Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Never vote for unbalanced budget - balance the budget in 3 years???

  1. #1

    Question Never vote for unbalanced budget - balance the budget in 3 years???

    Ok, I noticed on the latest ad and a few other ads that the campaign is saying that Ron Paul is voting against unbalanced budgets and then it says his plan is to balance the budget in 3 years...

    So, the first 2 years, will he be voting for an unbalanced budget?

    I can see how perhaps the statement "voting against unbalanced budgets" could mean that he has always voted against an unbalanced budget. But it is a bit ambiguous.

    I understand that he will be cutting the budget by a trillion dollars year one and that brings it very close to a balanced budget, but I am curious how he will react when he has to authorize the borrowing of money those first two years.
    Definition of political insanity: Voting for the same people expecting different results.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    If they agree to his 3 year plan; then voting/approving of the 1st year can be interpretted as voting for a balanced budget; just one that covers a 3 year span.

  4. #3
    I was thinking about this too. Perhaps he will become practical once in the White House.

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Elwar View Post
    So, the first 2 years, will he be voting for an unbalanced budget?
    No. He won't be voting on anything. He won't be in Congress.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    No. He won't be voting on anything. He won't be in Congress.


    I am sure he will miss it.
    Definition of political insanity: Voting for the same people expecting different results.

  7. #6
    I actually think he could do some good by throwing out any balanced budget talk and emphasize cutting taxes and cutting spending.

  8. #7
    Compared to the 2010 budget, his first year plan is for expenditures of $2.8 trillion http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issue...store-america/ vs $3.5 trillion for 2010 which would be $700 billion lower- a pretty significant haircut for the government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Un...federal_budget

    He then lets spending rise only very gradually and expects rising revenues to finally get the budget to balance in later years- his estimates indicate revenue rises by 25% over three years- a pretty hefty increase there ($2.4 trillion to $3.1 trillion by 2016).

    If he becomes president he will have to sign an unbalanced budget (unless he thinks Congress will be able to over-ride his veto) until it is balanced (assuming he is president and his plan gets put into action- remember that Congress will do the actual spending bill writing).
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 01-17-2012 at 03:06 PM.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    He then lets spending rise only very gradually and expects rising revenues to finally get the budget to balance in later years- his estimates indicate revenue rises by 25% over three years- a pretty hefty increase there ($2.4 trillion to $3.1 trillion by 2016).
    He uses CBO's estimates for baseline revenues, which, I think, everyone must use when they produce a budget.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.


Similar Threads

  1. Sen. Rand Paul proposes plan to balance federal budget in 5 years
    By Galileo Galilei in forum Rand Paul Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-08-2012, 09:23 AM
  2. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-17-2012, 11:50 AM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-21-2012, 10:39 AM
  4. Rand expects to get a vote on his 5 year plan to balance the budget
    By sailingaway in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-25-2011, 04:34 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-01-2008, 05:22 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •