Peter Schiff's advice to the GOP: Lower tax, less social issues

[itshappening]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_k-TOUzdv2E

[alucard13mmfmj]

Social Issues.. they gotta decide if they are serious or not. Wishy Washy just turns off voters on both sides of the spectrum.

[Zippyjuan]

Cutting taxes will add to the deficits and debt unless they are more than offset by coresponding cuts. Let's say you wanted to use Schiff's suggestion of trying to cut spending enough to get rid of income taxes- let alone enough to simply get the budget balanced. Using 2009 figures, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget income taxes accounted for $1.2 trillion of government revenues- that would leave $1.49 trillion. If there were no budget cuts to go with that, the deficit would be $2.5 trillion a year instead of $1.3 trillion. I don't see where it would be possible to cut $2.5 trillion from current spending. Just to balance it with no tax cuts you need to get rid of $1.3 trillion in spending.


Mandatory spending: $1.89 trillion (+6.2%)

$644 billion – Social Security
$408 billion – Medicare
$224 billion – Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
$360 billion – Unemployment/Welfare/Other mandatory spending
$260 billion – Interest on National Debt

Discretionary spending: $1.21 trillion (+4.9%)

$515.4 billion – United States Department of Defense
$145.2 billion(2008*) – Global War on Terror
$70.4 billion – United States Department of Health and Human Services
$68.2 billion – United States Department of Transportation
$45.4 billion – United States Department of Education
$44.8 billion – United States Department of Veterans Affairs
$38.5 billion – United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
$38.3 billion – State and Other International Programs
$37.6 billion – United States Department of Homeland Security
$25.0 billion – United States Department of Energy
$20.8 billion – United States Department of Agriculture
$20.3 billion – United States Department of Justice
$17.6 billion – National Aeronautics and Space Administration
$12.5 billion – United States Department of the Treasury
$10.6 billion – United States Department of the Interior
$10.5 billion – United States Department of Labor
$8.4 billion – Social Security Administration
$7.1 billion – United States Environmental Protection Agency
$6.9 billion – National Science Foundation
$6.3 billion – Judicial branch (United States federal courts)
$4.7 billion – Legislative branch (United States Congress)
$4.7 billion – United States Army Corps of Engineers
$0.4 billion – Executive Office of the President
$0.7 billion – Small Business Administration
$7.2 billion – Other agencies
$39.0 billion(2008*) – Other Off-budget Discretionary Spending



Cutting taxes is nice- everybody likes that- and it will pander to those who don't want to pay for anything- but can we afford them?

[VoluntaryAmerican]

Cutting taxes will add to the deficits and debt unless they are more than offset by coresponding cuts.

You're missing the point.

By cutting taxes it would give the average Joe hard worker more incentive (political willpower) to want government spending cuts. Whereas currently the middle class is a working poor that sees welfare as a fall back plan if the economy continues to get worse.

[Zippyjuan]

Offer to cut his taxes and he won't really care if the government increases or reduces spending. They are worried about their own wallet- not the government's. Did the Bush tax cuts encourage people to urge more cuts in government? Did they lead to more budget cuts (hint- we were not facing $1 trillion deficits when the Bush tax cuts were enacted- they helped push the deficit to the $1 trillion mark). When Reagan cut taxes he too saw what it was doing to the deficit and agreed to what was then the largest tax increases in US history to keep the deficit from soaring.

Ron Paul has always said that first you need to address the spending problem. Then you can consider cutting taxes.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Ron_Paul_Tax_Reform.htm

Q: You have been saying on the campaign stump, “I’d like to get rid of the IRS. I want to get rid of the income tax.” Abolish it?
A: That’s a good idea. I like that idea.

Q: What would happen to all those lost revenues? How would we fund our government?

A: We have to cut spending. You can’t get rid of the income tax if you don’t get rid of some spending. But, you know, if you got rid of the income tax today you’d have about as much revenue as we had 10 years ago, and the size of government wasn’t all that bad 10 years ago. There’re sources of revenues other than the income tax. You have tariff, excise taxes, user fees, highway fees. So, so there’s still a lot of money. But the real problem is spending. But, you know, we lived a long time in this country without an income tax. Up until 1913 we didn’t have it.

Q: But if you eliminate the income tax, do you know how much lost revenue that would be?

A: A lot.

Q: Over a trillion dollars.

A: That’s good.



That was in 2007- the 2008 Presidential campaign. (and actually that would have brought things back to 1992- not 1997).

[WilliamShrugged]

Offer to cut his taxes and he won't really care if the government increases or reduces spending. They are worried about their own wallet- not the government's. Did the Bush tax cuts encourage people to urge more cuts in government? Did they lead to more budget cuts (hint- we were not facing $1 trillion deficits when the Bush tax cuts were enacted- they helped push the deficit to the $1 trillion mark).

Ron Paul has always said that first you need to address the spending problem. Then you can consider cutting taxes.

And when FDR, LBJ, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton increase taxes did government spending slow down???

[VoluntaryAmerican]

Offer to cut his taxes and he won't really care if the government increases or reduces spending. They are worried about their own wallet- not the government's. Did the Bush tax cuts encourage people to urge more cuts in government? Did they lead to more budget cuts (hint- we were not facing $1 trillion deficits when the Bush tax cuts were enacted- they helped push the deficit to the $1 trillion mark).

Ron Paul has always said that first you need to address the spending problem. Then you can consider cutting taxes.

I agree spending cuts are top priority.

But i disagree that he wont care. If Republicans frame the debate right and make it known that gov. spending will lead to more taxes/debt he will care because that hurts him directly.

Bush also wasn't consistent fiscally (entitlements) but it was the war that hurt McCain more than anything. A president like Rand would avoid these errors.

[Zippyjuan]

And when FDR, LBJ, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton increase taxes did government spending slow down???
I would have to check on the others, but in Clinton's case, yes, it did. Well spending did not actually decline in dollar terms but the growth rate was the lowest under any president since WWII. One should add though that it is Congress, not the President who writes taxation and spending bills. And so far, the increases under Obama have been even smaller (his first budget was Fiscal Year 2009 which began in October 2009- Obama can thank the gridlock in Washington for that which has kept new spending bills from being passed).
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/rickungar/files/2012/11/MW-AR658_spendi_20120521163312_ME11.jpg

[juleswin]

And when FDR, LBJ, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton increase taxes did government spending slow down???

The point is that one is more likely to demand a spending cut from increasing taxes than cutting it. The fact that spending has always been increasing doesn't negate that fact

[TheTexan]

Cutting taxes is nice- everybody likes that- and it will pander to those who don't want to pay for anything- but can we afford them?

I don't really care if we can afford tax cuts. Technically we can't afford anything at this point. We can't afford to cut taxes, we can't afford to increase spending, we can't afford to raise taxes, we (apparently) can't afford to decrease spending.....

This country is way too far down the financial black hole it's dug itself in to ever claw it's way back out, so as far as I'm concerned.... cut those taxes as much as possible...

And yes I fully expect that they'll "pay for" the spending via printing money, but I've prepared myself financially for that inevitability as well...

This country's finances are going to hit the fan either way, and if I get a choice, I'd prefer to do it with as low taxes as possible... than trying to keep feeding the fat fucking beast...

[Keith and stuff]

I like it. Cut taxes. Less social issues. It's also my plan.

[JK/SEA]

I like it. Cut taxes. Less social issues. It's also my plan.

Ohhhh, how timely your comment...yep...yesterday i went to my county re-org. meeting. I'll save the outcome for later, but suffice it to say the 'old' guard is STILL in control, and STILL bitchin' about why and how they lost. Anyway....before AND after this dog and pony show, i managed to get quite a bit of attention from the current cowboys and cowgirls entrenched in the local party. As i was talking to one of the candidates for a leadership position in my RON PAUL red T-shirt, i told them, and anyone within ear shot, that the social conservative wing of the party is destroying the party, and contributing to the current downfall of this country, and the main reason nobody will vote for Republicans to the point of winning and the libertarian wing needs to replace it...at this....silence....i continued. And this is the reason why the party is not attracting independents...at this, i started getting a little flak, at which i said.''look, i'm just the messenger here, and from where i stand it looks like the current strategy isn't working is it...IS IT?...then this bomb from my mouth came out...look, the Ron Paul Revolution came to save the party and YOU threw ALL of us under the bus. Cheating, lying, violence were the tactics used......Finally another Ron Paul guy who was listening came into the conversation, and helped end the discussion.

I had this same conversation with 2 other 'old' guard scum, including the new chair, who just said "oh, i see, your way or the hiway eh?''...my comment..''its a 2 way street''...she storms off only to come back and bump me in the arm rather noticeably...haha...anyway, i'm done with meetings for a few years. But i'm still out there, and connecting with more like-minded.

[supermario21]

The thing is it's not a cop-out in my opinion to ignore social issues to an extent. They are rarely touched in Congress even by Republicans. When GWB was in office most abortion and gay marriage initiatives didn't have enough votes and these are things better left off to the states anyway. I'm sick of hearing elections decided in part by Sandra Fluke running around like a baby begging for FREE birth control and these dumb women parading themselves around like they are being involved in a war against them. I still think pro-life is a position the GOP should continue to advocate, only do it in the way Ron does it, and not the scientifically ignorant/politically stupid ways of Akin and Mourdock.