Time to knock this Green off his horse: "The question Ron Paul doesn’t want to answer."

[archangel689]

I'm seriously tired of arguing with this person. It's someone else's turn.


http://www.facebook.com/mcamelyne
http://progressivecapitalism.wordpress.com/2011/10/26/the-question-ron-paul-doesnt-want-to-answer/

The question Ron Paul doesn’t want to answer.
October 26, 2011

Will Ron Paul cut social security? Ron Paul will cut social security and medicare by 30 – 40%. Candidate Ron Paul talks about restoring prosperity to America. He talks about how he is going to do away with the income tax, end capital gains taxes, end the death tax, and he is going to balance the budget. He is going to pay down the national debt, all with the prosperity that his administration will bring through less regulation and more corporate freedom. Now, it’s time to wake-up.

How is he going to do all this and walk on water? By cutting benefits to seniors. This is not a blog to scare seniors into voting for President Obama. These are just the hard cold facts. The current budget is $3.85 trillion a year. That’s a pretty big number but only $490 billion is non-defense discretionary spending. The government projects it will collect $1.2 trillion in personal income tax. The current projected deficit is $1.1 trillion, plus an additional $300 billion in interest expense if Ron Paul wins, remember sound money?

Let’s break it down: We need to find $2.6 trillion in cuts to balance the budget in a $3.85 trillion budget and we are not going to do away with defense entirely. This isn’t magic, these are the numbers. To make those cuts, President Ron Paul must cut social security and medicare significantly. So the Ron Paul economic plan is to balance the budget on the backs of seniors while giving a tax cut to the rich. Further, President Paul would end the minimum wage because it interferes with the right of companies and workers to negotiate a fair wage.

Maybe you like candidate Ron Paul for his honesty and integrity but if elected are you willing to accept tax cuts for the rich and 30-40% cuts in social security and medicare for the elderly. That’s the Ron Paul economic plan. Just say no.

It’s time we had a real economic plan. One that protected seniors, provided health care for all, and put the burden where it belongs on the wealthy. Support Americans Elect, support Mike Ballantine, 2012, the people’s President.

www.mikeballantine2012.org

[DamianTV]

Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.

Every one has heard that statement. Its quoted frequently enough. The funny thing about Entitlements and Socialism is that Failure becomes so Acceptable that it is the norm. Im not saying the cards arent stacked against us, they most definitely are, but when the Failure of our Government to maintain an Honest Money System becomes the working man's burden to afford all those who have failed before him, the working man sees no benefit in continuing to try to provide for himself and doesnt fail, he just gives up. Thus, Failure becomes the norm. No one has any incentive to even try to succeed when it is easier and more rewarding to Fail. Nobody tries. That is the difference between someone that has tried and failed, and those who have just flat out Quit. The person you're arguing Quit.

Sadly, I feel that I am at that same point. Just given up all hope that I will even be able to provide for myself. There is no work out there despite my qualifications and my skills. I am competing for jobs in this country which would cost a potential employer many times more than to simply outsource someone of my qualifications to someone else in a foreign country for a fraction of the cost. I cant compete with Inflation, I cant negotiate a lower cost for any product that I want, usually food, and Corporations do not negotiate on the prices they set. I dont qualify for any Entitlements. I am not eligible for any Benefits. I will never collect one dime of the money taken out of my paychecks earlier in my life for Social(ist) (In)Security, as someone else has decreed that there are those out there more deserving of the fruits of my labor than myself. Should I ever reach the age when I would normally be able to collect Social Security benefits, benefits that I paid into and do not get back and receive no benefit from, the minimum age will have been raised at least another five times, just enough to always keep it out of my reach. Like dangling a carrot on a horse on a treadmill. My rights have been taken from me, my jobs have been yanked out from under me, and my future has vanished before my eyes.

But my eyes were fully open, my mind completely awake, and I am aware of who has taken my Life, my Liberty, and My Pursuit of Happiness away from me. I know who. I know how. I know why. And I can recognize this type of person as the Enabler of the Criminals in Offices and other High Ranking Positions in both Government and the Facist Corpratocracy. The scum that you debate with is the Enabler of Enron. The Socialist in Social Security. And most importantly, the Parasite. The one who never intended on trying to begin with. The one who makes every effort of themselves to popularize Dependancy and Conformity to the will of the Corrupt.

Stupid is the new cool. It is cool because Media embraces being a Moron as the way to go, taking high risks in pursuit of self gratification as being masculine, being aware and awake as a self absorbed lone-wolf isolated mockery of Society, and doing anything about it as a complete and total waste of time. This Parasite, this Scum is the New MTV Generation. The Internet Generation. The Lost Generation. They are the ones that Embrace and Glorify the messages the Mainstream Media sends. They listen to what they are told to listen to, they think what they are told to think, and they flat out expect everyone else should be responsible for wiping their asses when they shit themselves in realization that they are as much of the problem as those who twist our Laws and confiscate our Propserity for their selfish interests.

The only way that this person you are arguing with will ever come to the same conclusion that many of us already have, of our own free will and independent thought, is that their Future comes and tells them they will have to wipe their own ass from now on. Only then will they have the motivation to remove their blinders and look at the world for what it really is and what they did to help it this far, and even then, there is no guarantee.

Personally, I wouldnt even waste my time with this person any more. Move on to someone who is wants to be able to provide for themselves and contribute to the society in which they live.

[Zippyjuan]

Ron Paul does present figures for how he intends to balance the budget without cuts in those programs (spending actually increases for them) in his "Plan to Restore America". http://c3244172.r72.cf0.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/RestoreAmericaPlan.pdf That plan covers the fiscal years of 2013 through 2016. I offer numbers from the 2010 budget for comparison.

In that three year plan, the budget for Defense goes from $501 billion in 2013 to $523 billion by 2016 (the year his budget is supposed to balance). Compared to the 2010 budget, that is a reduction from $$663. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget

Social Security spending?

2010: $695 billion
2013: $812 billion
2016: $945 billion

Medicare:

2010: $453 billion
2013: $595 billion
2016: $713 billion


Total Outlays:

2010: $3.55 trillion
2013: $2.8 trillion (after "$1 trillion in cuts")
2016: $3.05 trillion

So obviously the money being spent on these programs will continue to rise- combined, spending on those two programs would be $310 billion higher than in 2010- yet he balances his budget at the end of the three year period.


How is that achieved? Mostly from revenue.

Government Revenues (tax collections):

2010: $2.2 trillion
2013: $2.5 trillion
2016: $3.1 trillion

an increase of more than $800 in taxes collected from the 2010 budget or an increase there of 36% (for comparison, tax revenues collected increased by only one percent from 2009- 2010). During his three year period, tax collections increase by 25%. These figures can be verified here: http://c3244172.r72.cf0.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/RestoreAmericaPlan.pdf

[DamianTV]

A question has been asked in regards to how we win these people over.

I think that what it takes to win these people over is beyond our ability within making a non extreme effort to do so. These types of people are not worth wasting time on. They need to experience for themselves that it is more satisfying and rewarding to be able to provide for ones self and have control over ones future through their own actions and decisions than to let someone else decide and define who they are and who they are going to be slaves to.

One of the reasons that Socialism can be perceived as being good is not because it is actually good, nor evil, but because it is Convenient. It is Convenient to give up control over ones future in exchange for being rewarded by the fruits of someone elses efforts. It is Convenient to give up Privacy for people to communicate with each other online. It is Convenient to not be the one to punish a criminal that breaks into your house by being the one that imprisons them. It is Convenient to allow someone else to take responsiblity for your actions and decisions. It is Convenient, but not Rewarding.

I think there is a better form of the same question. How do we overcome the Attractiveness and Laziness of Convenience vs the Benefits of Self Accomplishments?

[Zippyjuan]

One mistake in the original post:

Let’s break it down: We need to find $2.6 trillion in cuts to balance the budget in a $3.85 trillion budget

That should be $1.6 trillion- not $2.6 trillion- using his assumptions of $1.3 trillion deficit plus his estimated $300 billion in additional interest on the debt payments. It is true that this is more than the "discretionary" part of the budget- even if you include the Department of Defense.

[LibertyEagle]

Just post the link to Paul's plan. Those who want to look will look. The others aren't worth wasting time on.

[DamianTV]

We can scroll past the details of the plan without reading the whole thing as well.

[Bossobass]

There are 25 million unemployed and underemployed Americans. Employ them and the 10% SS tax is an additional $85B.


Under the leadership of Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon during the Administrations of Presidents Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge, tax rates were slashed from the confiscatory levels they had reached in World War I. The Revenue Acts of 1921, 1924, and 1926 reduced the top rate from 73 percent to 25 percent.
Spurred in part by lower tax rates, the economy expanded dramatically. In real terms, the economy grew 59 percent between 1921 and 1929, and annual economic growth averaged more than 6 percent.
Notwithstanding (or perhaps because of) the dramatic reduction in tax rates, personal income tax revenues increased substantially during the 1920s, rising from $719 million in 1921 to $1,160 million in 1928, an increase of more than 61 percent (this was a period of no inflation).


Across-the-board tax rate reductions introduced by President John F. Kennedy reduced the top rate from 91 percent to 70 percent. These lower rates, along with substantially lower taxes on savings and investment, are associated with the longest economic expansion in American history.


Reagan's across-the-board tax cuts ushered in America's longest peacetime expansion, helping to create 20 million new jobs and pushing incomes and living standards to record highs.

Conversely:


The Johnson surtax, enacted in 1968 during the administration of President Lyndon Johnson, combined with the inflation-induced bracket creep of the 1970s (subjecting taxpayers to higher rates even though their real incomes had not changed), resulted in a decade of stagflation.


The tax rate increases imposed under George Bush and Bill Clinton, as outlined below, are associated with the slowest growing economy in 50 years and a decline of more than $2,000 in the average family's income.

The 2011 DEFICIT ($1.3T) was almost equal to the 2000 ENTIRE Federal Budget ($1.75T).


Keeping all these caveats in mind, there nonetheless is a distinct pattern throughout American history: Simply stated, when tax rates are reduced, the economy prospers, tax revenues grow, and lower-income citizens bear a lower share of the tax burden. Conversely, periods of higher tax rates are associated with subpar economic performance and stagnant tax revenues.

Ron's been around for almost 4 decades and is A) Fiscally conservative to the point of being the definition of the term and, B) Pretty darned good at math and economics. Instead of these hacks telling Ron what his plan entails, they might try doing some GD research first, then asking him.

Bosso

[Zippyjuan]

Reagan's across-the-board tax cuts ushered in America's longest peacetime expansion, helping to create 20 million new jobs and pushing incomes and living standards to record highs.
Reagan's tax cut record is mixed. Yes, he signed tax cuts. Then when budget projections came in later which showed soaring deficits, he then later signed what was at the time the largest tax increase in history, the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 and more increases in 1984.


Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together "constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime," Thorndike said.

The bills didn't raise more revenue by hiking individual income tax rates though. Instead they did it largely through making it tougher to evade taxes, and through "base broadening" -- that is, reducing various federal tax breaks and closing tax loopholes.



What people forget about Ronald Reagan was that he very much converted to base broadening as a means of reducing deficits and as a means of tax reform," said Eugene Steuerle, an Institute Fellow at the Urban Institute who had helped lay the groundwork for tax reform in 1986 and served as a deputy assistant Treasury secretary during Reagan's second term.

There were other notable tax increases under Reagan.

In 1983, for example, he signed off on Social Security reform legislation that, among other things, accelerated an increase in the payroll tax rate, required that higher-income beneficiaries pay income tax on part of their benefits, and required the self-employed to pay the full payroll tax rate, rather than just the portion normally paid by employees.

The tax reform of 1986, meanwhile, wasn't designed to increase federal tax revenue. But that didn't mean that no one's taxes went up. Because the reform bill eliminated or reduced many tax breaks and shelters, high-income tax filers who previously paid little ended up with bigger tax bills.



All told, the tax increases Reagan approved ended up canceling out much of the reduction in tax revenue that resulted from his 1981 legislation.

Annual federal tax receipts during his presidency averaged 18.2% of GDP, a smidge below the average under President Carter -- and a smidge above the 40-year average today.


http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/economy/reagan_years_taxes/index.htm

Chart from same link:
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/2010/09/08/news/economy/reagan_years_taxes/chart_reagan_taxes5.top.gif