Paul has a short term and a long term solution to this mess.

kahless

07-25-2011, 11:08 AM

It's also politically unpopular to cut off foreign aid to Israel, but I still support doing it. I'm sure it's a minority position to support abolishing the Department of Education, but I don't think such a department is necessary. I understand the political ramifications of all this, but I'm still going to advocate going back to Constitutionally limited government. I'll try to bring the majority over to my side.

I think what will piss people off is people screaming for aid to Israel and funding the Department of Education while their SS benefits and medicare prescription drugs will be cut.

The elderly voter is more concerned about feeding, clothing, shelter and prescription drugs than Israel and the Department of Ed. When it comes right down to it people realize things are bad enough or can be educated such that cutting aid to Israel and Department of Ed is absolutely necessary. Israel can stand on their own "they have 50 nukes" is a good talking point. The Department of Education is not necessary since these things are already handled at the state level and they are therefore redundant.

Brett85

07-25-2011, 11:17 AM

Fair enough. But you should at least get your numbers together before you start talking about who is or is not parroting "democratic talking points".

We've already had this discussion. A standing army is not constitutional. We can agree to disagree on what level of defense spending is necessary, but what we are doing now is far outside constitutional bounds. But to take it further nothing int he constitution prevents the federal government from engaging in a contract. In fact the constitution strictly forbids interfering with contract. The contract in this case was for a retirement plan. The "consideration" for the contract was the payroll taxes that initially were only to go to that contract. The taxes were taken (by force) and now people are talking about welching on the deal. Now for the record I support means testing, but not because I have any false illusions that it will solve the debt crisis. It won't. And it a way means testing is more of a liberal democratic solution in that it "spreads the wealth" from people who were responsible to people who arguably were not as responsible. After all, if you save up a multi million dollar nest egg is that your fault? Still I support means testing as a way to divorce those who were responsible from the idea of social security. But if you means test you will still have hundreds of billions to pay out.

Oh, and for the record BARACK OBAMA SUPPORTS MEANS TESTING (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/15/obama-medicare-means-testing_n_899839.html). So let's drop the "You're being a liberal democrat if you don't support my specific plan" rhetoric okay?

It's true that there is an obligation for the federal government to pay the Social Security benefits. But the current fiscal situation is just so dire that we really can't afford to give out the benefits to those who can do without the benefits. The benefits should go to the needy. Also, Social Security will become much more unpopular if it's turned into a welfare program. More people will support getting rid of it. As far as Medicare goes, people haven't actually paid for all of the benefits they get. They certainly haven't paid for ANY of the prescription drug benefits, so the government doesn't have any contractual obligation to fund Medicare Part D.

jmdrake

07-25-2011, 11:22 AM

erowe1

07-25-2011, 11:50 AM

It's going into that big wastebucket called the federal budget when it was supposed to be in a separate account.

Where do you get the idea that it was supposed to be in a separate account?

aGameOfThrones

07-25-2011, 11:57 AM

It's true that there is an obligation for the federal government to pay the Social Security benefits. But the current fiscal situation is just so dire that we really can't afford to give out the benefits to those who can do without the benefits. The benefits should go to the needy. Also, Social Security will become much more unpopular if it's turned into a welfare program. More people will support getting rid of it. As far as Medicare goes, people haven't actually paid for all of the benefits they get. They certainly haven't paid for ANY of the prescription drug benefits, so the government doesn't have any contractual obligation to fund Medicare Part D.

Obligation?

1960 Scotus case of Flemming v. Nestor.

It involved Bulgarian-born Ephram Nestor, who was deported in 1956, having been involved in Communist activity in the 1930s. The federal government denied him his Social Security benefits, citing 1954 amendments to the Social Security Act that denied payments to anyone deported for criminal activity after August of that year. Nestor Sued on the grounds that "throughout the history of the Social Security Act, old-age insurance benefits have been referred to as a right of the recipient which he has earned and paid for."

The federal government prepared a legal brief in defense of its position that Nestor was not entitled to his benefits. The brief explained that Social Security was in no sense a federally administered "insurance program" under which each worker pays premiums over the years and acquires at retirement an indefeasible right to receive for life a fixed monthly benefit,irrespective of the conditions which Congress has chosen to impose from time to time.... The "contribution" exacted under the social security plan from an employee...is a True Tax. It is not comparable to a premium under a policy of insurance promising the payment of an annuity commencing at a designated age.

From Thomas Woods JR. 33 questions about American History.

************************************************** **

"To engraft upon the Social Security system a concept of "accrued property rights" would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever-changing conditions which it demands. It was doubtless out of an awareness of the need for such flexibility that Congress included in the original Act, and [363 U.S. 603, 611] has since retained, a clause expressly reserving to it "[t]he right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision" of the Act.

...

We must conclude that a person covered by the Act has not such a right in benefit payments as would make every defeasance of "accrued" interests violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. FLEMMING v. NESTOR, 363 U.S. 603 (1960)"

erowe1

07-25-2011, 12:00 PM

It's true that there is an obligation for the federal government to pay the Social Security benefits.

I don't accept that premise. What it really means is that current and future taxpayers have an obligation to make good on promises that past politicians made on their behalf without their consent. Those promises have no weight, and we taxpayers have no obligation whatsoever to pay for them.

Granted, this is all spitting into the wind. I don't pretend to think that we won't be forced to pay for those past promises. And I don't want RP to be so committed to frankness on this issue that it causes him to lose the election. We grassroots, on the other hand, don't need to beat around the bush the way he might.

aGameOfThrones

07-25-2011, 12:01 PM

Where do you get the idea that it was supposed to be in a separate account?

Al gore's lockbox?

erowe1

07-25-2011, 12:03 PM

Al gore's lockbox?

Exactly. If there had been this lockbox already, then his campaigning on making one would have been meaningless. It might have been meaningless anyway. But this myth about SS having some account that would have paid for itself except for the fact that it got raided for wars or something gets repeated so much, and I don't get where it comes from.

aGameOfThrones

07-25-2011, 12:07 PM

Exactly. If there had been this lockbox already, then his campaigning on making one would have been meaningless. It might have been meaningless anyway. But this myth about SS having some account that would have paid for itself except for the fact that it got raided for wars or something gets repeated so much, and I don't get where it comes from.

If every ponzi scheme had a lockbox, eh? :D

Brett85

07-25-2011, 12:09 PM

erowe1

07-25-2011, 12:16 PM

The bottom line is that those of us in the liberty movement should advocate cutting government spending across the board and reducing the size of government across the board.

Absolutely, no question about it.

And the fact that political reasons prevent RP from being completely frank about it should make the rest of us all the more vocal. We need to speak up and make the rules change about what's acceptable and what isn't for entitlements. We who aren't running for office need to call out pro-entitlement politicians and the AARP, etc., for their lies, and the phrase "greedy seniors" should get used to the point that it stops being taboo and becomes a cliche. Same thing with using the word "welfare" when discussing these programs.

kahless

07-25-2011, 12:52 PM

Absolutely, no question about it.

And the fact that political reasons prevent RP from being completely frank about it should make the rest of us all the more vocal. We need to speak up and make the rules change about what's acceptable and what isn't for entitlements. We who aren't running for office need to call out pro-entitlement politicians and the AARP, etc., for their lies, and the phrase "greedy seniors" should get used to the point that it stops being taboo and becomes a cliche. Same thing with using the word "welfare" when discussing these programs.

That is a great way to destroy any chance Ron has to become President and will ensure 4 more years of Obama.

erowe1

07-25-2011, 01:09 PM

That is a great way to destroy any chance Ron has to become President and will ensure 4 more years of Obama.

I'm saying RP shouldn't do that. But those of us who aren't running for office and know the truth need to speak out. We can't keep walking on eggshells about this.

At some point some crop of people who had to pay for the previous generation's SS will not get it themselves, or won't get much. It's not a matter of if, just when. I get that political reality means we have no choice but to postpone action. But to say we can't even speak up about it to try to move public opinion in the way it needs to go in order to make those changes in a few more years? If that's the case we might as well just give up on hoping for any political solution to this.

I don't really care about 4 more years of Obama. Whether Obama wins or Romney, I see that as the same as 4 more years of pretty much the same thing we've had for about a century. We need serious changes, and they have to include a wake up call for all the people who think they're entitled to others' earnings.

jmdrake

07-25-2011, 06:02 PM

I don't accept that premise. What it really means is that current and future taxpayers have an obligation to make good on promises that past politicians made on their behalf without their consent. Those promises have no weight, and we taxpayers have no obligation whatsoever to pay for them.

Granted, this is all spitting into the wind. I don't pretend to think that we won't be forced to pay for those past promises. And I don't want RP to be so committed to frankness on this issue that it causes him to lose the election. We grassroots, on the other hand, don't need to beat around the bush the way he might.

I take it you've never actually read the initial SS legislation. It specifically used the term "social insurance" and made a promise to pay an "annuity". Granted it was a ponzi scheme as crooked as anything Bernie Maddoff cooked up.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/fdrbill.html

Anyway, until 1968 the Social Security account (receipts and payments) was kept separate from the federal budget. Lyndon Johnson brought Social Security "on budget" in order to mask his budget deficit.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/BudgetTreatment.html

Those are simply the facts. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. Now as it stands I agree (I think) with your overall opinion being that drastic changes are needed in Social Security. But the biggest changes that need to be made are the future changes. People need to be able to opt out. I don't mind cutting out the millionaires and billionaires right now who do need the money, but that doesn't fix the problem.

One other thing. I see a lot of libertarians talk about how everything can be solved by "contracts", but some have not taken the time to understand contract law. There is something in contracts called promissory estoppel. Under that common law doctrine, if there is a promise that isn't even a valid contract, and another party detrimentally relies on that promise, the promisor is estopped from dishonoring that promise. So even if SS is not a valid contract, there are people who have detrimentally relied on it. Suggesting that some 80 year old who's getting a quarter or more of their retirement income from SS should just have to "suck air" is neither a moral nor a legal nor a politically viable option. And let me be clear before this turns into another flame war. I'm not saying that you are saying that. I'm just saying what the implication is of trying to blithely dismiss an obligation to folks that probably aren't going to live more than a decade or so anyway. Yes SS is a bad idea. I get it. I think everybody in this thread gets it. I believe that between Ron and Rand they have a plan to get us out of this mess. Oh, and don't give me that "Obama or Romney" false choice. Romney isn't going to say anything politically stupid on social security. If we want to be Romney and then beat Obama we have to move forward with a viable plan that makes sense as opposed to something that appeals to your own sense of propriety.

But hey, folks want to complain about the Ron/Rand plan, let's see your plan.

Brian4Liberty

07-25-2011, 06:39 PM

Where do you get the idea that it was supposed to be in a separate account?

Al gore's lockbox?

Damn, beat me to it! Here's the video, it's hilarious:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9pqmW-D14I

jmdrake

07-25-2011, 06:43 PM

Damn, beat me to it! Here's the video, it's hilarious:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9pqmW-D14I

LOL. For the record Newt Gingrich proposed a "lockbox" before Gore. And prior to Johnson there actually were separate accounts.

erowe1

07-25-2011, 06:46 PM

Those are simply the facts.

Those facts don't change anything I said. Whether SS is "on budget" or not is a matter of accounting, not a matter of the nature of the law, which, as you said, was a Ponzi scheme from the beginning, and never was something where people pay in and then get their money back. As you point out, all anyone needs to do is read the law itself to see that.

And putting SS on budget has no effect on the fact that one day receipts would exceed payments (and IIRC that day is either already past or very close), and payments would be paid out of the general budget. The fungibility of money precludes us from pretending that SS was ever really independent.

jmdrake

07-25-2011, 06:57 PM

Those facts don't change anything I said. Whether SS is "on budget" or not is a matter of accounting, not a matter of the nature of the law, which, as you said, was a Ponzi scheme from the beginning, and never was something where people pay in and then get their money back. As you point out, all anyone needs to do is read the law itself to see that.

You claimed there was no separate account. There was. And as far as an obligation to pay, you just don't understand contract law. That's ok. Most people don't. The entity that originate a Ponzi scheme can't turn around later and say "Oops, sorry. It was a Ponzi scheme. I guess I don't have to pay you". Of course you can say you weren't the government, but under corporation theory (yes governments are corporations) that doesn't matter. And politically this is all a non starter anyway. In fact this is probably the dumbest argument ever at RPF. You want to convince RPFers of what? That SS should be phased out? Guess what? We agree so enough already! Most of us have the good sense to know that it has to be done in a compassionate and politically viable way. If you don't understand that fine.

And putting SS on budget has no effect on the fact that one day receipts would exceed payments (and IIRC that day is either already past or very close), and payments would be paid out of the general budget. The fungibility of money precludes us from pretending that SS was ever really independent.

There is no "pretending" about it. SS was initially independent. Again go back and read the initially legislation. I gave you a link so you have no excuse. It was brought on budget for one simple reason. The government wanted more money and they saw a place to get it. Eventually the government might start raiding public employee pension plans (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/16/government-hits-debt-ceiling-treasury-urges-lawmakers-reach-budget-deal/). Those are as off budget as you can get. What happens when that fails? Who knows? The bottom line is that the main budget is too big. And that's because people don't want to make hard choices like getting rid of the Department of Education or ending the empire and radically cutting defense spending.

Anyway, I'm done. I asked you to provide your own plan and you haven't done that. If/when you do I'll comment on it.

erowe1

07-25-2011, 07:12 PM

You claimed there was no separate account. There was.
That was an accounting gimmick. It has nothing to do with whether or not it was really separate. What you go on to say here about the government being obligated to make good on its contract is proof that you know that, since that would require that payments be calculated without regard to receipts. I could divide my personal finances into a bunch of different pretend separate accounts too. But my obligations as a person would belong to me, and not to each account on its own, rendering the differences between them fictional.

And as far as an obligation to pay, you just don't understand contract law.
I don't give two farts about contract law as you describe it. What I said about my obligation as a taxpayer was a matter of natural law. The pretend law that was made up by politicians might tell me that I am obligated to pay for the promises those politicians made on my behalf without my consent. But that law is wrong. I have no such obligation.

I missed the part where you asked me to provide my own plan. I'm pretty sure I did already. What I'll say now is what I've already said. The very best case scenario is complete and immediate elimination of all entitlements, with not another single check getting sent to another single person. So if you want some hypothetical plan from me as my best case scenario, that's it. Every other plan is to be judged by how close it comes to that ideal, the faster and the deeper the cuts, the better.

If you want a politically viable plan, then I'm fine with Ron Paul's, I can't improve on it. I just don't think that we who aren't running for office need to constrain our bluntness the same way RP needs to.

erowe1

07-25-2011, 07:22 PM

There is no "pretending" about it. SS was initially independent. Again go back and read the initially legislation.

Take your own advice. Here's the first section of that legislation:

For the purposes of this title, there is
hereby appropriated, from funds in the Treasury not
wise appropriated, the sum of $50,000,000 for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1936, and there is hereby authorized
to be appropriated for each fiscal year thereafter the sum of
$125,000,000 of which sums 99 1/2 per centum shall be
a p p o r t i o n e d amo n g t h e s e v e r a l S t a t e s a s h e r e i n a f t e r
provided.

That initial money was appropriated from the treasury. Any accounting gimmick that pretends that's a separate account should not be taken seriously.

erowe1

07-25-2011, 07:32 PM

I missed the part where you asked me to provide my own plan. I'm pretty sure I did already. What I'll say now is what I've already said. The very best case scenario is complete and immediate elimination of all entitlements, with not another single check getting sent to another single person. So if you want some hypothetical plan from me as my best case scenario, that's it. Every other plan is to be judged by how close it comes to that ideal, the faster and the deeper the cuts, the better.

Incidentally, my plan is the same one the Future of Freedom Foundation has been advocating for a long time.
http://www.fff.org/issues/socialsecurity.asp

sailingaway

07-25-2011, 08:03 PM

erowe1

07-25-2011, 08:16 PM

Even in your view, how is it less binding than bonds sold to pension funds or bonds sold to China.... or bonds the federal reserve bought? Because they didn't just 'steal' the money generally, the bought treasury bills with it. Now they want to pay back the treasury bills the Fed bought with money it printed out of thin air, but not bonds bought by the 'social security trust fund'.

It's not less binding. I have no obligation to pay any of those. The willingness of the regime in Beijing to loan money to the regime in DC is based on the Beijing regime's confidence that DC regime will do whatever it takes to make sure I pay up and won't get swept away in any silly rhetoric about a republic or unalienable rights or consent of the governed or anything like that. For all I know, they are making a safe bet.

sailingaway

07-25-2011, 08:26 PM

erowe1

07-25-2011, 08:38 PM

I understand what you are saying, I just don't see that outcome being realistic.

But a big reason for the anger over cuts is that they are being cut FIRST while the well connected continue bleeding the state without having paid in for benefits.

What cuts are you talking about that are being made?

As I see it, at the top of the list of the well-connected bleeding, not the state, but the taxpayers, is the senior citizen lobby. I don't see any cuts getting made to their pet take-from-the-poor-give-to-the-rich programs. It's so far outside the mainstream to do so much as tell the truth about these programs that even here we have Ron Paul supporters saying, "Go ahead and phase out SS and Medicare in time not to pay the next generation (the people who will have to pay for my benefits), but if Ron Paul supports cutting one dime from the milk I plan to such from the government teat, I'll vote for someone else."

We can't just sit back and accept that everybody has to think like that and there's no hope to change any minds and start to shift the debate so that ideas that are outside the mainstream now start to become more mainstream. We need to be deliberate about doing that. And the fact that Ron Paul can't puts the burden on us all the more.

It doesn't matter if it's realistic. What matters is if it's right. When we go into a negotiation we shouldn't pre-calculate what the other side is going to want and then compromise with that before we even make our first offer. We need to be perfectly frank about what we really know to be the ideal, so that when we compromise and accept some reality less than that ideal, we at least have that standard to measure our level of success with and to keep working toward.

sailingaway

07-25-2011, 08:45 PM

I think you see the 'right' on your side but discount the 'right' on the other side, though.

I back Ron's attempt at a solution. I guess you don't. But I bet it will help him with voters, which is why I posted it.

Brett85

07-25-2011, 09:26 PM

But I bet it will help him with voters, which is why I posted it.

Yes, it would help him if he was running against Obama in the Democratic primary. But having Ron talk about cutting spending by ending wars and then leaving entitlements alone is not a popular view with GOP primary voters. (I understand that he still wants to allow younger people to opt out, but that won't cut any entitlement spending right now.) Yes, I'm sure a lot of older GOP voters don't want entitlements on the table for cuts, but most of these people wouldn't ever vote for Ron anyway because of his position on the drug legalization issue. It's just a consistent position to say that the entire budget should be on the table for cuts. I'm not trying to be too critical of Ron here, but I just don't completely agree with the way that he phrases this issue.

Brett85

07-25-2011, 09:30 PM

sailingaway

07-25-2011, 09:30 PM

I don't think he said he wouldn't cut any entitlement spending. I think he was specifically speaking of social security and medicare which had been billed as insurance you paid for during your working life Other than that, I think he'd scale back entitlements to the truly needy, which is not where they are today. And even SS and Medicare, I didn't get the feeling he was saying would have no changes, but that they needed to live up to the obligations 'as best they could'. I'm pretty sure there would be some restructuring in there, it is just that with Ron it would have a much more sensible framework.

However, we don't really have a lot of details, just a sketch.

Dark_Horse_Rider

07-25-2011, 09:38 PM

could someone post the url from the PBS site for the original vid, please ?

sailingaway

07-25-2011, 09:53 PM

What if we simply abolished Social Security immediately, and then the government could simply give out a one time refund check to every single person who paid into the system? The government would of course have to take inflation into account when performing this calculation. But under this solution everybody would get their money back, and this blatantly unconstitutional program would be gone for good. It's a solution that's the best of both worlds.

If it were real inflation by old calculations not the manipulated one, that sounds fair, and frankly I don't think many people trust the govt managing money, wonder why? But I don't see that happening.

jmdrake

07-25-2011, 09:54 PM

Take your own advice. Here's the first section of that legislation:

That initial money was appropriated from the treasury. Any accounting gimmick that pretends that's a separate account should not be taken seriously.

It's not a "gimmick". The same organization can have more than one account. Good grief, have you never had more than one checking account? :rolleyes:

Oh, and I'm still waiting to hear your plan. Obviously you don't have one.

sailingaway

07-25-2011, 09:55 PM

could someone post the url from the PBS site for the original vid, please ?

Here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXKrdE2x5og&feature=player_embedded

Brett85

07-25-2011, 09:55 PM

If it were real inflation by old calculations not the manipulated one, that sounds fair, and frankly I don't trust the govt managing money, wonder why? But I don't see that happening.

It won't ever happen, but allowing people to opt out of the program won't ever happen either. Unfortunately, we're stuck in this program for life.

jmdrake

07-25-2011, 09:59 PM

Yes, it would help him if he was running against Obama in the Democratic primary. But having Ron talk about cutting spending by ending wars and then leaving entitlements alone is not a popular view with GOP primary voters. (I understand that he still wants to allow younger people to opt out, but that won't cut any entitlement spending right now.) Yes, I'm sure a lot of older GOP voters don't want entitlements on the table for cuts, but most of these people wouldn't ever vote for Ron anyway because of his position on the drug legalization issue. It's just a consistent position to say that the entire budget should be on the table for cuts. I'm not trying to be too critical of Ron here, but I just don't completely agree with the way that he phrases this issue.

Once again, the average republican voter looks at social security differently than he or she looks at welfare. If Ron starts to talk about any kind of significant cut to needy seniors who have paid into this program, he will have hell to pay among republicans. He can talk some about means testing, but that plays better with democrats than republicans. (Or did you not read the link where I said Obama supports means testing?) Ron has already talked about phasing out whole departments like the department of education. If that doesn't win over fiscal conservatives nothing will.

Brett85

07-25-2011, 10:03 PM

Once again, the average republican voter looks at social security differently than he or she looks at welfare.

The average Republican voter I know absolutely despises the program. Among younger people, it's probably the most unpopular program that the federal government runs.

Brett85

07-25-2011, 10:06 PM

jmdrake

07-25-2011, 10:09 PM

The average Republican voter I know absolutely despises the program. Among younger people, it's probably the most unpopular program that the federal government runs.

Yep. Younger voters want to opt out. But do they want to cut off grandma? And no I'm not talking about millionaire grandma. I'm talking about cat food grandma. And how many GOP retires do you know who are ready to cut themselves off? Besides, younger voters typically don't vote. I tell you what. We need to do senior outreach anyway. I challenge you to go to a retirement home in a red county in a red state with mostly white voters (stacking the deck to keep dems to a minimum), push the idea that they need to accept cuts in social security and medicare for the "good of the country" so that we can "pay down the debt while maintaining a strong military" and let the rest of us know how well that goes across.

jmdrake

07-25-2011, 10:10 PM

My grandma is on Social Security and is hardly rich, and even she has said that there should be 20-30% across the board cuts to Social Security in order to balance the budget. That's more drastic than anything I've advocated.

Well good for her. She's not average though. Some military people are willing to make 60% cuts or better in defense spending.

Brett85

07-25-2011, 10:13 PM

I challenge you to go to a retirement home in a red county in a red state with mostly white voters (stacking the deck to keep dems to a minimum), push the idea that they need to accept cuts in social security and medicare for the "good of the country" so that we can "pay down the debt while maintaining a strong military" and let the rest of us know how well that goes across.

I'm sure they would be much more receptive to the cuts if I made it clear that we would also have a weak military.

eworthington

07-25-2011, 10:14 PM

Yep. Younger voters want to opt out. But do they want to cut off grandma? And no I'm not talking about millionaire grandma. I'm talking about cat food grandma. And how many GOP retires do you know who are ready to cut themselves off? Besides, younger voters typically don't vote. I tell you what. We need to do senior outreach anyway. I challenge you to go to a retirement home in a red county in a red state with mostly white voters (stacking the deck to keep dems to a minimum), push the idea that they need to accept cuts in social security and medicare for the "good of the country" so that we can "pay down the debt while maintaining a strong military" and let the rest of us know how well that goes across.

Why hasn't anyone talked about cutting Medicare reimbursements or throwing the central government's rather large buying power around to force down Medicare drug prices? It seems like it is a program that can be tinkered around with a lot. Not to mention, it is a bigger threat to the budget than Social Security.

jmdrake

07-25-2011, 10:35 PM

Why hasn't anyone talked about cutting Medicare reimbursements or throwing the central government's rather large buying power around to force down Medicare drug prices? It seems like it is a program that can be tinkered around with a lot. Not to mention, it is a bigger threat to the budget than Social Security.

According to Rand if you cut Medicare endorsements you risk doctors leaving the program. But there's got to be a lot of overhead that could be cut.

eworthington

07-25-2011, 10:46 PM

According to Rand if you cut Medicare endorsements you risk doctors leaving the program. But there's got to be a lot of overhead that could be cut.

I think Rand might be wrong here. If you cut Medicare payments a lot you might get some practices exiting the program, but the answer to that is to allow more foreign doctors to enter the country. New immigrants who are trying to start business would be likely to accept Medicare payments and live on less while they are establishing themselves.

Cutlerzzz

07-25-2011, 11:00 PM

sailingaway

07-25-2011, 11:57 PM

I think Rand might be wrong here. If you cut Medicare payments a lot you might get some practices exiting the program, but the answer to that is to allow more foreign doctors to enter the country. New immigrants who are trying to start business would be likely to accept Medicare payments and live on less while they are establishing themselves.

There is a difference between paying doctors less and paying less for drugs. Volume purchasing should not be banned by sweetheart deals and purchases from out of the country should be permitted. I think it's supposed to be $180 billion savings, and Obama promised it when he ran, but the first deal he cut on Obamacare was with big Pharma.

However, you need someone who cares more about frugal management than about special interest money to get any good management ideas actually worked through. Ron would do it, but who else would?

junkmonkey

07-26-2011, 02:11 AM

Exactly. I don't like the fact that Ron wants to leave these two gigantic government programs alone. Limited government advocates should advocate doing away with these programs.

One step at a time. He cant do everything in 4 or 8 years and imagine trying to get all that thru Congress. Id rather we stopped murdering people abroad before cutting welfare to parasites.

erowe1

07-26-2011, 06:03 AM

I back Ron's attempt at a solution. I guess you don't. But I bet it will help him with voters, which is why I posted it.

How much more clear could I be that I do support it, because it will help him?

I just hope that we who aren't running for office don't feel constrained in the same way he is. If we want future politicians to be able to address the issue more seriously, then we need to shift the debate in that direction.

erowe1

07-26-2011, 06:06 AM

It's not a "gimmick". The same organization can have more than one account. Good grief, have you never had more than one checking account? :rolleyes:

Yes, I have. It's a gimmick. I don't get to make debts with just one of my checking accounts. I make debts with myself as a person and am obligated to pay them no matter what account I write the checks to.

Oh, and I'm still waiting to hear your plan. Obviously you don't have one.

You still are? So all this time you've been arguing you haven't read anything I've said?

Brett85

07-26-2011, 06:48 AM

Here is my budget proposal.

$695 billion (+4.9%) – Social Security(Allow the option to opt out)
$453 billion (+6.6%) – Medicare(Allow the option to opt out)
$164 billion (+18.0%) – Interest on National Debt
$225 billion – Department of Defense (End wars, overseas bases, create more transparency, make significant cuts to the Army and smaller cuts elsewhere)
$52.5 billion (+10.3%) – Department of Veterans Affairs
$23.9 billion (−6.3%) – Department of Justice(Ending the War on Drugs will lower this)
$13.3 billion (+4.7%) – Department of the Treasury

Total budget: 1,626,700,000,000.

Federal Revenue is 2,173,700,000,000.

Surplus: 547,000,000,000.

Does anyone disagree with this?

Yes. You just about abolished the one Constitutional department we have (defense,) while not even touching unconstitutional entitlement programs. That's the kind of left wing stuff that I keep talking about. Yes, we can save a lot of money by ending the wars and foreign military bases. But at least some of that money should be re-invested in legitimate defense spending here at home. Ron has talked about how we would have "a lot more defense" if we quit all this foreign intervention.

erowe1

07-26-2011, 07:03 AM

Yes. You just about abolished the one Constitutional department we have (defense,) while not even touching unconstitutional entitlement programs. That's the kind of left wing stuff that I keep talking about. Yes, we can save a lot of money by ending the wars and foreign military bases. But at least some of that money should be re-invested in legitimate defense spending here at home. Ron has talked about how we would have "a lot more defense" if we quit all this foreign intervention.

I don't see why one cut has to be compared to another one. All cuts are good cuts. Good cuts don't become bad cuts just because some other good cuts didn't happen at the same time.

And if you want to put cuts in order of priority, I can't see how the military would not be at or near the top of the list. Entitlements are bad, but they're not as bad as dropping bombs on innocent people.

Brett85

07-26-2011, 07:11 AM

And if you want to put cuts in order of priority, I can't see how the military would not be at or near the top of the list. Entitlements are bad, but they're not as bad as dropping bombs on innocent people.

I'm in favor of the same military spending cuts as Ron is. I'm in favor of ending all this foreign intervention. I support ending the wars, closing down foreign military bases, and ending foreign aid. But even all these cuts would only total about 33% of the defense budget. Ron has never advocated any cuts that would bring the defense budget all the way down to 225 billion. Rand has said in speeches that in his theoretical budget, defense spending would make up about 70-80% of the overall budget. National defense is obviously the most important thing the federal government does. We simply need to make sure the defense budget is spent on legitimate defense here at home and not on all of the foreign intervention that we have right now.

Brett85

07-26-2011, 07:31 AM

Here's my theoretical budget for 2012:

Social Security: $0. Abolish the program, and then give everybody a one time refund check to make sure that they are re-imbursed for the money they've paid in.
Medicare: 350 billion. Abolish Medicare Part D, and find savings in the rest of it by using means testing.
Medicaid: $0. Send the program completely back to the states to run.
Interest on the national debt: 164 billion.
Department of Defense: 550 billion: Save money by ending the wars and starting to close down some foreign military bases.
Department of Transportation: 40 billion. Save money by sending a lot of these functions back to the states.
Department of Veterans Affairs: 50 billion. Get rid of waste in the budget without cutting veteran's benefits.
Department of State: 25 billion. Cut it in half by ending foreign aid and other programs.
Department of Justice: 18 billion. Make significant cuts by ending the war on drugs.
Department of the Treasury: 13 billion. Make small cuts by having less employees.
Corps of Engineers: 5 billion.

This is just a fast, rough outline. I may be forgetting a lot. All of the departments and agencies I didn't mention would be completely abolished. The total budget would be 1.215 trillion, and the total revenue we bring in is 2.4 trillion. That would be a surplus of 1.2 trillion dollars. My budget would be 400 billion less than what was presented by Cutlerzzz.

Brian4Liberty

07-26-2011, 12:09 PM

What if we simply abolished Social Security immediately, and then the government could simply give out a one time refund check to every single person who paid into the system? The government would of course have to take inflation into account when performing this calculation. But under this solution everybody would get their money back, and this blatantly unconstitutional program would be gone for good. It's a solution that's the best of both worlds.

That might have a chance of passing our Congress if the money was not paid directly to the people, but instead paid into an Annuity account managed and defined by JP Sachs and AIG. ;)

Brian4Liberty

07-26-2011, 12:13 PM

I think Rand might be wrong here. If you cut Medicare payments a lot you might get some practices exiting the program, but the answer to that is to allow more foreign doctors to enter the country. New immigrants who are trying to start business would be likely to accept Medicare payments and live on less while they are establishing themselves.

I agree that competition is the key, although importing more Doctors will not create more competition if they have to integrate into the existing crony corporatist system. As a matter of fact, when I had to pick a personal Physician at an HMO, out of around 25 choices, only one of them was not an "imported" Doctor. The existing system loves to bring in cheaper Doctors, but it doesn't create true competition in the medical industry.

erowe1

07-26-2011, 12:15 PM

I'm in favor of the same military spending cuts as Ron is. I'm in favor of ending all this foreign intervention. I support ending the wars, closing down foreign military bases, and ending foreign aid. But even all these cuts would only total about 33% of the defense budget. Ron has never advocated any cuts that would bring the defense budget all the way down to 225 billion. Rand has said in speeches that in his theoretical budget, defense spending would make up about 70-80% of the overall budget. National defense is obviously the most important thing the federal government does. We simply need to make sure the defense budget is spent on legitimate defense here at home and not on all of the foreign intervention that we have right now.

It's not about what this or that person has proposed. It's about what's right.

You act like cutting the military down to an annual budget or $225 Billion would be some draconian cut. But that would still be double what the next biggest military, China's, costs. What do you want to do with the military that would cost $225 Billion?

Just saying "nation defense is the most important thing the federal government does" is a meaningless platitude. If I accepted it as true, it would do more to convince me of how unimportant everything else the federal government does than how national defense (whatever that means) is. And what exactly is the correlation between being "defended" and having a government that spends a lot on the military? As far as I can tell it's an inverse one, isn't it? Over the years, no American has died because of the regime in DC spending too little on its military, but millions of Americans have died because of them spending too much. Do we really need to have $225 Billion stolen from us just so it can be spent on something that makes us less safe?

Brett85

07-26-2011, 12:26 PM

It's not about what this or that person has proposed. It's about what's right.

You act like cutting the military down to an annual budget or $225 Billion would be some draconian cut. But that would still be double what the next biggest military, China's, costs. What do you want to do with the military that would cost $225 Billion?

Just saying "nation defense is the most important thing the federal government does" is a meaningless platitude. If I accepted it as true, it would do more to convince me of how unimportant everything else the federal government does than how national defense (whatever that means) is. And what exactly is the correlation between being "defended" and having a government that spends a lot on the military? As far as I can tell it's an inverse one, isn't it? Over the years, no American has died because of the regime in DC spending too little on its military, but millions of Americans have died because of them spending too much. Do we really need to have $225 Billion stolen from us just so it can be spent on something that makes us less safe?

We had this debate on the standing army thread. We need a strong military to defend our own country here at home. Right now, we have dangerous people crossing our borders, looking to do harm to the United States. The threat that we face from those wishing to come here illegally is much greater than we threat we face from a country like Iran or North Korea. I support bringing our troops home and putting them along our borders and coastlines. I think the size of the military should be roughly the same size as it is now, but they should be used for our own defense rather than for foreign intervention. We would be spending less money under this plan, but the number wouldn't be nearly as low as 225 billion. Like I said, it makes no sense to practically abolish the one federal department that has a clear Constitutional basis. Now, do we need to look for cuts in every budget? Absolutely. The budget that I proposed contains over 100 billion in cuts from the Pentagon's budget. But we have to be more careful about cutting defense spending since it's a vital Constitutional role that the federal government has. Spending a little bit of money on defense would be much cheaper than living under the rule of the Chinese where we would probably have about a 5 trillion dollar budget.

Brett85

07-26-2011, 12:28 PM

Do we really need to have $225 Billion stolen from us just so it can be spent on something that makes us less safe?

I need to address this point as well. The federal government has enough money coming in to fund a military without having an income tax. I believe the federal government would still bring in well over 1 trillion dollars a year without even having an income tax. This is more than enough revenue to fund a Constitutional government.

erowe1

07-26-2011, 01:15 PM

I need to address this point as well. The federal government has enough money coming in to fund a military without having an income tax. I believe the federal government would still bring in well over 1 trillion dollars a year without even having an income tax. This is more than enough revenue to fund a Constitutional government.

Yes it is more than enough. Far more than enough. Am I right to assume that that trillion dollars still includes money from payroll taxes, capital gains taxes, estate taxes, gift taxes, tariffs, and corporate income taxes? Are all those taxes just supposed to be ok or something?

And I still don't see why you think $225 Billion is too little to spend on the military. Back when the the federal government did still have some scruples about whether or not the things it did were constitutional, military spending was only 0.3 Billion (in 1900) (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_military_spending_30.html). Indexed to inflation that would come out to about 8 Billion today (http://www.minneapolisfed.org/community_education/teacher/calc/hist1800.cfm). Multiply by 4 to account for population growth since then (http://www.demographia.com/db-uspop1900.htm), and we're at $32 Billion. Let's say we had that as our current military budget, and let's say we had 100,000 dangerous people trying to cross our borders each year (I know, that's an unrealistically high number, I'm trying to be generous). Then the regime would have $320,000 to spend stopping each one of those dangerous people. Does it really need to cost more than that?

Seraphim

07-26-2011, 01:20 PM

I'm inclined to agree.

I'm in favor of the same military spending cuts as Ron is. I'm in favor of ending all this foreign intervention. I support ending the wars, closing down foreign military bases, and ending foreign aid. But even all these cuts would only total about 33% of the defense budget. Ron has never advocated any cuts that would bring the defense budget all the way down to 225 billion. Rand has said in speeches that in his theoretical budget, defense spending would make up about 70-80% of the overall budget. National defense is obviously the most important thing the federal government does. We simply need to make sure the defense budget is spent on legitimate defense here at home and not on all of the foreign intervention that we have right now.

Cutlerzzz

07-26-2011, 03:44 PM

Yes. You just about abolished the one Constitutional department we have (defense,) while not even touching unconstitutional entitlement programs. That's the kind of left wing stuff that I keep talking about. Yes, we can save a lot of money by ending the wars and foreign military bases. But at least some of that money should be re-invested in legitimate defense spending here at home. Ron has talked about how we would have "a lot more defense" if we quit all this foreign intervention.

I suggest looking at the actual defense budget or Paul's statements. Ending the wars and brining all of the troops home would cut the defense budget by 400 billion dollars, down to 279 billion. You're the left winger trying to defend a huge government and overseas bases.

Cutlerzzz

07-26-2011, 03:47 PM

Here's my theoretical budget for 2012:

Social Security: $0. Abolish the program, and then give everybody a one time refund check to make sure that they are re-imbursed for the money they've paid in.

That is impossible. To give everyone what they paid in, you would need 100+ trillion dollars. The entire world could not finance this. It destroys your entire proposed budget.

My budget would be 400 billion less than what was presented by Cutlerzzz
No, it would be the largest budget in the history of the world.

kahless

07-26-2011, 04:26 PM

That is impossible. To give everyone what they paid in, you would need 100+ trillion dollars. The entire world could not finance this. It destroys your entire proposed budget.

No, it would be the largest budget in the history of the world.

People continue to live in a fantasy world that if they give up SS and what they paid in that some how going forward government will do the right thing as far as the budget and spending. If you give up this money it will only make it easier for them to spend on nation building and other pet federal departments-spending. Stagger the payback payments

Brett85

07-26-2011, 04:36 PM

I suggest looking at the actual defense budget or Paul's statements. Ending the wars and brining all of the troops home would cut the defense budget by 400 billion dollars, down to 279 billion. You're the left winger trying to defend a huge government and overseas bases.

I was tired of posting in this thread and was going to leave it alone, but I can't let you blatantly lie like that. I absolutely support closing our overseas military bases. I've said that about a million times. Ron Paul has NEVER said that we should have a 279 billion defense budget. The defense budget doesn't even contain a lot of this overseas spending. A lot of the overseas spending is actually off budget. You could cut 400 billion of the overseas spending and you still wouldn't be cutting 400 billion of the defense budget. In order to get down to a 279 billion defense budget, you would likely have to abolish the entire army and possibly the air force. Ron Paul has never supported such ridiculous and drastic cuts. He's not an anarchist.

Brett85

07-26-2011, 04:40 PM

That is impossible. To give everyone what they paid in, you would need 100+ trillion dollars. The entire world could not finance this. It destroys your entire proposed budget.

I'll have to look at that more closely. I know that the founder of the Libertarian Party supported a Social Security plan similar to the one I presented. I'll have to do some research on that particular plan.

erowe1

07-26-2011, 04:41 PM

erowe1

07-26-2011, 04:46 PM

People continue to live in a fantasy world that if they give up SS and what they paid in that some how going forward government will do the right thing as far as the budget and spending. If you give up this money it will only make it easier for them to spend on nation building and other pet federal departments-spending. Stagger the payback payments

Why do you keep saying it like that? "Give up this money"? The taxes you paid you already gave up. They already spent it on the previous generation that wouldn't tolerate cuts to SS. If you want them to give you my money, then they have to steal it from me to do that. There's no other way. And no sophistry will change that. The less they spend on everything, including SS, the less they steal.

Brett85

07-26-2011, 04:49 PM

Yes it is more than enough. Far more than enough. Am I right to assume that that trillion dollars still includes money from payroll taxes, capital gains taxes, estate taxes, gift taxes, tariffs, and corporate income taxes? Are all those taxes just supposed to be ok or something?

And I still don't see why you think $225 Billion is too little to spend on the military. Back when the the federal government did still have some scruples about whether or not the things it did were constitutional, military spending was only 0.3 Billion (in 1900) (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_military_spending_30.html). Indexed to inflation that would come out to about 8 Billion today (http://www.minneapolisfed.org/community_education/teacher/calc/hist1800.cfm). Multiply by 4 to account for population growth since then (http://www.demographia.com/db-uspop1900.htm), and we're at $32 Billion. Let's say we had that as our current military budget, and let's say we had 100,000 dangerous people trying to cross our borders each year (I know, that's an unrealistically high number, I'm trying to be generous). Then the regime would have $320,000 to spend stopping each one of those dangerous people. Does it really need to cost more than that?

I would abolish all the taxes you mentioned and just institute a very small sales tax. At least with a sales tax, people would get to choose how much they pay in taxes. I don't consider that to be a direct tax like the income tax.

Unfortunately, we live in a much more dangerous world than we did in 1900. Many individuals and countries around the world simply hate us. You may say that that's a result of our interventionist foreign policy, and you may be right about that. That's one of many reasons why we need to return to a non interventionist foreign policy. But the damage has already been done. We have to be ready to defend ourselves against those who despise us. But I think it's important to have a strong army for several reasons, not simply to keep bad people out of the country. For one thing, it's a deterrent against other countries and bad individuals who want to attack us. If we have a strong national defense here at home with a powerful army, other countries and individuals will be scared to death of attacking us. If we start abolishing our defenses and make it clear to the world that the United States is determined to become much weaker militarily, that will simply invite those who hate us to take advantage of our stupidity. Ultimately, spending a little bit of money defending ourselves is better than living under the rule of the Chinese and having no liberty at all. Liberty is something that must be defended. Liberty does not come free.

erowe1

07-26-2011, 04:50 PM

erowe1

07-26-2011, 04:54 PM

Ultimately, spending a little bit of money defending ourselves is better than living under the rule of the Chinese and having no liberty at all.

How would "the Chinese" rule over us? And why in the world would they want to? The regime in Beijing has enough trouble trying to rule over the people of China, never mind trying to rule over 300 million heavily armed people on the other side of the world who haven't been indoctrinated over their whole lives to believe that the rule of that regime over them is in any way legitimate. I can't fathom any possible way that would be advantageous for China or anyone else, no matter how small the regime in DC's military is.

The irony of your response is that having America occupied by a military force controlled by people who rule over us without our consent is precisely what your own proposal is.

Cutlerzzz

07-26-2011, 04:55 PM

I was tired of posting in this thread and was going to leave it alone, but I can't let you blatantly lie like that. I absolutely support closing our overseas military bases. I've said that about a million times. Ron Paul has NEVER said that we should have a 279 billion defense budget. The defense budget doesn't even contain a lot of this overseas spending. A lot of the overseas spending is actually off budget. You could cut 400 billion of the overseas spending and you still wouldn't be cutting 400 billion of the defense budget. In order to get down to a 279 billion defense budget, you would likely have to abolish the entire army and possibly the air force. Ron Paul has never supported such ridiculous and drastic cuts. He's not an anarchist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

Most of the numbers are right there and cited.

The wars direct cost is nearly 200 billion.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/how-much-do-the-wars-cost/2011/04/13/AFP9Q76E_blog.html

Overseas bases cost just as much.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/global/100930/US-military-kadena-guantanamo-manas-incirlik

The defense department is known for being the most wastefull department out there, with stories of a trillion dollars going missing. Create more transparency.

Adding those together takes you well over 400 billion. Do you have ANY statistics at all, or are you just going to post emotion laden nonsense for another 20 pages? Don't accuse me of lying when you have no numbers and base everything off emotion.

Cutlerzzz

07-26-2011, 05:00 PM

So if he supported cutting the cost of the regime's military down from 6 times the size of the next most expensive military in the world to merely twice the size, that would make him an anarchist?

Again, what in the world could they possibly need as much as $225 Billion for?

I'd prefer something closer to $150 billion, and to fund it voluntarily. But the point is to show that we can keep a huge Department of Defense, SS(make it voluntary), and Medicare(make it voluntary) on our budget.

Brett85

07-26-2011, 05:00 PM

So if he supported cutting the cost of the regime's military down from 6 times the size of the next most expensive military in the world to merely twice the size, that would make him an anarchist?

We have a far higher GDP than most other countries around the world, so saying that we spend 6 times more on military spending than any other country is very misleading. To get a better gauge of how much we spend on defense compared to other countries, you need to look at the % of GDP that we spend on defense and compare that to other countries. If you go by that measurement, there are 8 other countries that spend a greater % of their GDP on defense than we do. Most countries are right in line with the percentage that we spend, which is 4.7%. According to this graph our military spending is close to average. But just to make clear once again, I support cutting the military budget fairly significantly by ending ALL the wars and closing ALL of our foreign military bases. I'm just not in favor of making huge cuts to legitimate, Constitutional defense spending here at home.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

erowe1

07-26-2011, 05:02 PM

The defense department is known for being the most wastefull department out there, with stories of a trillion dollars going missing. Create more transparency.

That's a good point too. So much of the equipment they buy is not what the Pentagon even requests, but just some way for a legislator to bring business to their district. The same goes for base closings. Bases on American soil aren't where they are for defensive reasons. They're pork.

That said, of all the money the military spends, its pork is probably the least harmful.

Brett85

07-26-2011, 05:02 PM

Also--I know it happens reflexively, and most people say it this way, but--notice how you keep speaking about the regime's military in the first person. "We need a military," "our bases," and so on. That military and those bases are anything but ours.

That's because I'm not an anarchist. I don't call our government a "regime." I support Constitutionally limited government, but I don't hate the government.

erowe1

07-26-2011, 05:04 PM

To get a better gauge of how much we spend on defense compared to other countries, you need to look at the % of GDP that we spend on defense and compare that to other countries.

Why?

Having a higher GDP isn't a valid excuse for the regime to say it needs more of our money. Having a higher GDP ought to mean that we should be able to get by with having a lower percentage of it stolen to pay for the same amount of government.

erowe1

07-26-2011, 05:05 PM

That's because I'm not an anarchist. I don't call our government a "regime." I support Constitutionally limited government, but I don't hate the government.

Are there any governments out there that you do consider regimes? And if there are, aren't those governments also "constitutionally limited"?

How you view any government (and it doesn't have to be about love or hate) should be based on how it conforms to natural law, not how it conforms to some charter that its own agents composed.

Edit: By the way, Rush Limbaugh isn't an anarchist, and he also calls them "the regime." Granted, he only does that when there's a Democrat president. But if he were consistent he'd do it for the Republicans too.

Brett85

07-26-2011, 05:05 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

Most of the numbers are right there and cited.

The wars direct cost is nearly 200 billion.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/how-much-do-the-wars-cost/2011/04/13/AFP9Q76E_blog.html

Overseas bases cost just as much.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/global/100930/US-military-kadena-guantanamo-manas-incirlik

The defense department is known for being the most wastefull department out there, with stories of a trillion dollars going missing. Create more transparency.

Adding those together takes you well over 400 billion. Do you have ANY statistics at all, or are you just going to post emotion laden nonsense for another 20 pages? Don't accuse me of lying when you have no numbers and base everything off emotion.

A lot of the overseas expense is paying the salary for our soldiers. I wouldn't abolish that, even if we brought our troops home. I wouldn't tell all of our overseas troops, "we're bringing you home, and you're now out of a job." I would use our military to defend our own country. In order to do that, we would have to have much higher than a 225 billion defense budget. Ron has never said anything about bringing our troops home and then telling them that they're out of a job. Ron has specifically said in debates that he would bring our troops home and use them to defend our own borders and our own country. I have the EXACT same position as Ron on this issue. There's absolutely no difference at all.

Brett85

07-26-2011, 05:08 PM

Are there any governments out there that you do consider regimes? And if there are, aren't those governments also "constitutionally limited"?

Iran and North Korea probably are, though I don't support pre-emptive war against those countries. But those are actually countries that deny all forms of freedom to their people. If you're going to complain about having a "regime," try living in Iran and North Korea where people are executed simply for practicing their preferred religion.

erowe1

07-26-2011, 05:08 PM

Iran and North Korea probably are, though I don't support pre-emptive war against those countries. But those are actually countries that deny all forms of freedom to their people. If you're going to complain about having a "regime," try living in Iran and North Korea where people are executed simply for practicing their preferred religion.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the governments of Iran and North Korea "constitutionally limited"?

Brett85

07-26-2011, 05:11 PM

Why?

Having a higher GDP isn't a valid excuse for the regime to say it needs more of our money. Having a higher GDP ought to mean that we should be able to get by with having a lower percentage of it stolen to pay for the same amount of government.

As I said before, liberty isn't something that we can just assume we'll always have. It's not free, and it's something that must be defended. Ayn Rand herself advocated having a strong military and a strong national defense, so I'm about as much of a "statist" as she was.

Brett85

07-26-2011, 05:12 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the governments of Iran and North Korea "constitutionally limited"?

No. Those governments have no limits at all. They're free to rule over their people and do what they want at will. They don't have a Constitutional republic.

Cutlerzzz

07-26-2011, 05:12 PM

A lot of the overseas expense is paying the salary for our soldiers. I wouldn't abolish that, even if we brought our troops home. I wouldn't tell all of our overseas troops, "we're bringing you home, and you're now out of a job." I would use our military to defend our own country. In order to do that, we would have to have much higher than a 225 billion defense budget. Ron has never said anything about bringing our troops home and then telling them that they're out of a job. Ron has specifically said in debates that he would bring our troops home and use them to defend our own borders and our own country. I have the EXACT same position as Ron on this issue. There's absolutely no difference at all.

You've argued in favor of overseas bases in this thread. You don't have the same position as Ron. Military salaries would also fall under "military personal".

Do you want the Navy and Air Force sitting our all day getting paid? Or would they spend all of their time watching the border as well somehow?

Cutlerzzz

07-26-2011, 05:13 PM

No. Those governments have no limits at all. They're free to rule over their people and do what they want at will. They don't have a Constitutional republic.

Iran is a Constitutional Republic with checks and balances.

erowe1

07-26-2011, 05:14 PM

As I said before, liberty isn't something that we can just assume we'll always have. It's not free, and it's something that must be defended. Ayn Rand herself advocated having a strong military and a strong national defense, so I'm about as much of a "statist" as she was.

I haven't called you a statist or anything else.

But your answer doesn't answer my question. What's the relationship between having a larger GDP and having to spend more on the regime's military?

Wouldn't it be better for them to spend the same amount on the military as the GDP grew, and then you and I could spend the extra money we have on more guns and gear for ourselves, rather than sending it to Washington.

erowe1

07-26-2011, 05:16 PM

No. Those governments have no limits at all. They're free to rule over their people and do what they want at will. They don't have a Constitutional republic.

Well now wait one second. Earlier you didn't say "constitutional republic," you said "constitutionally limited." We don't have a republic either. Granted, in order to keep us from questioning their authority, the regime insists that they are a republic. But that's the case in the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Democratic People's Republic of [North] Korea too.

Brett85

07-26-2011, 05:18 PM

The irony of your response is that having America occupied by a military force controlled by people who rule over us without our consent is precisely what your own proposal is.

...Never mind. I didn't like the way that sounded.

Brett85

07-26-2011, 05:20 PM

You've argued in favor of overseas bases in this thread.

Quit lying. You're just embarrasing yourself now. You should honestly ask forgiveness to God for lying about my positions.

Brett85

07-26-2011, 05:26 PM

I haven't called you a statist or anything else.

But your answer doesn't answer my question. What's the relationship between having a larger GDP and having to spend more on the regime's military?

Wouldn't it be better for them to spend the same amount on the military as the GDP grew, and then you and I could spend the extra money we have on more guns and gear for ourselves, rather than sending it to Washington.

I know you didn't call me a statist. I was referring to other people. I support the 2nd amendment, but I don't think Americans can assume the entire role of protecting America. Are you going to advocate that Americans should own bombs to defend ourselves? Or even nuclear weapons? The one legitimate role that the federal government has is national defense. It takes a government to defend a country, not simply individual people. The comparison to GDP is more valid, because it shows the actual percentage of the economy that other countries spend on defense. For example, Eritrea spends an average of 20.9% of their GDP on defense. If they actually had the same size economy as we did, they would be spending four times as much on defense as we do. They would be spending well over 2 trillion dollars just on defense.

erowe1

07-26-2011, 05:28 PM

Are you simply an anarchist? That's certainly what it seems like.
I don't think so. But it might depend on your definition. I certainly don't support anyone's right to rule over other people by conquest. Whatever powers any government can ever justly have can only be those it derives from the consent of the governed. This, of course, would exclude them from having the right of telling me that they have this way they want to protect me and I have to pay for it whether I want the product or not.

If you're somebody who's a Christian, the Bible clearly says that the government is something that was established by God. So saying that the government is a "regime" that doesn't have the right to defend us is anti biblical along with being simply ridiculous. We can argue about what the size of government should be, and I'm in favor of having a much smaller government. I would abolish about 70-80% of the federal government and have an annual budget of less than 1 trillion dollars. I would be considered a hardcore libertarian to the average American. But I'm not one of these people who believe that the government is an evil "regime" that has no role at all.

Romans 13:1: Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

I am a Christian. The issue of the biblical teaching about the state has over the past couple of years become a major interest of mine. I don't understand Romans 13 the way you do. It would probably warrant another thread. But as I understand it, when Paul speaks of the rulers (by which term he includes those of North Korea and Iran) being ordained by God, or God's servants, he is talking about how God uses them to perform his will on earth, including in their sins. The Bible is full of examples of God using evil tyrants to perform some action on earth. In fact, there is only one example in the book of Romans where Paul himself mentions a specific ruler whom God raised up for the purpose of doing his will on earth, and that ruler was Pharaoh (Romans 9), who served God by refusing to let the Israelites go, which God brought about by hardening Pharaoh's heart. And then God punished Pharaoh for that evil that he did when he was being God's "servant."

There is no place in Scripture that ordains some double standard whereby there exists some special sub-group of people (the state) who have the right to do things, such that if we did them they would be sin (such as theft, murder, and kidnapping), but when they do them they aren't. In fact, this principle that the same law applies to kings that applies to common people is a theme of the Bible, and is something that distinguishes the law of Moses from that of other ancient near eastern nations.

Cutlerzzz

07-26-2011, 05:32 PM

Quit lying. You're just embarrasing yourself now. You should honestly ask forgiveness to God for lying about my positions.

I apologize for misreading post #184. I misread that statement and you called for the shutdown of all, not some bases.

Are you going to apologize for accusing me of lying about those defense numbers that I have proven with statistics?

Brett85

07-26-2011, 05:32 PM

I don't think so. But it might depend on your definition. I certainly don't support anyone's right to rule over other people by conquest. Whatever powers any government can ever justly have can only be those it derives from the consent of the governed. This, of course, would exclude them from having the right of telling me that they have this way they want to protect me and I have to pay for it whether I want the product or not.

I am a Christian. The issue of the biblical teaching about the state has over the past couple of years become a major interest of mine. I don't understand Romans 13 the way you do. It would probably warrant another thread. But as I understand it, when Paul speaks of the rulers (by which term he includes those of North Kore and Iran) being ordained by God, or God's servants, he is talking about how God uses them to perform his will on earth, including in their sins. The Bible is full of examples of God using evil tyrants to perform some action on earth. In fact, there is only one example in the book of Romans where Paul himself mentions a specific ruler whom God raised up for the purpose of doing his will on earth, and that ruler was Pharaoh (Romans 9), who served God by refusing to let the Israelites go, which God brought about by hardening Pharaoh's heart. And then God punished Pharaoh for that evil that he did when he was being God's "servant."

There is no place in Scripture that ordains some double standard whereby there exists some special sub-group of people (the state) who have the right to do things, such that if we did them they would be sin (such as theft, murder, and kidnapping), but when they do them they aren't. In fact, this principle that the same law applies to kings that applies to common people is a theme of the Bible, and is something that distinguishes the law of Moses from that of other ancient near eastern nations.

I guess you copied my post before I decided to delete it. I just didn't want it to sound like I was questioning your faith or anything. I'm glad to hear that you're a Christian. I appreciate your perspective on the meaning of that verse.

erowe1

07-26-2011, 05:32 PM

Are you going to advocate that Americans should own bombs to defend ourselves? Or even nuclear weapons?

I don't really advocate owning those things. But the things that make those a bad idea for me to own them (such as that they have a tendency to kill innocent people, and cannot be reliably used against a limited target) also make them a bad idea for the state to own them. I do think that it is our right to own those things, and that the second amendment would be impotent if it didn't refer to our right to own any weapons that the state that subjugates us itself owns. But, frankly, if the state didn't have those things, I don't think I'd have any use for them, and there would be tons of reasons for me not to try, reasons that far outweigh the present disincentive of their merely being illegal.

erowe1

07-26-2011, 05:33 PM

I guess you copied my post before I decided to delete it. I just didn't want it to sound like I was questioning your faith or anything. I'm glad to hear that you're a Christian. I appreciate your perspective on the meaning of that verse.

I didn't take it that way, and I'm always glad to enter a discussion to put my convictions to the test with the Bible.

Brett85

07-26-2011, 05:37 PM

I apologize for misreading post #184. I misread that statement and you called for the shutdown of all, not some bases.

Are you going to apologize for accusing me of lying about those defense numbers that I have proven with statistics?

Sorry that this thread has become so heated. Sometimes that happens in these arguments. I apologize for calling you a liar. I would have to look at the numbers a bit more closely, but I'm still not sure if you could get to a 225 billion dollar defense budget without reducing the size of the military fairly substantially. I guess I or somebody else would have to actually ask Ron what he thinks the annual defense budget should be. It would be interesting to see what he would say on that. The bottom line is that we at least all agree that we should end the wars, close down all the foreign military bases, and end foreign aid. So we at least have that in common.

Cutlerzzz

07-26-2011, 05:39 PM

Sorry that this thread has become so heated. Sometimes that happens in these arguments. I apologize for calling you a liar. I would have to look at the numbers a bit more closely, but I'm still not sure if you could get to a 225 billion dollar defense budget without reducing the size of the military fairly substantially. I guess I or somebody else would have to actually ask Ron what he thinks the annual defense budget should be. It would be interesting to see what he would say on that. The bottom line is that we at least all agree that we should end the wars, close down all the foreign military bases, and end foreign aid. So we at least have that in common.

That's the most important part.

Feeding the Abscess

07-26-2011, 06:14 PM

Brett85

07-26-2011, 07:50 PM

Ron has said in interviews that he'd like to cut our foreign policy by 75%, and this was four years ago, when it hit $1 trillion yearly. I'll try to find the interview(s) in which he said it, some of which contain 75%, others say $250 billion.

I'd basically like to end our foreign policy spending all together, but my point all along has been that I'd focus on cutting the foreign spending rather than the domestic defense spending.

Feeding the Abscess

07-26-2011, 08:17 PM

I'd basically like to end our foreign policy spending all together, but my point all along has been that I'd focus on cutting the foreign spending rather than the domestic defense spending.

He said the defense budget would be 75% less than what it is, in the context of a trillion dollar foreign policy, threw out $250 billion as an appropriate level of spending. Not sure I worded it very clearly in my last post. Still looking for the video, might be a while before I find it.

TheBlackPeterSchiff

07-26-2011, 08:50 PM

I love this interview. Watched it thrice.

kahless

07-26-2011, 11:15 PM

Why do you keep saying it like that? "Give up this money"? The taxes you paid you already gave up. They already spent it on the previous generation that wouldn't tolerate cuts to SS. If you want them to give you my money, then they have to steal it from me to do that. There's no other way. And no sophistry will change that. The less they spend on everything, including SS, the less they steal.

That is not going to happen. They are going to continue stealing and spending. They will be stealing more of your money to spend and bailout everyone and everything else in this world but you. It is therefore foolish for the average American to relinquish any claim to the money they put into social security.

erowe1

07-27-2011, 06:36 AM

They are going to continue stealing and spending.

I don't doubt that. But the less they spend, the less they steal. Cutting federal spending is always good, no matter what's getting cut. The deeper and the faster the cuts the better.

kahless

07-27-2011, 07:12 AM

I don't doubt that. But the less they spend, the less they steal. Cutting federal spending is always good, no matter what's getting cut. The deeper and the faster the cuts the better.

That is a fantasy, it is not going to happen. Even if they spend less temporarily they will eventually increase spending and/or continue stealing more of your money to bailout everything and everyone but you. Holding the line on social security will force them to cut everywhere else while possibly allowing you to get back some of that stolen money instead of it being wasted on other federal departments, bailouts or nation building.

erowe1

07-27-2011, 08:07 AM

That is a fantasy, it is not going to happen. Even if they spend less temporarily they will eventually increase spending and/or continue stealing more of your money to bailout everything and everyone but you. Holding the line on social security will force them to cut everywhere else while possibly allowing you to get back some of that stolen money instead of it being wasted on other federal departments, bailouts or nation building.

I'm not sure what exactly you're debating.

The question is, would cuts to SS and Medicare be good or bad? Whether or not they are likely to happen is irrelevant.

The answer to the question is that cuts to SS and Medicare (like everything else in the federal budget) would be a good thing, and the deeper and the faster they happened, the better they would be.

The impression I'm getting is that you keep shifting to the issue of what will or won't happen because you don't want to concede that cuts would actually be good.

kahless

07-27-2011, 08:47 AM

The question is, would cuts to SS and Medicare be good or bad? Whether or not they are likely to happen is irrelevant.

Maybe you can relate to this answer better.

It is bad since you will lose any chance you have in getting your stolen money back. You are basically telling the thief to keep what he has stolen from you and to spend it to pay off others rather than pay you back. If he says he already spent it, you are saying that is okay and to go ahead please steal from me more so you can pay back everyone else but me.

You some how believe the thief will steal less from you in the future since they will use the ill gotten gains to pay off their other debts. But we are talking about a thief here, it is his nature to steal from you and spend on himself.

erowe1

07-27-2011, 10:37 AM

Maybe you can relate to this answer better.

It is bad since you will lose any chance you have in getting your stolen money back. You are basically telling the thief to keep what he has stolen from you and to spend it to pay off others rather than pay you back. If he says he already spent it, you are saying that is okay and to go ahead please steal from me more so you can pay back everyone else but me.

You some how believe the thief will steal less from you in the future since they will use the ill gotten gains to pay off their other debts. But we are talking about a thief here, it is his nature to steal from you and spend on himself.

The problem is, when you frame it that way, you just propagate a myth. As Drake stated above, you're not entitled to your own facts. There is no question of anybody getting their own money back. The question is only whether the government should continue to redistribute wealth to the same unsustainable degree it now does, or it should decrease or stop doing it. I'm for decreasing or stopping it, and the sooner the better. Doing this means paying out less money, the sooner the better.

kahless

07-27-2011, 12:10 PM

The problem is, when you frame it that way, you just propagate a myth. As Drake stated above, you're not entitled to your own facts. There is no question of anybody getting their own money back. The question is only whether the government should continue to redistribute wealth to the same unsustainable degree it now does, or it should decrease or stop doing it. I'm for decreasing or stopping it, and the sooner the better. Doing this means paying out less money, the sooner the better.

I agree it should be decreased or stopped, but SS/Medicare should be last. But that belief is not based in the current political reality that we live in.

They are going to continue to re-distribute your wealth to other countries, the military industrial complex and the global elite. While those with your belief are going to allow yourself to be swindled out of social security money you gave them since you have a fairy tale belief they will actually stop or decrease wealth re-distribution in the manner I described.

A transition to privatization is going to take decades and in the mean time these programs are going to have to be funded. That is only if we are lucky enough to make inroads in Congress and have a Ron Paul presidency or someone similar.

Zippyjuan

07-28-2011, 11:35 AM

And that's if you don't let current workers opt out of SS and Medicare. If you do let them opt out, then immediate cuts in them become all the more necessary.

Allowing people to opt out will increase the deficit. One- you lose revenues from those people. That means less money coming in to pay for the program. Two- expenses are rising (unless things change) with the pending retirement of the Baby Boomers- the numbers of people on Social Security will continue to rise for many years. Higher expenses coupled with lower revenues means that you have a bigger deficit and if you want to balance your budget you have to either cut even more elsewhere or raise even more taxes.

erowe1

07-28-2011, 11:53 AM

Allowing people to opt out will increase the deficit.

Isn't that exactly what I said?

Zippyjuan

07-28-2011, 12:21 PM

I believe that is correct. Just supporting it.

Brett85

07-28-2011, 01:58 PM

Allowing people to opt out will increase the deficit. One- you lose revenues from those people. That means less money coming in to pay for the program. Two- expenses are rising (unless things change) with the pending retirement of the Baby Boomers- the numbers of people on Social Security will continue to rise for many years. Higher expenses coupled with lower revenues means that you have a bigger deficit and if you want to balance your budget you have to either cut even more elsewhere or raise even more taxes.

Yes, exactly. Allowing people to opt out without cutting benefits will just make Social Security even more insolvent. That's why I really don't agree with Ron's plan. It doesn't seem like he's actually thought about how the math would work.

sailingaway

07-28-2011, 02:07 PM

Yes, exactly. Allowing people to opt out without cutting benefits will just make Social Security even more insolvent. That's why I really don't agree with Ron's plan. It doesn't seem like he's actually thought about how the math would work.

He would cut elsewhere and get out of it in a generation altogether, not cut this before the other bad spending.

sailingaway

07-28-2011, 02:07 PM

sailingaway

07-28-2011, 02:07 PM

Zippyjuan

07-28-2011, 04:21 PM

You can't cut enough elsewhere without raising taxes and get a balanced budget- let alone allow for people to opt out of Social Security. The deficit is about $1.4 trillion and that is the total amount of discressionary spending- what you can cut. It is impossible to do.

Discretionary spending: $1.378 trillion (+13.8%)

$663.7 billion (+12.7%) – Department of Defense (including Overseas Contingency Operations)
$78.7 billion (−1.7%) – Department of Health and Human Services
$72.5 billion (+2.8%) – Department of Transportation
$52.5 billion (+10.3%) – Department of Veterans Affairs
$51.7 billion (+40.9%) – Department of State and Other International Programs
$47.5 billion (+18.5%) – Department of Housing and Urban Development
$46.7 billion (+12.8%) – Department of Education
$42.7 billion (+1.2%) – Department of Homeland Security
$26.3 billion (−0.4%) – Department of Energy
$26.0 billion (+8.8%) – Department of Agriculture
$23.9 billion (−6.3%) – Department of Justice
$18.7 billion (+5.1%) – National Aeronautics and Space Administration
$13.8 billion (+48.4%) – Department of Commerce
$13.3 billion (+4.7%) – Department of Labor
$13.3 billion (+4.7%) – Department of the Treasury
$12.0 billion (+6.2%) – Department of the Interior
$10.5 billion (+34.6%) – Environmental Protection Agency
$9.7 billion (+10.2%) – Social Security Administration
$7.0 billion (+1.4%) – National Science Foundation
$5.1 billion (−3.8%) – Corps of Engineers
$5.0 billion (+100%-NA) – National Infrastructure Bank
$1.1 billion (+22.2%) – Corporation for National and Community Service
$0.7 billion (0.0%) – Small Business Administration
$0.6 billion (−14.3%) – General Services Administration
$0 billion (−100%-NA) – Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)
$0 billion (−100%-NA) – Financial stabilization efforts
$11 billion (+275%-NA) – Potential disaster costs
$19.8 billion (+3.7%) – Other Agencies
$105 billion – Other

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget

Cutlerzzz

07-28-2011, 04:24 PM

It's already been shown in this topic how you can get a surplus without immediate cuts to SS or Medicare or raising taxes.

sailingaway

07-28-2011, 04:24 PM

Unless you can raise revenues by repatriating that trillion Ron thinks is not being repatriated because it would be taxed on repatriation, etc. Removing barriers. If you can up revenues by reducing the burden to business the deficit also goes down. But I don't think Ron will e able to entirely leave anything untouched, he just thinks when people have actually under force paid in for a committment, those bonds should not be the first to be declared unpayable. I agree with him. Also, this puts a HUGE pressure on reducing empire since it is underlined as a directly competing expense.

sailingaway

07-28-2011, 04:27 PM

Brett85

07-28-2011, 04:31 PM

It's already been shown in this topic how you can get a surplus without immediate cuts to SS or Medicare or raising taxes.

Yes, but his point was that you wouldn't have a surplus if you allowed younger people to opt out of Social Security. The program would lose a ton of revenue since a large number of people would no longer be paying in.

erowe1

07-28-2011, 04:39 PM

It's already been shown in this topic how you can get a surplus without immediate cuts to SS or Medicare or raising taxes.

It's been shown how you can do that, while still letting people opt out of paying into SS and Medicare now?

What post shows that?

YumYum

07-28-2011, 04:40 PM

I'm wondering if I should split this thread it two. My fond hope when I started it was to essentially have a 'marketing piece to voters' explaining Ron's views given how he is demonized as 'wanting to get rid of social security' not 'phase it out for the young while prioritizing its payments for the older who paid in'. It has turned into a thread on 'should we get rid of social security immediately' which doesn't have the marketing to new voter appeal I was hoping for......:(

Most discussions go from what is "real" and what will "work" in our society, to some unobtainable fantasy world of Libertarianism. It makes for fun discussion to mentally masturbate (dreaming of no government where everybody loves one another); I have enjoyed the debates that members have had on this forum arguing about the feasibility of such a state of Utopia, but in the real world, we are not going to "get rid of Social Security immediately." Ron Paul knows this, and gives logical solutions to the problems of "too much government".

Zippyjuan

07-28-2011, 04:44 PM

It's been shown how you can do that, while still letting people opt out of paying into SS and Medicare now?

What post shows that?

Somebody suggested getting rid of everything in government except basically interest on the debt, some military and Social Security/ Medicare. It included getting rid of

$571 billion (+58.6%) – Unemployment/Welfare/Other mandatory spending

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget

Mandatory spending: $2.173 trillion (+14.9%)

$695 billion (+4.9%) – Social Security
$571 billion (+58.6%) – Unemployment/Welfare/Other mandatory spending
$453 billion (+6.6%) – Medicare
$290 billion (+12.0%) – Medicaid
$164 billion (+18.0%) – Interest on National Debt

Doing all that would be politically harder than reducing Social Security would be.

Cutlerzzz

07-28-2011, 04:45 PM

My post created a 550 billion dollar surplus. All payroll tax revenue combined makes up about 806 billion dollars. So unless nearly 75% of the population chooses to opt out, there is a surplus.

erowe1

07-28-2011, 04:50 PM

Somebody suggested getting rid of everything in government except basically interest on the debt, some military and Social Security/ Medicare. It included getting rid of

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget

Doing all that would be politically harder than reducing Social Security would be.

Interesting. Why not cut out paying interest on the debt too? Frankly, that ought to be one of the first things to go.

Zippyjuan

07-28-2011, 04:54 PM

My post created a 550 billion dollar surplus. All payroll tax revenue combined makes up about 806 billion dollars. So unless nearly 75% of the population chooses to opt out, there is a surplus.

His proposed budget:

Here is my budget proposal.

$695 billion (+4.9%) – Social Security(Allow the option to opt out)
$453 billion (+6.6%) – Medicare(Allow the option to opt out)
$164 billion (+18.0%) – Interest on National Debt
$225 billion – Department of Defense (End wars, overseas bases, create more transparency, make significant cuts to the Army and smaller cuts elsewhere)
$52.5 billion (+10.3%) – Department of Veterans Affairs
$23.9 billion (−6.3%) – Department of Justice(Ending the War on Drugs will lower this)
$13.3 billion (+4.7%) – Department of the Treasury

Total budget: 1,626,700,000,000.

Currently, Federal Revenue is at 2,173,700,000,000.

Surplus: 547,000,000,000.

Does anyone disagree with this?

Cutlerzzz

07-28-2011, 04:57 PM

Your point? That shows a large surplus.

Zippyjuan

07-28-2011, 05:09 PM

Cutlerzzz

07-28-2011, 05:18 PM

Right now cutting more than two trillion over ten years is impossible. I know that my plan cannot be politically implemented.

sailingaway

07-28-2011, 05:20 PM

Just providing the info for folks since you mentioned it again. It is politically impossible to get that to happen though. When you try to get rid of everything, you will have every special interest group tearing you apart. In theory, anything is possible. Reality is much more difficult.

Getting rid of social security is much more politically impossible. People paid in for that.

Right now cutting more than two trillion over ten years is impossible.

And that is $2 T from the INCREASE. Isn't that the truth.

I back Ron's priorities, but it is going to take major mobilization by the people to get DC to change its ways.

Cutlerzzz

07-28-2011, 05:25 PM

Getting rid of social security is much more politically impossible. People paid in for that.

And that is $2 T from the INCREASE. Isn't that the truth.

I back Ron's priorities, but it is going to take major mobilization by the people to get DC to change its ways.

Just imagine what will happen if interest rates spike(which they will to some extent) or unemployment stays low(which it will). That will more than cancel out two trillion dollars in cuts.

erowe1

07-28-2011, 05:27 PM

Right now cutting more than two trillion over ten years is impossible. I know that my plan cannot be politically implemented.

I like it. And if RP got elected, then it could be implemented. If they just stopped raising the debt ceiling, they'd have no choice but do do something as drastic as this. And at some point, debates about what's politically possible will be moot. Something really major is going to happen one way or another.

erowe1

07-28-2011, 05:44 PM

Getting rid of social security is much more politically impossible. People paid in for that.

We're not stuck with a choice of either get rid of it or keep spending every single bit as much as they now do. Raising the retirement age, instituting some means tests, changing the COLA formula, or just plain making an across-the-board 1% cut, should all be on the table. I also liked TC's suggestion of repealing Medicare D.

Those things might seem like hard sells, but when you're talking about cutting more than a Trillion dollars from the budget, you're just not going to do it without doing things at least that unpalatable to a lot of people or worse. There's no way around it. At some point RP will have to put out real numbers.

Another rhetorical move I've often thought they should consider is, instead of saying he wants to cut something, say he wants to voluntarize it. For example, he could propose a budget that sets military spending at $500 Billion less than what it is now, plus whatever extra amount taxpayers want to contribute of their own free will. There could be a box on the tax form for this. And the same could be done for everything else. Then RP could say, "I'm not cutting anything. I'm putting it in the taxpayers hands. If they want to keep paying they can. If they want to cut it, it's their money."

sailingaway

07-28-2011, 05:47 PM

erowe1

07-28-2011, 06:13 PM

There's a big difference between doing something that has to be done and targetting first those programs people did pay into when forced to, and relied on, while leaving the military industrial complex and the federal reserve interest payments alone, and using the cuts to the people to justify MORE special interest spending. Ron is just showing different priorities and saying no more debt, period. Economic realities are what they are in terms of changes, even within that.

The thing is, unless I misunderstand his position, RP wants to balance the budget immediately. That doesn't allow for choosing between entitlements and military and saying which one comes first. That requires cutting both right away, along with a bunch of other stuff.