PDA

View Full Version : Paul's plan: Sounds nice, but... [NH Union-Leader Editorial]




Schiff_FTW
10-18-2011, 10:59 PM
hxxp://www.unionleader.com/article/20111019/OPINION01/710199997



On Monday, presidential candidate Ron Paul released his plan for saving $1 trillion in federal spending over three years. In an interview with us on Monday afternoon, he provided some important insight into how he would go about shrinking the federal government.

Paul's plan eliminates five federal departments, cuts others, and ends America's participation in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We asked him to explain those decisions. For instance, he eliminates the Interior Department. We noted that few people might know what it does.

“People don't know about it, so why don't we get rid of it?” he said. “Some of these things we don't even know exist.”

But the National Park Service is in the Interior Department. Privatize Yellowstone? No, Paul said, he'd keep the parks. But his plan doesn't say that.

“The main purpose here is to emphasize the serious trouble we're in,” Paul said. He kept going back to that big-picture point whenever we pressed for details.

He said ending all foreign military deployments would boost the domestic economy because troops brought home would spend money here. But of course, many of them would no longer be employed.

Paul is right that the federal government needs actual shrinking. But his proposal is more of a political shot across the bow than a workable plan.

sailingaway
10-18-2011, 11:05 PM
Yeah, there is absolutely no substance to what they say. It should be rebutted thoughtfully.

gb13
10-18-2011, 11:37 PM
Idiots. Let's see how well the other plans work out when the friggin dollar collapses.

zHorns
10-18-2011, 11:38 PM
Let me sum up his argument.

"If we cut spending, who will cut the grass?"

1836
10-18-2011, 11:39 PM
Maybe the campaign could help clarify these kinds of concerns by clearing up where certain functions in the eliminated departments would go after these departments were eliminated.

pure
10-18-2011, 11:51 PM
And I quote, from Keynes v. Hayek Round II -

"Creating employment is a straight forward craft
when the nation’s at war and there’s a draft.
If every worker were staffed in the army and fleet
we’d have full employment and nothing to eat."

FSP-Rebel
10-19-2011, 12:03 AM
Why isn't blogger, So Avenger, dealing with the falsehoods on the mainstream outlets instead of us. I mean, we got backup but, wassup?

Keith and stuff
10-19-2011, 12:44 AM
Yeah, there is absolutely no substance to what they say. It should be rebutted thoughtfully.

I glad this editorial by the state wide paper in NH was brought to my attention.

Please do. You can comment :)

I may have :)

Blankstare
10-19-2011, 01:24 AM
Let me sum up his argument.

"If we cut spending, who will cut the grass?"

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO PICKS THE COTTON WHEN WE ABOLISH SLAVERY. SLAVERY IS IMMORAL.

hillertexas
10-19-2011, 07:02 AM
IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO PICKS THE COTTON WHEN WE ABOLISH SLAVERY. SLAVERY IS IMMORAL.

+rep

libertybrewcity
10-19-2011, 07:06 AM
Seems like a workable plan to me.

Bern
10-19-2011, 07:14 AM
It's more of a concrete spending cut plan than "hope and change" or anything the rest of the republican field has yet offered. (n)th level details are not so important during campaign season. No plan will pass Congress exactly as proposed. The big picture goals and first level details are appropriate for campaign season. $.02

S.Shorland
10-19-2011, 07:27 AM
Some people mentioned Yellowstone on a thread here.That's probably where they got the question from.Give it back to the state(s)? in which it resides.It's their land,let them make the money out of it.