http://c3244172.r72.cf0.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/RestoreAmericaPlan.pdf

The corporate media will not tell you about this, so I present it to you free of charge. Enjoy! Ron Paul 2012!

While the plan is fairly detailed on cuts, Paul does not explain how government functions eliminated under his plan would be handled by states or the private sector.
have a lot of Republicans who talk about cutting spending in a general sense, but when they get pressed toname specifics they’re not very forthcoming. I’m hoping that at the very least this forces the other candidates to start to get more specific about what they would cut as well.

I reposted this not checking to see if it had already been done...

Guess it can't be posted enough tho

Hoo Yah!

Ever wonder what Ron Paul’s America would look like? Then read the budget outline that Paul released as part of his 2012 presidential bid. It promises to cut $1 trillionduring his first year in office, balance the budget by 2015, withdraw us from all foreign wars and eliminate five Cabinet-level agencies in the process. Economists across the political spectrum say the impact of such drastic government spending cuts would be majorly disruptive and harmful to the economy in the short term.
(AP) “At the scale he’stalking about, it’s unlikely you could have an immediate reduction in government without hurtling the economy into recession,” says Kevin Hassett, economic policy director for the American Enterprise Institute and chief economic adviser to JohnMcCain’s 2000 presidential campaign. Hassett maintains that Paul’s plan for a limited government “would be really positive” in the long run. But he also believes that there would be better means to achieving that end. “I think that you could achieve his long-run objectives with less short-run disruptions,” he concludes.
By reducing the deficit from more than $1 trillion to $300 billion in just a year, Paul’s plan would upend the economy at a time when it’s already fragile, says Gus Faucher, director of macroeconomics for Moody’s Analytics. “That much deficit reduction inone year is going to be a huge drag on the economy . . . the reduction in spending is much greater than cuts in taxes,” says Faucher. “We’re seeing that impact in Europe right now, where severe fiscal austerity has caused big problems for the European economy.” While long-term deficit reduction is important, legislators need to make sure that the economy is strong before major cuts take effect, he adds, calling Paul’s plan “much more ambitious” than other Republican proposals to date. By comparison, the Congressional supercommittee is required to cut $1.5 trillion over a ten-year period—a feat Paul wants to accomplish in a little more than one year.
Liberal economists were even more dire in their assessments of the Paul budget. “This is almost having the economy fall off a cliff,” says Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, estimating that cutting$1 trillion in 2013 would prompt the unemployment rate to jump by 3 percentage points. Even if the $1 trillion in cuts were doneover two or three years’ time, there would still bedouble-digit employment, Baker concludes. “This will make it extremely hard to balance the budget, since if the unemployment rate goesto 11 or 12 percent, then the budget picture will look much worse. If his response is still more cuts, then who knows how high he can get the unemployment rate.”
Michael Ettlinger, vice president for economic policy at the Center for American Progress, said Paul’s cuts would destroythe social safety net, as the plan would turn Medicaid and other low-income entitlement programs into block-granted programs that would depend on discretionary appropriations. “Your kids would be out of school, working or begging,” he concludes.
The Paul campaign rejected such claims as “exactly the opposite” of what would come to pass—“an example of the old Keynesian thinking that got us into our current mess,” according to Jesse Benton, a campaign spokesman. “Deficit spending and debt that are crushing our economy and will destroy our country if wedo not take bold action.”Benton added that block-granting entitlement programs would actually save them, not shred them. “We face a bankruptcy and a major financial crisis that will destroy the entire social safety net unless we take action.”
The program would also turn Social Security, veterans’ benefits and Medicare into voluntary programs that would allow younger workers to opt out of the entitlements, while fulfilling promises to present-day seniors and veterans. Both liberals and conservatives such as Baker say such changes could destabilize Social Security. “We will likely see a substantial numberof young people take that option, especially if he scares them enough that it won’t be there,” says Baker. What’s more, “you will have high-income earners who opt out, and the people you have left are going to be low-income, which could cause problems” in terms of financing, explains Faucher, of Moody’s. All this could complicate Social Security’s long-term fiscal health, as it could end up losing a lot of revenue.
An opt-out option for Medicare would present similar problems, AEI’s Hassett says. He agrees that Medicare reform is critical to achieving long-term deficit reduction but thinks thatan opt-out would destabilize the program. “The system taxes young people to pay for benefits for old people. If young people opt out, who will pay for the benefits?” Hassett says. The Paul campaign insists, however, that theplan provides Medicare with a secure future without harming present-day beneficiaries. “This budget is about priorities, and we have to honor our promises toour seniors. Our goal is to fix our debt crisis to preserve our system and make Medicare work better in the future,” Benton says.
On the whole, though, economists say they aren’t surprised to see the Texas congressman come out with such a plan. “Ron Paul’s role in the campaign so far has been the ideologically pure libertarian, and his proposal meets expectations, I would say,” Hassett says.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/ron-pauls-economic-plan/2011/10/17/gIQAPqTYsL_blog.html

Overall, the numbers do work out to what Paul promises, but look at how his cuts affect people. Paul's plan favors big business over the general population. Eliminating Commerce and Energy equates to deregulation in a time when public confidence in big corporations is low thanks to a number of scandals and federal bailouts. Lowering corporate tax favors large, publicly owned businesses rather than small business owners. The Dept. of the Interior is responsible for running all National Parks....what will happen with them? It also deals with Native American Reservations. How will this affect them? The Dept. of Education oversees more than just public schools, it also oversees colleges and universities. How will this affect the labor force, not just through regulation and standards, but also through Federal financial aid for students?

His ideas may sound good, but in the end, Ron Paul is just Ross Perot. Before election time, voters will begin to see through his rhetoric, and find that ultimately Paul just offers more of the same. There is a better way to handle this country. I see the solution as very simple. The problem is that there are too many saying, "It won't work" or "They'll never agree to that." In other words, we as a people make too many excuses not to do it.

Eliminate all Federal taxes except the income tax.

Institute a flat rate income tax of about 18% to 23%.

Reduce Federal spending (thereby determining tax rate).

Ratify a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
(It should have some flexibility, but should not be easy to exercise it.)

Establish a Federal "Rainy Day" Fund to cope with revenue shortfalls during a down economy.
(Recessions tend to happen about once every 10 years. Reducing need to borrow or to raise taxes.)

Institute term limits in Congress, and change term lengths so elected officials can spend more time in office dealing with issues than campaigning for re-election.
(Providing stable leadership while preventing small groups of politicians from dominating politics for 35+ years. Plus, fewer elections means less fundraising and "favors".)

It's like pressing the reset button on your computer. When the computer is bogged down with garbage, you need a memory dump. Sometimes the only way to accomplish that is to hit reset, and start anew.

So basicly you are saying you have no faith in a free market where profits are consumer based, requiring a decent product or service to stay competitive, and not one-sided monopolies?

Also, he wants money out of politics, curtail on lobbyist paying influence to government officials.

Preservation of property such as parks and military bases would still be the job of government, except at state levels. NO envolvement in personal property!

He says NO to PERSONAL federal income tax (not state taxes), not taxes on "FOR PROFIT" goods and services.

Look around you at what we have perpetuated with our present leadership and policies..... How's that working for you?

Okay, you can cut-paste someone else's (incorrect) opinion. Do you have one of your own?

The reason for this is that every state and locality will have different needs, wants, and desires. It can only (rationally) be handled locally.

Quite honestly, people no longer "vote" with their wallets enough to influence company policies on an effective scale. Look at pro sports. Many complain about high prices at the stadiums, but people keep spending the money anyway. Most them are all talk and no action. So we can't rely on that.

Second, there isn't enough manufacturing in this country to support such consumerism. Most people are going to buy the cheaper product whenever they can. And that means buying foreign UNLESS American products can be provided cheaper. And that means a return to tariffs. Before tariffs can be raised, though, we have to restructure our system in such a way that new businesses have a chance to gain a foothold. Employers have to pay FICA and Medicare for every employee. They have to pay all sorts of taxes and fees. My plan eliminates all these taxes at the Federal level, giving relief to small businesses which is who is hit hardest by all the business taxes.

Furthermore, the wealthy keep getting tax breaks because "they create jobs". Truth is, small business creates many more jobs in the U.S. than large wealthy corporations. So gearing tax breaks to the wealthy and their corporations does not help Main Street America. My plan taxes the wealthy individual, not the business. The rarely does a billionaire dump tons of his own money into a well-established business just to expand the business. He uses the business' own revenue for that. That makes the "they create jobs" argument a fallacy. Tax the private individual, not the business.

So no, I don't have faith in our current economic structure. That's because we are heading towards monopolies already. Small business has been getting strangled by policies which favor big business and by foreign markets. Most of the consumer products we buy in this country are crap compared to what was formerly available in the U.S. Despite health hazards and recalls, most Americans still buy goods made in China....because they have no choice. It floods the market, and they just don't have the money to purchase more expensive goods. It's time to rebuild the economic base of this country, and that base was manufacturing. And manufacturing begins as small business, not corporations.

And how is Ron Paul going to curtail lobbying and money influence in government? Many lobbyists are former politicians. It takes time to build contacts. Campaign donations and fundraisers are a huge cog in networking for lobbyists. The longer politicians are in office, the more they can network. Each election is another opportunity to network and cache favors. My plan (which I stated in another thread a while back) limits nearly all Federal elected officials to a maximum of 20 years in office unless they win the Presidency. During that time, they can only take part in 4 Federal elections, unlike a career Representative who would face 10 elections during that same time period. A two-year term means the Rep. spends half of each term campaigning for the next election, paying less attention to actual issues before Congress. How's that working for ya?

And you fail to even address the Dept. of Interior question I posed. Ron Paul plans to eliminate all funding for that Department. That means no funding for parks, park employees, or Reservation services. In fact, it paves the way for the sale of government lands. Did you know that parts of Yellowstone and Yosemite have been sold in the past?

Ron Paul is promising everyone change within the current system. The problem is that the system is breaking down. Like a machine, sometimes it needs to be torn apart and then put back together. That's the time to make upgrades and changes. You can't make those changes while the machine is running. It's dangerous to both man and machine. This is what Thomas Jefferson recognized about government. He wasn't advocating an actual "revolution", just that change will be resisted unless something forces the issue. Regular periods of change and adaptation tends to keep people honest.

That is because they don't want the "needs" met. If you are unemployed it is your own fault, if you are a single mother, it is your own fault, etc... They want to inflict their idea of consequences on those they feel deserve it for their own mistakes/circumstances in life. IE If you get hit by a hurricane, shouldn't live there. If you get hit by an earthquake, god must not like you, your fault. You get raped and pregnant, should have worn those shorts. If your father molests you and you get pregnant, god must not like you, your fault. You get hit by a drunk driver, again god doesn't like you, your fault. You get a genetic disease, your families fault, god doesn't like you, your fault. Born with mental health issues, god doesn't like you, your fault, live on the streets and beg. ECT....

I believe you can understand it now.

I would ask why was the specific program needed prior to its creation?

Government has doubled in size every 10-20 years for the last 100. Is it really true that the needs of the citizens have doubled every 10-20 years. The simple fact is that when a body of people are able to vote themselves into new ways of making money they will continue to do so ad infintum.

So I would turn your question on its head, and place the burden on those that wish these programs to continue to justify the effectiveness and the need.

During budget shortfalls companies have to do this, and they do not ask the question from your perspective, they rightly ask it from mine.

What would it take to know if they are needs vs wants?

I think demonstrating that is not a politically tenable position and why the emotional rhetoric is used.

No emotional rhetoric at all, It is life situations that happen everyday. Married women become single mom's in one day sometimes with no work to fall back on. People have natural disasters happen with no warning, everything they own and what gets them to work is gone, sometimes work is gone. Rape can happen no matter what a woman/girl is doing. All of what I mentioned is a part of life for someone everyday somewhere. No need to get emotional about it, just need to make sure that there is help since we know it happens. It is really just good planning, not emotional rhetoric.

Believe me if you had lived on welfare, you would know the difference between need and want and you would know that the government has a good idea on how to keep it need based. No one "wants" to live on what pittance is given for needs by the government.