What about this serious problem?

[DjLoTi]

As Dr. Paul talks about abolishing the IRS and virtually every dept. of government...

What do the people who are employed by the massive government industry feel about the abolishment of their own job?

If so many people become dependent on the government to the point to where they literally can't live without it, how do we operate as a society when we eliminate an entire facet of our economy and employment?

Do you think the people who will lose their government jobs under a Ron Paul administration will vote for him?

What is the community's thoughts on this issue?

[X_805]

Transitional periods?

[Duckman]

I think the main thing to emphasize would be that reducing the size of government will be a gradual process. I know Ron likes to say he'll get rid of the IRS the "first week" but I doubt that would even be possible.

Beyond that, increased wealth on the part of everyone's tax savings should generate alot of new jobs in the economy.

[mesler]

A president doesn't have the power to cut programs. He has lots of influence, a line to the people, and the power to veto, but a Paul presidency likely wouldn't seek to cut all the programs he may have mentioned on Colbert, but I'm sure he'd take a swing at a few. It takes cooperation from Congress to get these tasks done, and we're talking multiple generations.

[DjLoTi]

Do you think, as the top government and department officials see their entire carrers potentially vanishing, they will accept the concept of transitioning to a more free society?

Or do you think they'll send the influence down the chain in order to protect their interests.

Who am I kidding, it's literally already happening. It's up to the true Americans to make a difference in OUR country.

*edit*
I think that's a good point made about the abolishment of the IRS generating new wealth. That's the only counter-argument that I think would constitute as an answer among those said employed. lol. Anyone else?

[Harald]

whenever a department is abolished all its current employees retain their current salaries initially, every month their salary goes down 3%. Therefore in about 3 years they are fully weaned off the public dole.

Same goes for eliminating farm subsidies, tariffs, etc.

[UCFGavin]

the market will pick up the slack. there will always be jobs, they might just not always be government jobs.

[kimosabi]

As Dr. Paul talks about abolishing the IRS and virtually every dept. of government...

What do the people who are employed by the massive government industry feel about the abolishment of their own job?

If so many people become dependent on the government to the point to where they literally can't live without it, how do we operate as a society when we eliminate an entire facet of our economy and employment?

Do you think the people who will lose their government jobs under a Ron Paul administration will vote for him?

What is the community's thoughts on this issue?

America can back to doing what it used to do, make stuff and sell it to the rest of the world, instead of trying to control everyone else's lives and play with other peoples money.

America's industry needs to be rebuilt back to it's former glory.

Imagine how much tax payers money will be saved that can be re-invested back into business instead of supporting huge government.

[DjLoTi]

America's industry needs to be rebuilt back to it's former glory.

I completely agree with you, but when people shift from bureaucratic, management type jobs that are basically government freebees, ...

A flaw in my thinking may be thinking in 'groups', as in 'groups of people will lose their jobs' instead of 'individuals will lose their jobs'. As individuals, they'll need to support their family, themselves, ect.

I'm just curious how massive this segment of our population is actually encased in this government employment system. Heck, I'm employed by the government. How big are we talking here? What are some possible effects? And what are some ways to counter-argue to people who may be employed by said departments?

[lucky]

I see no reason why Ron paul can"t just make excutive orders all day and abolish anything he wants. The President seem to do it now anyway.

Also one of the first things that a president has to do is pick a staff and appoint people he wanst in the Departments. He can say "No One needs appointing. As for them being jobless then welcome to the real world people. People get downsized all the time. They can get the few months unemployment that we all get.

There are many things at the Presidents discretion that he can do to start whittling down the Governemnt. Ron Paul will find them and use them. The people elect him to do the things we want and Congress does not go along then we throw the bums out and elect ones we like. Trust me when he wins and goes to the white house we will see similar people lining up to join the fun. We pinpoint those people and elect them.

Mandates tend to make politicians see things differently.

[ChooseLiberty]

I've wondered about when Dr. Paul is talking about abolishing the IRS is he talking about the corporate tax as well? The discussion gets very complicated.

The US government is a supertanker and it won't be turned on a dime. Also there are many many special interests that would resist any change.

The main thing about Dr. Paul is that he can start the change by cutting the budget for completely worthless departments like education, drug enforcement, etc. etc.

Say a 10% budget reduction per year for departments not directly related to a Constitutional mandate would be a good start.

[lucky]

I've wondered about when Dr. Paul is talking about abolishing the IRS is he talking about the corporate tax as well? The discussion gets very complicated.

The US government is a supertanker and it won't be turned on a dime. Also there are many many special interests that would resist any change.

The main thing about Dr. Paul is that he can start the change by cutting the budget for completely worthless departments like education, drug enforcement, etc. etc.

Say a 10% budget reduction per year for departments not directly related to a Constitutional mandate would be a good start.

I just say an outright abolishment right away. At the least I liked the idea when I read that Ron Paul said that abolish the Income tax and IRS right away and replace it with Nothing.

The income tax makes up 20 percent of the budget now. Revert the budget to the year 2000 levels and we will be able to do without the income tax. Can anyway say honestly that we could not get back to a budget from 7 years ago. At the least say that we have an across the board 20 percent decrease in any budget and Voila no income tax needed.

And oh yeah the Fed employees would never go along with any of this.

[DjLoTi]

As for them being jobless then welcome to the real world people. People get downsized all the time. They can get the few months unemployment that we all get.


But it's not like these people are working at mcdonnalds. I'm talking like, the head of homeland security, and every other department, and every person working under that person, the list gets long.

And that's only departments. What about the civilian contractors that are employed by said government agencies. Lets face it. It's going to affect *a lot* of people.

It's important for humanity, society, and America that RPs vision is carried out, there's no doubt. I get the feeling that all of these people (including everyone employed by the CIA and FBI) are going to be resistant to said change. I'm really getting the thinktank in my head going... throwing it out there.... expect this as a radio topic one day on my radio... lol.....

[jd603]

Exactly, GOV jobs is a job market, I'm sure a meaty percent of government workers will not vote for him, most of the neocon supporters I argue with wind up revealing a personal reason for supporting their corruption/evil, such as working for a defense contractor or the like. It's a selfish way of thinking but that isn't exactly uncommon in the human race...

[angelatc]

A president doesn't have the power to cut programs. He has lots of influence, a line to the people, and the power to veto, but a Paul presidency likely wouldn't seek to cut all the programs he may have mentioned on Colbert, but I'm sure he'd take a swing at a few. It takes cooperation from Congress to get these tasks done, and we're talking multiple generations.

He talked about that on the WMUR video series.

Personally, I think a lot of those type jobs would fall to a State level, or the private sector.

[angelatc]

But it's not like these people are working at mcdonnalds. I'm talking like, the head of homeland security, and every other department, and every person working under that person, the list gets long. ..


A lot of the higher up positions turn over every 2-3 years anyway.

[DjLoTi]

It's something we've got to deal with, and figure out. For such a large demographic of people who're so used to being given free answers in the name of the government... we're going to have to come up with come counter-arguments of our own... come together on our own...

We've got to figure out the best and most efficient way to do this. Lets call it a Revelation. Lets call it the Ron Paul Revelation.

[LibertyEagle]

I think the main thing to emphasize would be that reducing the size of government will be a gradual process. I know Ron likes to say he'll get rid of the IRS the "first week" but I doubt that would even be possible.
.

He could always issue an Executive Order or a Presidential Directive. You know, those things that President Bush is so fond of issuing. :) But, our good doctor would never do that, because he is much too principled.

I know I've never had the opportunity, in my lifetime, to vote for such a fine man. We're pretty lucky, you know? We actually could make history, if we work our tails off.

[DjLoTi]

That's what it's going to come down to. Tapping into the 50% of Americans who don't vote. The real Americans. The store clerks, the movie theater ticket givers, the warehouse workers, the steel workers, the farmers, the students, ...

I see this unraveling in a fight-club type conflict ( society vs. society ). I think it needs to go there. I think we need to communicate in a voice to all of the 'average' Americans. Not that we're average... we're just 50% invisible...

I'm willing to fight the fight. Are you?

[LizF]

As Dr. Paul talks about abolishing the IRS and virtually every dept. of government...

What do the people who are employed by the massive government industry feel about the abolishment of their own job?

If so many people become dependent on the government to the point to where they literally can't live without it, how do we operate as a society when we eliminate an entire facet of our economy and employment?

Do you think the people who will lose their government jobs under a Ron Paul administration will vote for him?

What is the community's thoughts on this issue?



LOL...I was just thinking about that tonight ("If I were a Federal Employee-- especially one who worked for the IRS--I probably wouldn't be too crazy about RP"). I would hope that enough folks would have transferable skills to give them other/viable options for employment.


I've cut & paste a few statistics from the US Dept of Labor, but I recommend that you check out the website:

http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs041.htm


Significant Points

* With nearly 2 million civilian employees, the Federal Government, excluding the Postal Service is the Nation’s largest employer.
* About 5 out of 6 Federal employees work outside the Washington, DC metropolitan area.
* Job growth generated by increased homeland security needs may be largely offset by projected slow growth or declines in other Federal sectors due to budgetary constraints, the growing use of private contractors, and the transfer of some functions to State and local governments.
* Competition is expected for some Federal positions, especially during times of economic uncertainty, when workers seek the stability of Federal employment.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some info from the Census Bureau:
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/voting/004986.html



U.S. Voter Turnout Up in 2004, Census Bureau Reports


Sixty-four percent of U.S. citizens age 18 and over voted in the 2004 presidential election, up from 60 percent in 2000, the U.S. Census Bureau reported today. Tables from a November survey also show that of 197 million citizens, 72 percent (142 million) reported they were registered to vote. Among those registered, 89 percent (126 million) said they voted. In the 2000 election, 70 percent of citizens were registered; and among them, 86 percent voted.

Other highlights from the Voting and Registration in the Election of November 2004 online tables pertaining to the voting-age citizen population:

* In 2004, turnout rates for citizens were 67 percent for non-Hispanic whites, 60 percent for blacks, 44 percent for Asians and 47 percent for Hispanics (of any race). These rates were higher than the previous presidential election by 5 percentage points for non-Hispanic whites and 3 points for blacks. By contrast, the voting rates for Asian and Hispanic citizens did not change. These data pertain to those who identified themselves as being of a single race. (See Table 1. [Excel])

* Minnesota had the highest citizen-voting rate at 79 percent, and North Dakota the highest citizen-registration rate at 89 percent. (See Table 2. [Excel])

* Citizens age 65 and older had the highest registration rate (79 percent) while those age 18 to 24 had the lowest (58 percent). The youngest group also had the lowest voting rate (47 percent), while those age 45 and older had the highest turnout (about 70 percent). (See Table 1. [Excel])

* Among citizens, turnout was higher for women (65 percent) than for men (62 percent). The turnout rate for people with a bachelor’s degree or higher (80 percent) was greater than the rate for people whose highest level of educational attainment was a high school diploma (56 percent). (See Table 1. [Excel])

* Seventy-three percent of veteran citizens cast ballots, compared with 63 percent of their nonveteran counterparts. (See Table 1. [Excel])

Voting rates in the online tables are calculated using the voting-age population, which includes citizens and noncitizens.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Ok, let's review--we have:
-- ~ 2 million people working for the Fed govt. Although RP wants to streamline and eliminate depts, not all of these people are going to lose jobs.

--In 2004 we had about 197 million citizens of voting age; 142 million were registered to vote; and 126 million voted. (Refer to aforementioned Census stats)

--So I think the odds of a RP win are doable, although not necessarily a cakewalk.

[deborak]

Indeed, I've heard the "think of the poor government employees" caveat from others. But displaced employees could be transferred to departments that are actually Constitutional, or shift their operations with cuts in war funding to support short-term initiative projects the U.S. really needs, such as alternate fuel development, civil defense improvement, or gee, maybe processing the paperwork for the legal immigrants who are stuck in the papermill.

There's nothing sacred about a government job. Cities and states abolish them all the time.

[maiki]

One thing to remember that if these departments get "phased out" (very likely not abolished overnight, Ron Paul mentioned this), is that those services will most likely still be needed by people, the jobs will just be provided by state governments or the private sector. Department of Education? People will still go to schools, and lots of these jobs will be replaced by local State Education Departments or Private School Boards. Medicare/Medicaid jobs? Again, different systems of health care management, likely at a local level will be developed to replace them, and those will need workers as well as "higher ups". IRS, taxes etc? People will need more accountants to handle their personal finances if they have to plan personally more for their own retirement and have 10-30% more money to invest.

Just because these jobs cease to be managed by the Federal Government Conglomerate, doesn't mean the need for these positions and services will cease to exist. They will just be managed by the States or private industry.

[mikelovesgod]

I don't think they would like Paul at all. That's not our demographic, those who vote their pocketbook and not their freedom. They want the big gov't, they think they are special and needed.

Sadly, they really believe this.

[joenaab]

This is a very good question and I suspect that many people will not support him just to save their jobs. Remember, he doesn't need 100% of the vote to win.

[Swmorgan77]

They could get jobs working for all of the new businesses created by enterpeneurs and venture capitalists with tons of new disposable income, or the companies that would need to hire a lot of new accounting personnel to deal with the transition to the new tax-free economy, or with the publicly traded companies who would be expanding due to the growth of private investment.

The market always adjusts, and yes it would be a transition. That's why I like Dr. Paul's general wisdom to approach thise things pragmatically rather than "turn the key all at once" like he said and cause hiccups.

Overall, however, the country would be much more economically productive and wealthy across the board without the Federal Reserve/Income Tax system.

[AZ Libertarian]

No IRS and no 'federal' reserve (a privately owned corporation), and a general downsize of bureacratic money-wasting departments!?! Sounds like a multi-win-win-win to me.

The People keep what they've earned
The government will be small enough to be funded with what the Constitution says to use
We will have enough 'civil servants' to do all those "jobs Americans won't do"
AND - we can send all those who have broken our laws and INVADED OUR COUNTRY back to their respective homes, and if they want to stand in line at Ellis Island LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE and legally emigrate here THEY ARE QUITE WELCOME.

I could go on in listing all of the benefits a Ron Paul Presidency will bring, but I think you get my drift.

[DjLoTi]

LizF.. thank you for that elaborate and detailed reply.

[rodent]

I completely agree with you, but when people shift from bureaucratic, management type jobs that are basically government freebees, ...

A flaw in my thinking may be thinking in 'groups', as in 'groups of people will lose their jobs' instead of 'individuals will lose their jobs'. As individuals, they'll need to support their family, themselves, ect.

I'm just curious how massive this segment of our population is actually encased in this government employment system. Heck, I'm employed by the government. How big are we talking here? What are some possible effects? And what are some ways to counter-argue to people who may be employed by said departments?

I work under a government grant, and what I think is that losing my job and finding a job in the private sector won't be that much of a big deal. No one will be able to dismantle government that quickly, it's just a matter of getting the process started.

The key issue for me is the elimination of the IRS. The fact that ALL of us work for the government half the year is outrageous to begin with.