Just watched the Google interview...

[Starks]

I was rather intrigued by all the departments he wants to cut... Won't the people that work in those departments be out of their jobs?


Admin- Add video link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg

[giskard]

That's good, because they can take jobs where they would be more productive and actually CREATE wealth!

[Wyurm]

I was rather intrigued by all the departments he wants to cut... Won't the people that work in those departments be out of their jobs?

You bring up a very good point that I myself have wondered about. Its actually very important in a way since he will be wanting federal employees to vote for him as well. Why would they want to vote for someone promising to take their jobs away? I wish I had thought of asking this for the Youtube interview, it would have been a very good question for him to answer.

[ronpaulitician]

I was rather intrigued by all the departments he wants to cut... Won't the people that work in those departments be out of their jobs?
Temporarily, yes.

[PatriotOne]

We don't have the luxary at this point to worry about some beauracrats losing their jobs while we sustain billion dollar failing programs. Besides, Government jobs usually have severence packages to hold them over and 401k's etc. They won't starve to death until they find a new job that our taxes don't have to pay for and is a waste of our money.

[Starks]

We don't have the luxary at this point to worry about some beauracrats losing their jobs while we sustain billion dollar failing programs. Besides, Government jobs usually have severence packages to hold them over and 401k's etc. They won't starve to death until they find a new job that our taxes don't have to pay for and is a waste of our money.

Heh, forgot about that. What departments and agencies would he keep?

[LibertyBelle]

I was rather intrigued by all the departments he wants to cut... Won't the people that work in those departments be out of their jobs?

They won't just be dumped on the streets. The transition would not be overnight, and would be a step by step process. It would definitely take time. The private sector would grow and continue to expand, and jobs would be created for these people, businesses would grow creating more wealth and therefore more people being hired. Right now as it stands 1% of the population works for the federal gov't.

Remember, we need to get back to local and state rights and gov't, jobs would be available for them in these areas also because local/state would become more and more powerful as fed bureacracy diminishes. There would be plenty of jobs to go around, and way more freedom baby, ya! Groovy.

[FreedomLover]

It's called "cutting out the fat"

You know how many people in government funded departments like the ones he mentioned are payed to play golf all day? I've seen them, they do no work, and yet they're on the govt payroll. A living testament to how inefficient and wasteful big government is.

[Nash]

You bring up a very good point that I myself have wondered about. Its actually very important in a way since he will be wanting federal employees to vote for him as well. Why would they want to vote for someone promising to take their jobs away? I wish I had thought of asking this for the Youtube interview, it would have been a very good question for him to answer.


You just pointed out how insidious and undemocratic government programs can be. Anyone working for the government is now beholden to that program because it is indeed their paycheck. They are now bought off. Their vote has been purchased. Therefore once these programs are in place they are that much harder to abolish, and as they continue to grow in size and scope they are that much harder to remove.

Kinda sick if you really think about it.

Here is another frustrating detail. These government employees are taxed just like you an I, yet their salaries are financed by the private sector. It's essentially a double tax on income. First they tax businesses, then they tax the redistributed wealth a second time around.

Kinda weird nobody ever talks about this don't you think? Government doesn't grow linearly, it grows exponentially.

[j650]

Yep, as someone else said it would be a phase out process. Ron Paul said in that interview that you just can't cut things immediately when people are so used to them. So far he's mentioned getting rid of the Departments of Education, Energy, and Homeland Security. There may be more that I'm not remembering, but at some point these departments will have to be trimmed down because we're going too far into debt.

[Nash]

Yep, as someone else said it would be a phase out process. Ron Paul said in that interview that you just can't cut things immediately when people are so used to them. So far he's mentioned getting rid of the Departments of Education, Energy, and Homeland Security. There may be more that I'm not remembering, but at some point these departments will have to be trimmed down because we're going too far into debt.

He mentions these departments specifically because they haven't been around all that long. Obviously the DHS is brand new. It isn't even "up and running" yet. It could be cut completely and never missed. The average American voter doesn't know this yet unfortunately.

The Department of Energy and Department of Education were both established relatively recently. The energy department was created in 1977. The Department of Education in 1980. They are still relatively small in scope (although growing). Again though, most people think that abolishing the Department of Education means Paul wants to somehow abolish public education or shut down public schools and that of course is completely inaccurate.

[DeadheadForPaul]

We need to let people know that we're not anarchists. They're worried about cutting safety nets immediately as if they gov't is going to shut down when Dr. Paul takes office.

Paul is going to look at everything and slowly shrink government in a responsible way. We are not getting rid of public education...we are improving it by allowing local people to make local decisions. This one-size-fits-all model does not work. What works in California may not work in Kansas

[Wyurm]

You just pointed out how insidious and undemocratic government programs can be. Anyone working for the government is now beholden to that program because it is indeed their paycheck. They are now bought off. Their vote has been purchased. Therefore once these programs are in place they are that much harder to abolish, and as they continue to grow in size and scope they are that much harder to remove.

Kinda sick if you really think about it.

Here is another frustrating detail. These government employees are taxed just like you an I, yet their salaries are financed by the private sector. It's essentially a double tax on income. First they tax businesses, then they tax the redistributed wealth a second time around.

Kinda weird nobody ever talks about this don't you think? Government doesn't grow linearly, it grows exponentially.


I'm aware of how government jobs imprison their employees, but they are probably not looking at it like that. What I'm saying is that this is something Dr. Paul should be asked to address. My thinking on the matter is that alot of the jobs would be re-allocated to the private sector or to the states. A simple transfer of employer issue. Others would most likely have to be cut altogether. The oversight departments (department of education, energy, etc...) would be transferred to the states. Departments like NASA and such could easilly become private. When SETI was cut from the government payroll, it became a privately funded project.

[JPFromTally]

Working for the government is one of the hallmarks of communism. As government continues to take over the means of production more and more people are employees of a government paycheck.

One example of this is the TSA. 7 years ago the people who checked you through security were private employees. Now they're part of a large federal bureaucracy.

[rpliving]

My dad is an IRS agent and voted for Micheal Badnarik last election.He will probably vote for Ron Paul too.

[j650]

And I think eliminating the IRS and the Federal Reserve would do wonders for the economy thus creating plenty of jobs for accountants and economists in state government jobs and the private sector. I've seen some places where people are shocked he wants to get rid of FEMA when a lot of people believe that it's a joke, especially in New Orleans. They accuse him of not wanting to help the people just like with his positions on Medicare and Social Security, but these things could be so much better and need to be or we'll go broke.

[Wyurm]

And I think eliminating the IRS and the Federal Reserve would do wonders for the economy thus creating plenty of jobs for accountants and economists in state government jobs and the private sector. I've seen some places where people are shocked he wants to get rid of FEMA when a lot of people believe that it's a joke, especially in New Orleans. They accuse him of not wanting to help the people just like with his positions on Medicare and Social Security, but these things could be so much better and need to be or we'll go broke.

lol, yeah, cause FEMA did such a great job in New Orleans. Didnt the Salvation Army and Red Cross used to help with disasters like that? I'm sure organizations like those would take FEMA's place in a far more efficient way.

[Bryan]

My thinking on the matter is that alot of the jobs would be re-allocated to the private sector or to the states.
Absolutely.


And I think eliminating the IRS and the Federal Reserve would do wonders for the economy thus creating plenty of jobs for accountants and economists in state government jobs and the private sector.
Also, getting ride of the inflation tax and income tax will allow American families to work much less, so they cut back on their jobs thus opening them up for others.

Working three jobs doesn't need to be uniquely American.

[specsaregood]

lol, yeah, cause FEMA did such a great job in New Orleans. Didnt the Salvation Army and Red Cross used to help with disasters like that? I'm sure organizations like those would take FEMA's place in a far more efficient way.

Not ONLY non-profits, but PRIVATE enterprises stepped up to help after the hurricanes and were TURNED AWAY by FEMA.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/05/national/nationalspecial/05blame.html?ex=1283572800&en=1d14ebfbd942a7d0&ei=5090
"When Wal-Mart sent three trailer trucks loaded with water, FEMA officials turned them away, he said. Agency workers prevented the Coast Guard from delivering 1,000 gallons of diesel fuel, and on Saturday they cut the parish's emergency communications line, leading the sheriff to restore it and post armed guards to protect it from FEMA, Mr. Broussard said. "

[Blowback]

Easily my favorite interview so far.

[krott5333]

I was rather intrigued by all the departments he wants to cut... Won't the people that work in those departments be out of their jobs?


yes, but they'll be able to get new jobs with the private sector companies springing up to fill in the holes :)

AND.. they'll pay less taxes. The economy would thrive.

[mconder]

Won't the people that work in those departments be out of their jobs?

Yes...we can welcome them to the real world were people are expected to produce to have a job.

[ecliptic]

Link to the Google interview anyone? Original Post should always include a link...