The Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign announced the release of Dr. Paul’s “Plan to Restore America,” an ambitious federal government spending, tax and reform blueprint that as President he will implement.
The plan, authored by Paul’s campaign staff at his direction, promises to restore the federal government to its former Constitutionally-limited, smaller-government and less-burdensome place. The plan cuts $1 trillion in federal spending during the first year of a Paul Presidency and delivers a balanced budget in year three of a Paul Presidency.
“Ron Paul’s plan is the only one that seriously addresses the economic and budgetary problems our nation faces. It cuts $1 trillion in one year, and slashes regulations and taxes so our economy can grow and create jobs,” said Ron Paul 2012 National Campaign Chairman Jesse Benton, a plan co-author.
“It’s the only plan offered by a presidential candidate that actually balances the budget and begins to pay down the debt. And it’s the only plan being offered that tries to rein in the Federal Reserve and get inflation under control.”
Cuts totaling $1 trillion during the first year of a Paul Presidency would be achieved by eliminating five federal cabinet departments – the Departments of Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Commerce, Interior and Education. Cuts of this scale will also be accomplished by a Paul Presidency abolishing the Transportation Security Administration and returning responsibility for security to private property owners, abolishing corporate subsidies, stopping foreign aid, ending foreign wars, and returning most other spending to 2006 levels.
View/Download PDF File
http://www.ronpaul.com/media/RestoreAmericaPlan.pdf
Processing your request, Please wait....
So this is the Ron Paul ‘fan site’? With fans like many here, who needs enemies? While I don’t see eye to eye with Ron Paul on every single issue, I do on the most important issues, and I’ve not found another candidate who comes close to matching Ron Paul on the most important issues, which are reducing the size and cost of government, returning some degree of certainty to the job creators so that jobs will be created, strengthening our currency, bringing some transparency to government, and returning to the Constitution as the basis of government.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@pl21224 Everybody is freee to post and that’s great. At least I haven’t seen a troll for a long time.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Jean-FrancoisBeaulieu While I agree on being free to post, living abroad I was expecting to see a much more supportive group extolling facts about Ron Paul in an attempt to promote him over the other candidates running in the primaries.
Having joined and left a number of TEA party sites, I found that they appear content to just replace Obama with any candidate, and surprisingly I’ve found more positive support for Ron Paul on the most Left wing site where I occasionally post.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@pl21224@Jean-FrancoisBeaulieu Dr Paul does not need a party he a good man and I vote for good men. However many Americans still need a Party to align them selves to. His support transcends party lines and rightfully so!
Unfortunately if you rely on MSM for your news he’s lambasted regularly and will not get the support of those who rely on newscasters to make their decisions for them. The tide is turning however. Please help us take America back.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@MattPapke@pl21224@Jean-FrancoisBeaulieu While I don’t think we need a third party, we really do need a second party, and it’s going to take some effort on the part of the voters to retake the Republican party, and Ron Paul represents what the Republican party should be. We have allowed the MSM media and various organized groups to constantly divide us as a people, and what we really need in a leader is someone who can unite us as a people. While I may have some differences of opinion with Ron Paul, I do feel he stands uncompromisingly on his principles, and honesty above all the other candidates.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I have been following Dr Ron Paul since 2006 and was very active in his 2008 campaign. I have been an outspoken proponent of Dr. Paul’s message to this day. That being said, I am troubled by what I see in Dr. Paul’s “restore america” plan. 1st, Dr Paul’s message has always been END THE FED and RESTORE THE POWER OF PRINTING MONEY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY – As is called for in the Constitution. Now I am hearing from several sources that Dr Paul would not actually “END” the fed, but rather open it up to competition. Can someone explain this change in his agenda and how that is constitutional when the constitution calls for the Dept of the Treasury to be responsible for printing money? The 2nd item which concerns me is the line item in his plan which calls for the “Ban on Union projects”…. I have been a union worker and a non-union worker. I believe in a persons right to organize if they so desire. Does Dr Paul not believe in this country anymore? Has he lost his love of the Constitution? This country is a union of 50 states. People fought for this union and died for this union. When he destroys private unions will he also destroy the Union of 50 states? This is not a joke, I am seriously questioning my ability to stand behind him.Is there someone who can explain these two points to me? Thank you.-Wobbling Long Time Ron Paul Supporter
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@JasonCaryl If I heard him correctly, he has not backed off of ending the Fed, but only stated that it could not be accomplished instantly, and in fact I think we would be better served to eliminate, or greatly reduce the National debt before any attempt is made to strengthen the dollar. I’ve been unable to locate where in his plan he calls for a ‘Ban on union projects’, but I do feel the taxpayers are not served by unionization of Public sector workers, who most often are better paid and receive better working and pension benefits than private sector workers who pay their wages and benefits, nor do I support government elimination of non-union contractors from being allowed to bid on or receive government contracts.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@JasonCaryl Hi Jason, Dr. Paul has been a staunch opponent of the FED as long as I can recall. However he has never advocated for the immediate dissolving of it. First the Audit, then the Allowing of competing currencies. As is there is not any true competition. Allowing the competition would allow the markets to operate and choose the currency they see most viable. Ideally the reliance upon the FED would wane and make the dissolving of it more organic than forced. RE the labor question I do not know how to answer your question.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You are absolutely right on Paul and his stance on the Fed. @MattPapke @JasonCaryl
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@JasonCaryl
1) Ban on Union projects: In the budget plan ( page 3) it is supposed to represent an economy of 2 $billion per year. He doesn’t claim that union will be banned, that’s against his philosophy of freedom, but it seems to refer to some pork barrel union projects like the Train to Nowhere (Victorville, Calif.) and infrastructure spendings where federal funds are used on useless projects where the democratic party buys the loyalty of unions in order to finance Obama’s campaign later.
2) Federal Reserve: In the section “issues”, “sound money”, he was already describing several months ago his approach regarding the Fed: A war by attrition e.g. allowing people to use silver or gold in their transactions. Presently the government is doing the opposite with sales taxes on gold and silver and the fact that you must declare your profits if you resell gold, obviously the US government wouldn’t like to see people dumping the dollar. Now, why would a president have the autority to prevent a group of bankers from printing notes? He cannot end the Fed with an executive order, that’s not his style. Anyway that would lead to a total chaos and the collapse of the economy if it’s done in one day. Someone has to manage the transition, but there is no reason to allow the federal reserve to print “this note is legal tender”, as a customer or as a merchant, you should be free to refuse their notes when your purchase/buy something. So not only the chairman of the federal reserve is replaced, not only do you have a complete audit every year, but if there are suspicions that the Fed overprint notes the people will dump the dollars and use silver. The Federal Resreve has the choice between comitting a quick suicide ( if most people reject the USD) or becoming useless, e.g. standing iddle. Gradually the real price of gold and silver will be determined by the market and the interest rates will be created by the market (local bankers) rather than a central authority.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Just put him into office and see what he does to the Fed. This man can not stand the Fed. He will be their worst Nightmare. @JasonCaryl
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
As I said before I have been following Ron Paul for over 20 years. There are only about 5 people in my life time that would even be worth voting for, so don’t get the idea I am discouraging anyone from voting. They are interviewing him even on Sunday shows now, he not only can win, it looks very good.
If he just stops the wars, stops the feds from abusing civil liberties, and pardons all non-violent prisoners, that will be better than any other president ever and that is totally within his power without anyone else.
My fear is that he will get elected and put those things on the back burner or since he is such a nice guy he will get there and not have the forcefullness to just do that, especially after he gets a visit from the CIA and they tell him his life depends on not doing any of that.
OR maybe they already visited him and that is why his budget only helps the rich and he is getting on all those shows, maybe he is already not bought but under duress.
The bottom line for me is that even thogh the right courageous person as president CAN make positive changes, WE CAN NO LONGER HOPE FOR THAT. The system is totally corrupt and MUST BE REPLACED, not just the political system the whole money/market system must be transcended.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@SteveMa At least you didn’t say that his budget hits the poor. Because how could you give a tax break to someone who doesn’t pay any tax anyway? Killing inflation ( with a balanced budget) is like removing the last tax that the poor are still paying. For job creations… well, since you don’t seem to believe in the market, so it be.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
My fear is that he will get elected and put those things on the back burner or since he is such a nice guy he will get there and not have the forcefullness to just do that, especially after he gets a visit from the CIA and they tell him his life depends on not doing any of that.
Now do you really believe that knowing Ron Paul? If you have that fear then you truly do not know the man. But I still hope you vote for him. Don’t worry the TX fire ant will get the job done. Would you not like to see all of them up there go Bat Spat?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Lets summarize where we are with this interesting discussion about RPs budget.
I have pointed out that a key number is the 3069 base line number for the revenue in 2013. This is a number provided by the CBO under the assumption that the Bush tax cuts expire.
The projected increase of revenue in RPs plan is therefore (3069-2302) / 2302 = 0.33.
So RP and CBO predicts that the revenue will increase with a whopping 33% between now and 2013. This has never happened in modern times.
Jean-Francois has pointed out that RP takes into account the Bush taxcuts because he subtract 238 billions from 3069. The projected increase of revenue in RPs plan is therefore without this taxcut (3069-2302-238) / 2302 = 0.22
If one goes back and looks at revenue increases since WW2 one can see that the revenue has never increased by 33% in a two year period and only once in the early fifties by as much as 22%.
Conclusion:
Ron Paul is using numbers that predicts that the Obama administration will pull off one of the most fantastic economic recoveries in modern times.
However, Ron Paul does not believe that Obama will increase revenue with 22% in the coming two years by improving the economy. You do not believe it. And I do not believe it. If we did, we should all (including RP) vote for Obama.
So Ron Pauls plan is dishonest. The only defense that RP supporters have against this observation is that his predictions comes from the CBO so they have to be correct. Yeah, right. Are you guys interested in buying a bridge also ?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@DebbieWringles I don’t think anyone here is interested in buying a bridge, especially since they’re all known to be near collapse. But, given the choices we have in the upcoming elections, including your own admission that ‘none’ of the candidates have produced a better, or more honest plan which would produce a balanced budget, I think the fact remains that most of us here, with the exception of you and SteveMa, would agree that Ron Paul is the only one who we could entrust to put forth the effort needed to reduce the massively wasteful spending and debt accumulation of our government.
What you refer to as an interesting discussion appears to have become no more than a relentless rant with the sole purpose of reducing support for Ron Paul. Perhaps you would feel more at home on an “Obama in 2012″ site?
Even if the figures from the CBO are wrong, which they most often are, I think the spending could easily be reduced and the budget balanced in a single term with the right politicians being elected. We need someone in the Executive office that would support the needed actions, but we also need both houses of Congress to have members intent on accomplishing the same goals, which presently we do not have.
Look at the bigger picture, and a start in accomplishing anything at all requires placing the right people in positions that allow the needed changes to be implemented.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@DebbieWringles You are wrong again when you say:”Ron Paul is using numbers that predicts that the Obama administration will pull off one of the most fantastic economic recoveries in modern times.”
He has to use the official figures regarding the expected revenues, and although these figures are probably too optimistic the CBO doesn’t paint a rosy picture of the economy for the next 2 years… From the Congressional Budget Office document:
begin quote:
“CBO expects that the recovery will continue but that real (inflation-adjusted) GDP will stay well below the economy’s potential—a level that corresponds to a high rate of use of labor and capital—for several years. [...]CBO projects that real GDP will increase by 2.3 percent this year and by 2.7 percent next year. [...]The unemployment rate is projected to fall from 9.1 percent in the second quarter of 2011 to 8.9 percent in the fourth quarter of the year and to 8.5 percent in the fourth quarter of 2012″
On page 2 of the same document provide many reasons behind the expected revenues, the Bush tax cuts but also several other issues. So nowhere does the CBO claims that you will have a fantastic recovery under Obama.
begin quote:
“Certain provisions of the 2010 tax act, including extensions of lower rates and expanded credits and deductions originally enacted in the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), expire at the end of 2012; The two-year extension of provisions designed to limit the reach of the alternative minimum tax, extensions of emergency unemployment compensation, and the one-year reduction in the payroll tax all expire at the end of 2011;
“Read the page 2, it’s not just about the Bush tax cuts
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@DebbieWringles By the way it’s hard to predict exactly the real GDP growth and the unemployment rate, there are so many external factors, those guys are often wrong, but nowhere do they paint a rosy picture of the next 2 years.
However IF the gdp growth is known, it’s easy for them to predict the surge in revenues because unlike you, they know in details how many taxation acts will expire in the coming two years and they can even use a mathematical model to know how much extra revenues are generated for a specific GDP growth rate since they can use historical data for a similar growth rate.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Who give a flying crap? What is with all the numbers. The economy is in a freaking mess.
Can Obama fix it? Can Romney, Cain, Perry or Newt fix it? No way in hell can they fix it. Ron may get into office and everything still may go to you know where, but he is the best one for the job period. So stop with all the numbers. Use common sense. I trust my gut and my gut tells me to go with Ron Pual.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What makes Ron Paul stand out from all the other candidates is that he clearly states the problems and doesn’t try to pose solutions based on what each audience would like to hear, or present them so vaguely that each listener can hear what he/she would like to hear. Cut spending and balance the budget, and I don’t think Ron Paul would try and work around the Congress and the people by implementing changes through Executive orders autocratically.
Except for a couple of the other Republican primary candidates, I think some of them should be running in a Democrat primary against Obama.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@pl21224 “he clearly states the problems and doesn’t try to pose solutions based on what each audience would like to hear, or present them so vaguely that each listener can hear what he/she would like to hear.”
Are you joking ?
This is exactly what he does with his economic plan.
He tells his follower that if he cuts the budget he cannot not only balance the budget but save enough to pay for new huge tax cuts. Exactly what you in the supporter club what do hear. This is impossible and very, very dishonest
What he does not tell you is that his plan only works if the Bush tax cuts expires so that he has a big tax increase in addition. With other words ….his plan is so vague that nobody of you RP supporters are able to see the slight of hands.
If he was an honest guy he would say that in order to get a balanced budget he would have to.
1. implement his budget cuts.
2. let the Bush tax cuts expire
3. wait with his own tax cuts until the economy picks up
But that is not what you in the RP supporter club wants to hear so he gives you a BS economic plan that you all think is wonderful but that has holes that you can drive a truck through.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@DebbieWringles The plan he has presented is based on the CBO projections, which are based on the information they have been given, and even if wrong which most often it is, is what he should be using. His plan can be adjusted around new figures, once they have been provided, and considering the excessive amounts Obama has increased the Federal budget to cover redistribution programs, I think $1 trillion is a trivial amount but at least a start in the right direction.
Reducing the size of the Federal government, waste and duplicity, and allowing States to continue or eliminate implementation of programs at the State level, funded by the States would further cut the Federal budget.
The Federal government doesn’t PAY for tax cuts, it only requires making offsetting spending cuts.
Personally, I would like to see the people given the opportunity to repeal the 16th and 17th amendments, and eliminate the Federal governments ability to tax income directly. Returning to the States the power to tax, and returning to Congress the voices of both the people (House) and the States (Senate), would reduce greatly the ability of the Federal government to perpetually grow the National debt with deficit spending. The States would likely continue to make use of a progressive tax system, but the people of each State and the State itself would have a much stronger voice in what spending and programs could be initiated by the Federal government, requiring consent of the people who would be less susceptible, and accessible to the efforts of lobbyists than are the concentration of Representatives, ALL elected by the people and none by the States today.
By the way, do you prefer a Republican candidate who would maintain the status quo, or are you an Obama supporter?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@pl21224@DebbieWringles “The plan he has presented is based on the CBO projections, which are based on the information they have been given, and even if wrong which most often it is, is what he should be using.”
The plan he is using is based on the assumption that the Bush yax cuts will be revoked and we will have a huge tax hike. Sorry, but that is dishonest.
What he should have done is assumed no increase in revenue from now to 2013 since the Bush tax cuts should not be revoked and with Obama’s disastrous economic policy the GDP growth will be feeble at best.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@DebbieWringles I would prefer he stick with the assumptions provided him by the CBO, rather than make his own assumptions which could be just as inaccurate, and more of a problem if they were to be worse than those provided by the CBO. It angers me when politicians use figures that have no source that I can confirm, right or wrong. At least when they use figures I too can obtain from the same source, I can then put them on a spread sheet and not have to play with multiple what-ifs.
If you so adamantly oppose, and distrust Ron Paul claiming him to be dishonest and lie, why not make us aware of who among the possible candidates would be a more honest and trustful candidate that we should be focusing on and directing our support. Essentially you appear to be continually vociferously espousing “Anyone but Ron Paul”. It would appear that you must feel he may take votes from the candidate of your choice in the primary. If or until some other candidate can demonstrate having principles equal to or greater than Ron Paul, he is the only candidate I could caste my vote for, and lacking his name on the General election ballot, I would feel given as my only choice the opportunity to caste a vote against Obama.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“I would prefer he stick with the assumptions provided him by the CBO, rather than make his own assumptions which could be just as inaccurate, and more of a problem if they were to be worse than those provided by the CBO.”
But he does not have to do any crazy assumptions. Just apply his spending cuts and tax cuts on the 2011 budget. Then you see that it cannot work.
I have never said that RPs plan is worse than any other politicians plan. They are all dishonest. And none of them would give a balanced budget. NOT A SINGLE ONE !
Americans generally do not understand what a terrible mess the federal budget is in and no politician (including RP) has the honesty to tell them. Grow up an realize that there are no easy solutions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@DebbieWringles But there is an easy solution, and that would be to spend no more than the revenue collected. Cut salaries and pensions of Federal employees to something that the taxpayers can afford. The longer we allow the Federal government to avoid making the necessary spending cuts the more difficult it will become and Greece will look like a cakewalk compared to the the U.S. and the debts both recognized and the unfunded future liabilities that are going to create a continuing crisis in the near future.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@DebbieWringles@pl21224 Wrong, the plan is based on the assumption that the Bush tax cuts WILL NOT BE REVOKED!. The 3069 $billion figure for 2013 takes in account more revenues when the Bush tax cuts expire, but RP substract the tax cuts after on page 4.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well hell go vote for the one who you think has all the answers. Better yet why don’t you run. I am tired of hearing all this crap. I bet if you were to go missing the freaking world would stop turning. Ron Paul has more brains in his ass than you have in your head. @DebbieWringles @pl21224
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
So let see; so far no economist have come to denounce this budget as a fraud, but you have at least…
Debbie: She misread a couple of 15% on page 4 ( spendings as a percentage of the GDP) and claim that the budget plan states that revenues will increase by 15% per year according to this plan. And when it’s not enough she is misreading elsewhere and bring another fishy claim.
And now we have SteveMa, who say ” really like Ron Paul [...] but ike Debbie is saying IT DOESN’T ADD UP. There is NO WAY the baseline will increase by 33% in 2 years.”
And you haven’t try to verify where he took those projected revenues? CBO, Congressional Budget Office, a governmental source:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/123xx/doc12316/Update_SummaryforWeb.pdf, the 3069 $billion of revenues in 2013 are there. So he did not “create” this 3069 $billion of revenue out of thin air, it’s a gouvernemental source, they have their own economists who can include the expiration of some tax breaks, other sources of income, but that is why no economist has come so far to blast his 3069 $billion figure; that would be like attacking all the economists who were behind the CBO.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Jean-FrancoisBeaulieu
Thank you for the link Jean-Francois. It is the last piece of the puzzle needed to understand where Ron Paul’s economic plan goes wrong.
I have earlier speculated here that the unprecedented 33% increase of the federal revenue predicted in RPs budget and the CBOs projection was that it assumed that the Bush tax cuts would expire. Your document confirms it.
Look at the first page of the document from the CBO:
“Those projections …… also reflect the sharp increase in revenues that will occur when provisions of the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Acto of 2010 (the 2010 tax act) expire.”
So Ron Pauls budget only works if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire for ever and we have as a consequence the largest tax hike since Herbert Hoover was president in the early 30-ies.
Is that part of RPs economic plan for America ? I do not think so …. and so HIS PLAN DOES NOT WORK !
His plan would cut the taxes for the wealthy with as much as he would save by cutting the budget and nowhere in it does he talk about rising taxes for everybody by a huge amount by letting the Bush tax cuts expire. Or is that his policy ?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@DebbieWringles I think you should read more carefully before to bring baseless statements. First it was the claim”according to Ron the tooth fairy will bless US and the revenue will increase with 15% year after year”, and he never said that, you just misread the 4 15 % (15.3, 15.27, 15.59 and 15.59) on page 4, which were about the percentage of the GDP that government revenues represent, now it’s about the Bush tax cuts since you said:”What he does not tell you is that his plan only works if the Bush tax cuts expires so that he has a big tax increase in addition”You are wrong again, read carefully on page 4: He SUBSTRACT a line “Tax Extenders 01/03 + Indexed AMT” from the revenues. Your claim that the Bush tax cuts have cost 700 $billion a year to the treasury is probably based on a leftist source. Even the Huffingtonpost, which is HARDLY a far right, pro-republican source, but more than often a leftist source, is giving 11.6 $million/hour, which is 7 times less than your 700 $billionhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/14/tax-cuts-for-wealthy-americans_n_1011601.htmlNow this line “Tax Extenders 01/03 + Indexed AMT” (page 4 of his pdf) may include extra items over the Bush tax cuts, plus the projected increase of the losses due to inflation and GDP growth, but even for the year 2016 we are far from your 700 $billion, it starts with -238 $billion in 2013 and reaches -414 $billion in 2016, and it is likely to include more than the Bush tax cuts.The sole thing for which you may be right is that the CBO projections could be too optimistic, and you said he shouldn’t have use these ones. So what should he use???? My guess is that even the democrats use the same CBO projections!!!There is no shame about giving tax cuts; it’s all about his philosophy, small governments.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@DebbieWringles I continue the last message: Ron Paul is not a neocon. The neocons want to increase the taxes on the poor, either with the 9-9-9 plan or either through budget deficits which means monetarizing the debt which mean more inflation, so an indidious tax on the poor and the middle class. The TARP was one example, and the TARP was supported both by Bush AND Obama (there was a phase II for Obama). But the neocons are not for small governments. The democrats are not working for the poor either; they want to tax the rich, but if you extend the concept you look at USSR, Greece, and ultimatelly the poor will pay if the rich leave the country and settle elsewhere. You can tax the rich to some extend, but beyond a certain point you get less revenues if you increase the taxes. A businessman who doesn’t receive subsidies or a surgeon do not steal anyone, they create jobs or offer a service that you are free to accept or refuse. A corporation that receive government money or bailouts IS stealing the middle class. What Obama is doing right now is to funnel money from the poor and the middle class to some rich ( subsidies to corporations, bailouts for the banks, military spendings that go to contractors) and trying to take back a part of that money from ALL the rich, including people like Steve Job, people who never received any subsidies, and funnel it down to the middle class and adding is bucreaucracy on top of this to regulate the flow upward and downward!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Jean-FrancoisBeaulieu
Jean-Francois I see that you have not understood ere my 33% comes from.
Let me explain.
The federal revenue in 2011 is 2302 billions. This is an actual number that you can find on many web-sites. The projected income in 2013 by RP and the CBO is 3069 billions.
Here is the calculation: (3069-2302) / 2302 = 0.333
So RP predicts that the revenue will increase with a whopping 33% between now and 2013 i.e. before RP would implement his tax and spending cuts.
Thanks to you, we now know that this unprecedented revenue increase will only happen if the Bush tax cuts are revoked and taxes goes up with another 700 billions per year.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Jean-FrancoisBeaulieu Correction:
Letting the Bush tax cut expire will not generate 700 billions per year but 700 billion during two years.
The treasury estimates the Bush tax cuts cost 370 billion per year in lost revenue.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@DebbieWringles@Jean-FrancoisBeaulieu If job creation is a priority, making the Bush tax cuts permanent, and not continuing or creating any new temporary fixes would reduce much of the uncertainty for those who might otherwise begin to create jobs. As long as taxes, regulatory, and other costs necessary for business to plan around remain moving targets it makes more sense to look for safer places to park any cash until which time the target has been fixed and appears unlikely to be moved abruptly.
Once our money was replaced with the U.S. dollars, which have no true intrinsic value, it became more rational to make use of them as employees in a profitable way in order to produce some semblance of having intrinsic value.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@pl21224@Jean-FrancoisBeaulieu Am I getting through to you at all ?
What RP’s plan is saying is ….. vote for RP and he will revoke the Bush tax cuts.
Do you get it ?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@DebbieWringles@Jean-FrancoisBeaulieu Ron Pauls plan is saying what he can based on the CBO projections given him. As for the Bush tax cuts, I think both houses of Congress would once again have a word to say, and until they do I have no idea what Ron Paul as President might do with what is sent to him. I haven’t seen his plan for a Federal income tax reform yet.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@DebbieWringles BS! Search on Google, here’s a link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/14/tax-cuts-for-wealthy-americans_n_1011601.html
“Tax Cuts For Wealthy Americans Cost Treasury $11.6 Million Every Hour: Report”
This is 100 $billion per year NOT 700 $billion!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@DebbieWringles Again you fail to read the numbers! The 3069 $billion is a CBO projection, not his own one, and it does take in account the expiration of the Bush tax cuts so this is why you have such a major increase of the hypothetical revenues. But RP SUBSTRACT the Bush tax cuts after from 3069 $billion plus other items and he gets lower revenues. And the Bush tax cuts were never close to 700 $billion/year, even the .huffingtonpost didn’t want to back such a phony number
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If Herman Cain gave up that Social Security crap about adopt the chilean style of Social security he would be okay with me. By the way I am suppose to be moving to North Dakota I here there are a lot of jobs up there they are paying people to flip hamburgers 12 to 17.00 dollars a hour at mc donalds
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I really like Ron Paul and have been following him and studying austrian economics for over 25 years. I have been waiting so long for someone like Ron Paul to actually have a chance to be the president that it is painful to see this budget.
Like Debbie is saying IT DOESN’T ADD UP. There is NO WAY the baseline will increase by 33% in 2 years. But the part that is really disturbing about RP’s plan is that he wants to eliminate estate, gift and capital gains taxes and reduce corporate taxes and that will only encourage the 1% to hoard money, gamble and NOT reinvest in businesses.
But all this tax and spending talk is a moot point because automation and cheap labor has reduced the amount of good paying jobs in America and they are NEVER COMING BACK. And there is NO MAGICAL NEW INDUSTRY coming to create all the necessary jobs. No jobs = no consumers = capitalism is OVER.
We need a totally new system based on using the scientific method to produce and distribute all human needs, with machines and computers doing most of the work, and humans enjoying life and having true FREEDOM. Money/market is OVER! Science, technology, sharing, cooperation and automation will allow us to EVOLVE.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@SteveMa
And there is NO MAGICAL NEW INDUSTRY- actually, there are a number of, “borderline” technologies” awaiting in the back ground. A great deal of reluctance to invest in is due to Large Corporations being in control of the subsectors. This “control” is maintained via Regulation. There is a preponderous of evidence that shows the “established ” utilize Regulation, via Public positions(5 Departments). America can develop new Industries, NEW Jobs… it just needs to get the “established” Crony Capitolists out of the way, get the Govt. Public Beauro’s out of the way, get back to opportunity and away from Corporate controls as to what will and what won’t be brought to developement that does or does not threaten existing products or services.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@SteveMa
When choice is removed in the Private Sector, then of course, jobs won’t be created. When choice can have influence, you’ll see the rate of Regulation slow or reverse. Latest figures are showing Regulation growing @ 6% annum on a compouded basis. The seriousness of the implication is observed when GDP is less than half. Like you say, “New”= startup, regulation =10k$ per employee on a startup(small buissness), Federal is 7500$(small buisness), ..large “buisness is 5000$ per employee.
America can create jobs.. it just needs to not worry about justifying Public Positions via regulating the market(5 Departments-Big Buissnesses)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@drmaddogs
If Ron Paul ends all wars, brings troops home, stops government spying, torture, rendition, etc., prosecutes corrupt bankers, pardons all non-violent prisoners, he would already be doing more good than any president in history.
But his budget is very disurbing because it doesn’t add up and it is another reducing capital gains, estate and corporate taxes ONLY help the RICH.
All this is MOOT, CAPITALISM IS OVER. THERE ARE NO NEW JOBS.
We do have the technology and resources to create DECENTRALIZED production and distribution systems for ALL HUMAN NEEDS, that do NOT requre massive numbers of human laborers.
There are NO economic, political or religious answer, ALL SOLUTIONS ARE TECHNICAL. Stop being afraid of the future. We are about to evolve as a species.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@SteveMa@drmaddogs I presume that you come from the left accounting for the sentence “reducing capital gains, estate and corporate taxes ONLY help the RICH.”. If you have no cartel/monopoly and free competition between corporations, lowering the corporate taxes does not help only the rich. If you decide to add a 10% corporate tax on oil firms, the price of gasoline will increase by 10% the day after. Corporations don’t pay taxes, they pass them along the consumer. The goal here is to steal business from a country and bring them the the USA, the price to pay is less revenues at the outset, it’s a gamble.
“CAPITALISM IS OVER. THERE ARE NO NEW JOBS.”
Capitalism is over in the USA, during the Bush years it was crony capitalism and with Obama it’s corporatism. But capitalism is thrieving in China and India and curiously, there are new jobs there.
But regarding the collapse of the middle class in the USA, I have my little theory regarding this, it’s about cheap credit. It’s a bit long to explain again but I found a chart that describes the gap between the rich and the poor and in 1913,when the income tax was created, the gap was almost equivalent to what it was in 1983 with a much higher progressive income tax. However there are 3 episodes where the gap explode, WWI, the roaring 1920′s and 1979 ( especially after 1995). For all those 3 cases you have a period of cheap credit and an enormous expension of the money supply. The gap between the rich and the poor was largelly dug before the Bush tax cuts, when credit cards became widely used.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Jean-FrancoisBeaulieu@drmaddogsIn the old days when owners of corporations actually built them, worked in them and cared about them, they put ALL profits BACK into the company, which is good for everyone.
But when the rich found out they could buy part of corps and gamble in the stock market, and EXTRACT profits from the businesses, everything became a financial game. Reducing corporate taxes ONLY encourages the elites to EXTRACT more profits out of companies, raising them encourages businesses putting thier profits BACK into their companies. This is very simple.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Jean-FrancoisBeaulieu@drmaddogs
China and India are DEFINITELY NOT capitalist. Calling everything that is working capitalist and everything that isn’t working socialist is obviously WRONG and a false dichotomy. There are more than 2 options.
Scientists and engineers create the machines that produce everything we need, whether a government or capitalist is funding them doesn’t matter. So all the argument about ISMs is pointless.
If you think about it we can just eliminate all those middle men and produce and distribute DIRECTLY. Think beyond your left right bubble. Humans are evolving, you’re welcome to join.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@SteveMa
ONLY help the RICH- I do not agree. There are always consequences, and the individual steps(Dots) have to be put together. Will it enrich on the front side, absolutly. The rich are supporting the economy now, the rich would support the econy more with more money. Do I think that is good.. how cares,, in the paradigm-money, begets money-some benifits will happen(a few % points increase from the 1% spending). The precept that a single part of the pic is erronious depends on the subsequent failure to instill the one rule everywhere. As long as taxation, for the purpose of supporting centralization(and since it’s always spent(taxs)these taxs are part of the problem) there will always be those whom control others from the aspect they have the “Gold” and can make the rule, whatever rule they wish. This will never ever ever change. Let me repeat, if the $ is there, someone will have an Agenda for self advancement, via,with and capitolized by, in this case, those tax $.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@SteveMa
A more simple way to put it, no one hangs around without an Agenda, money has one Agenda for the powerful, more money.
CAPITALISM IS OVER- Capitolish is at the heart of adaptation+defined as?. Capitolism will always exist on some basis.
THERE ARE NO NEW JOBS.- Duh, – no one will stop new sector/subsector jobs from coming in the future(other than depressions,wars ect…)anymore than one can stop imagination, curiousity being a genetic human trait, or self interest being an expression of self survival.
Stop being afraid of the future- Not since the day before I was told I had less than 4 years to live, have I lived with fear. Suprisingly, knowing ones mortality is somewhat liberating. And evolution is a constant, so what, who cares, iether someone does or does not evolve.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@SteveMa@drmaddogs The rich were always able to gamble in the stock market, even 80 years ago. The goal of the rich is to extract more profits out of companies, I don’t see where is the problem, my own goal is also to extract more profits from the rich, not with subsidies but by selling them a service or with higher wages. In a normal world the rich can just pocket the difference ( tax rebates) if his competitor is doing the same, but the human nature being what it is, his competitor is likely to lower the price of the goods/services that he is selling because he wants to wipe out his competitor and take his market share. In a normal world the entrepreneur has a big ego and keeping the money rather than hiring engineers to do Research and Devellopment or lowering his price to grow his business is not providing the same level of satisfaction, the same power trip.
But we are no longer living in a normal world; in today’s world, unfortunatelly a white collar thief is likelly to get away without being prosecuted. In today’s world, you are reward if you gamble and you are bailed out by the government if your gamble led to a disaster. It’s the privatization of the profits and the collectivisation of the losses. Google “Herman Cain Aquila”:
“[...] roundtrip trades, a scheme in which Aquila would sell a trading partner some energy and then that partner would sell the same amount back to Aquila, a deal that canceled itself out. In the end, nothing actually changed hands. But it boosted Aquila’s trading volume and revenue, sending a positive signal to the markets.”
So in today’s world, you can boost artificially the price of the shares, convince your employees to buy them, sell them and cash a profit and let the employees lose 94% of their savings. You were right on one thing, such kind of behaviours should not be rewarded. Modernizing the laws could help, hiring more bureaucrats I doubt.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@SteveMa The baseline is based on the CBO, it’s a governmental source, not his own one: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/123xx/doc12316/Update_SummaryforWeb.pdf
3069 $billion of revenues in 2013.
And your conception of the austrian school looks strange to me. “new system based on using the scientific method to produce and distribute”, that sounds like central planning. The core belief of the autrian school is that central planning will never work, the people on the ground are facing new situations and react in real time, the situation is constantly changing and no human brain is powerful enough to planify something like this. The economy is organic, not mechanical. Your concern about which new jobs could be created to replace the jobs that are gone (due to automation), it was probably the concern of some flemish craftsman in the early 19 th century who thought that those new machines to make tissue would drive all the urban population to starve.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Jean-FrancoisBeaulieuCBO has 2011 at 2314 and 2013 at 3069 that IS a 33% increase. Which is BS since there are NO JOBS.
Actually today 75% of jobs are non-productive pushing papers and manipulating the money system, NOT necessary at all for production. We have been keeping this system going for 40 years where human labor required for human necessities was unnecessary.
Today technology advances so fast and is so efficient, humans can no longer keep up. The GREAT news is WE DON’T HAVE TO. JUST use the resources and latest technology to produce and distribute to EVERYONE.
Don’t fear the future. Human are EVOLVING NOW.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@SteveMa Nobody can predict the future correctly, I think also that economists tend to be over optimistic, but he had to rely on the official figures , not to create his own ones when it concern revenues. How often did you hear a republican candidates claiming that he will balance the budget without any cut because with him, there will be “growth”. At least that’s not what RP pretends. And as I said it’s not impossible that such a projected revenue increase is based on the expiration of tax cuts, the end of some deductions, there were no details on the cbo web page on how they got this number.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It would appear that we currently looking at the following choices to be the POTUS after the 2012 general election. Likely most of us would be able to easily eliminate Obama as acceptable from this list, but from the remaining 9, we should be making a great effort to select one as unanimously as possible prior to the primary elections.
1. Michele Bachmann
2. Herman Cain
3. Newt Gingrich
4. Jon Huntsman
5. Gary Johnson
6. Ron Paul
7. Rick Perry
8. Mitt Romney
9. Rick Santorum
10. Barack Obama
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@pl21224 Bobby JIndal is the only republican that should get the respect I am not on his side but he would be a better choice out of the republican party. I think he is that candidate that the GOP is looking for Bobby Jindal.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@micahbronkell I guess you could write in Bobby Jindal on the ballot. It looks like we’re headed for another General election where it’s likely that Obama will be defeated, but little if anything will change. Personally, I think both the DNC and the RNC will work hard to assure Mitt Romney as the Republican candidate in the general election, in order to keep us heading in the same direction.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Are we losing focus on what our objectives should be?
1. Remove Obama in 2012
2. And this should be as important, if not more so than removing Obama. Replace Obama with someone who is unwilling to compromise the principles we hold in agreement.
3. Replace as many members of both houses as possible with others who share our principles.
Balancing a budget, any budget, can only be accomplished by spending less than the available revenues. This can be accomplished only in 3 ways, increasing revenues, reducing spending. or a combination of both. Considering the size of our current National debt, and even more so if attention to the unfunded, and rapidly growing future liabilities, I would suggest our ONLY viable solution would be to immediately begin to reduce the spending of our Federal government, State governments, including local governments to levels that could be sustained, and to begin reducing the debt held by ALL levels of government.
As a result of changes which took place in 1913, the Federal Reserve act, 16th and 17th amendments, we have allowed our government at the Federal level to initiate changes which have resulted in making our society more fragile and destined to eventual catastrophic failure. Democracy, when exercised by a large society, with powers to create and enforce laws emanating from a Central source, drastically reduces the power of the people who are governed to make the choices which best serve their interests. Our government was initially founded on the principle of Freedom and Liberty belonging to the individuals, diminished only by their consent in a democratic way to the various levels of government beginning locally, to their respective States, and to the Federal government with the consent of both the people and their States.
Ron Paul, in my opinion, is the only candidate who seems to understand the problems, their causes, and where the solutions are to be found in solving the many problems we face today.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@pl21224 You say remove Obama, But what will happen when Cain,Romney and Maybe Paul’s vision fail . what then will you rally behind a new candidate when the GOP fails the people…If Paul becomes president and his economic polices fail? will continue to support him? Answer question..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@micahbronkell I really don’t think Ron Paul would fail us. It would be hard to answer a hypothetical question and would just have to wait until some relevant facts become available to answer that. Perhaps if things were to go awry with Ron Paul as President, he could use Obamas and the Democrats standard answer, “The problems I inherited are much worse than I initially thought.”
Obviously the changes needed are not going to be all that pleasant immediately in everyones view, but the longer we wait to begin making them, the more difficult they will become.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@micahbronkell To my knowledge Dr. Paul has never stated he would change things. He states candidly that he would propose solutions to congress and the Senate and it would be up to them to decide how to proceed.
Specifically he is not seeking power and has stated on numerous occasions that he will not use executive orders to legislate, he will however wield a just veto pen.
As a Congressman Dr. Paul as introduced countless bill to the floor he is the founder of the Audit the Fed Bill HR 1207 and has recently presented a new more robust bill to Audit the Fed HR459.
Cursory research will show what the good Doctor has presented to Congress only to be lambasted and withered in the Halls of Congress.
While he will not legislate he will lead. And God Damnit we need a leader with our interests in mind.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@MattPapke@micahbronkell
What’s so hard to understand about you Matt is that you are supporting Ron Paul because you somehow think that interests of a little man like you are going to be furthered by him. Are you headfucked from one of the wars? Or what is it? Were your mommy and daddy republicans? It’s irrational Matt, for a clever guy like you to be wasting a lot of time on this false hope that’s going nowhere fast. When Ron Paul is all over and done with you should find a new direction, be it repub or dem. You’ve got the stamina if nothing else.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@MattPapke@micahbronkell
Have to have someone in office that will appeal to the electoriate on every issue, simply ask the American People to call their Rep. out on issues. Won’t get that from PAC elected officials.
America won’t get the anything but the “same”, till they vote in something different. Should be crystal clear after Obama. If the Candidate is bought and paid for, what else can we expect?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ron Paul is congress;
Congress has the exclusive power to make laws;
Don’t believe the hype if Ron Paul and the other candidates want to change something they would have change it by now. it is not about helping the American people it is about getting rid of
President Barack Hussein Obama . nothing more nothing less you be the judge
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
it is about getting rid of President Barack Hussein Obama- then vote for Mitt Romney, just be aware, Romney is now the Wall Street darling/contributions. So without a litle more discerning examination, you’ll get just you your non discerning examination asks for, more Wall Street
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@micahbronkell
it is about getting rid ofPresident Barack Hussein Obama- then vote for Mitt Romney, just be aware, Romney is now the Wall Street darling/contributions. So without a litle more discerning examination, you’ll get just you your non discerning examination asks for, more Wall Street
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Clause 1: Executive power“The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows[1]”
Clause one is a “vesting clause,” similar to other clauses in Articles One and Three, but it vests the power to execute the instructions of Congress, which has the exclusive power to make laws; “To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.” The important distinction between the vesting clause in Article I and this Vesting Clause is that this one is Plenary (i.e., it implies the power the executive to fall in line with what other “executives” around the world at the time could do) whereas the power vested in Article I is subject to limits to be outlined in later sections.
If Ron Paul becomes president under Article 2 of he will lose is former power as a congressman he had thee authority to make laws . But as you see he would give that up to be a President. he is losing power not gaining any
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ron Paul has the authority to to bring bills to the House floor to be voted on he does not have to President of the USA to change or help change the economy. that is why most of the republicans and the Tea Crazies are hypocrites.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Article I of the Constitution states “all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.” The House and Senate are equal partners in the legislative process—legislation cannot be enacted without the consent of both chambers. However, the Constitution grants each chamber some unique powers. The Senate ratifies treaties and approves top presidential appointments while the House initiates revenue-raising bills. The House initiates impeachment cases, while the Senate decides impeachment cases.[2] A two-thirds vote of the Senate is required before an impeached person can be forcibly removed from office.[2]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Same with Cain,Perry.and Romney,and Bachman if one these people are elected president and there policies fail. and the american economy is still in the same mess it has been in since bush what will be the outcome for 2016
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Say when Ron Paul policies fail when he is elected President what does that mean for reelection bid in 2016 will everyone call him a failure like Obama
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
http://electionsmeter.com/polls/ron-paul
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Getting as many people as we can to support and espouse their commitment for Liberty is critical. However the real win is going to be on how to get the delegates to vote for him at the caucuses. Any ideas? In the coming weeks I will be posting some strategies we can employ. But please do communicate ideas on how to bring the delegates to our side!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@MattPapke I thought the TEA party would be a good place to exert some effort, but little did I know that there are hundreds , if not thousands of them, and bringing them together under a common cause in choosing one candidate from those running, prior to the primaries, could be quite beneficial but would require an enormous amount of effort by a large number of people. If a few Ron Paul supporters were to join EACH of the TEA party sites and speak up in support of Ron Paul truthfully, exposing the many lies and misinformation attributed to Ron Paul, perhaps he could become the Republican Party candidate instead of Mitt Romney, who I believe both the Republican and Democrat parties are hoping to be the candidate in the General election, which would allow government to continue in the same direction at a slower speed, until the next Obama can be elected. Ron Paul scares both parties as he would like to put on the brakes, and return us to the limited government as described in our Constitution, which at this point may appear to be quite a radical change, but necessary if we are to ever again become solvent and sustainable for future generations to prosper.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Go to http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/charts
There you can find the revenue of the federal government since 1988.
The average year to year revenue increase is 4.4%.
There is not a single year since 1988 in which the revenue has increased by 15%.
But now according to Ron the tooth fairy will bless US and the revenue will increase with 15% year after year. At the same time Ron will introduce an austerity that would Herbert Hover to be green of envy.
Does this make sense to you in the RP supporter club ?
This is just another rich guy who wants to take money from the middle class and give it to the corporations and the wealthy. Class war fare ? You betcha….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@DebbieWringles Who is your alternative candidate who has a plan for more cuts that Ron Paul? By your repeated posts, people are thinking “troll.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@SovereignGlobalist I went to this web site because I wanted to understand RPs plan and I think I do now. I am not a RP supporter, or Cain supporter or Obama supporter. I am an Independent voter who like to think for myselves. If that is a “troll” then so be it.
The RP plan has in my opinion a huge problem because the numbers simply do not add up.
I am waiting here for you guys in the RP fan club to prove me wrong. Matt has been very honest in that he cannot see where I go wrong and i am now waiting for you other people to point out if I am wrong.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@DebbieWringles@SovereignGlobalist That is all i been saying I have the pdf file of the plan and the numbers do not add up but these people who support the Liberator and the other republican candidates have took my comments out of context and have even insulted my intelligence because i refuse to agree with there comments and there leader or leaders vision for this country. I agree with you that the plan for ron paul does not add up
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@micahbronkell@DebbieWringles@SovereignGlobalist Are you saying that the numbers don’t add up mathematically, or are you implying that the numbers are inaccurate? They are presented only as estimates, so if that is the case, then it should be important to determine from where they are sourced, which I would presume, perhaps wrongly, that Ron Paul has little choice but to use numbers provided by the government agency whose responsibility is to provide such figures, which would be the CBO. Could one of you who disagrees with the figures provide us with more correct figures, or perhaps just point out where the mathematical errors you have discovered exist?
The National debt as of 10/26/11 at 1200 is shown to be $14,945,825,544,187.20 would you say that number is correct?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@DebbieWringles I question your motives. Myself: I have been a libertarian for over 30 years. I first handed out leaflets door-to-door in 1980 for Ed Clark for LP for President in 1980. I was the campaign manager for a California state assembly candidate in 1982. I won a minor contest also in 1982 at age 23. I am very politically aware. I knew of Ron Paul from reading about him way back in the 1980s. You present absolutely no alternative candidate with the PRINCIPLES (very important) that Ron Paul has. You say that even though he has over 30 years of a consistent record that would make him the only trustworthy candidate – that once he is president he won’t follow through on his promises.
Don’t get me wrong: I am well aware that the Executive branch is one third of the government. I am well aware that the powers he would have as president would be mostly veto powers. He cannot make new laws. He cannot even dismantle old laws without the compliance of Congress.
But this is not why I voted for Ron Paul in 2008. This is not why I am voting for Ron Paul in 2012. I am voting for him because he is the only living American statesman. He is not a politician. He is like one of the founders come back to life. I am voting my philosophy. This is all I ask for. Millions of others voting for Ron Paul will be a big statement that the mainstream cannot ignore.
So again I question your motives. You come out like a panicking Paula about Ron Paul when clearly all his opponents are for big government.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@SovereignGlobalist You can question my motives as much you want. Who cares ? I have never claimed to be a RP supporter. There are many good sides of RP. He DOES have principles that the other candidates lacks and he is consistent. And he has the ability to think outside of the box.
BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT HIS ECONOMIC PLAN WORKS ! IT DOES NOT ! IT SUCKS !
It is too bad you do not have the intellectual capacity to discuss this instead of questioning my motives. What we are discussing on this page is the Economic Plan of Ron Paul, not the motives of Debbie Wringles.
Instead of analyzing and discussing the plan you act as if you were part of a cult with RP as the Messiah.
To be fair to RP….. the plan of Cain is also a joke. And Romney does not even have a plan ….. talking is cheap…..thinking is hard.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@pl21224
The numbers probably comes from the CBO. But that does not make them less of a joke. The yearly average increase since 1946 is 3%. Why not use that instead of a laughable 15% ?
Answer: because then the plan does not reduce anything !
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@DebbieWringles@SovereignGlobalist
Matt is the best they have by far but even Matt fails to stand behind Ron Paul’s nonsense. Nothing better will be forthcoming but rather the insults will begin. It’s the best the libertarian experimenters have ever had to offer.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@DebbieWringles That is a very fair question and not one that I have an emirical answer for perhaps someone can ask him in a Debate.
I do however have great confidence in Dr. Pauls methods and intentions. He has been espousing the same positions for over 30 years. There are plenty of public records to support my statement.
Austerity is what we need, and a good dose of it at that. Dependency on the government or any institution only breeds more dependency. There are a litany of examples I’m sure we can all think of.
You pose a good question and I admit that I am not knowledgeable enough to answer it with factual data. However I do feel Dr. Paul more than any other candidate has America’s best interests at heart.
I look forward to more discussion by better qualified people than I, you have posed a very good question.
Ron Paul 2012
Matt Papke
USMC
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It is very good that you have posted RP’s plan so that everybody can read it but if it is going to be useful, we the voters also have to analyze it for ourselves. You do not have to take my words for anything because government statistics is available at
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/charts
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com
Here is how the federal budget was spent in 2010:
Pensions: 750$b – 22%
Health care: 821$b – 24%
Defense: 847$b – 25%
Welfare: 502$b – 15%
Education: 140$b – 4%
Interest: 196$b – 6%
The rest: 200$b – 6%
Deficit: 1294$b (-40%)
There is not a single politician out there that has come up with a plan to save 40%. If you eliminate the military completely that would not save 40%. The only thing that would do it is by eliminating social security and Medicare for the elderly. On average, the federal government supports each American 65 and over by about $26,000 a year (about $14,000 through Social Security, $12,000 through Medicare). If you eliminate this you could save ca 1100$b.
Since there is no easy and painless solution all politicians, including RP, is trying to sell us snake oil. The trick they do is to predict a magical increase of federal revenue in the future to levels that have never existed and then let that magical increase take care of the budget deficit.
RPs plan is silly because anybody that is serious about eliminating the deficit has to both sharply cut the federal expenditure and increase the revenue with the 15% that RP has in his plan. That cannot be done by creating a growing economy because that has never ever produced a 15% increase. It can only be done by INCREASING taxes. But RP wants to decrease taxes for corporations and the wealthy with almost as much as his spending cuts. So the deficit with his plan will stay the same.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@DebbieWringles http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
Even better than your link go to the link above and get the figures from 1789-2016, and then make some judgments.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@pl21224
Ok, I have done that. The fact that it is in Excel tables makes it easy to calculate the increase of the revenue for any two year period.
If you exclude the two world wars there is only one period since 1901when the revenue was increasing with 33% and that was 1933-1935 during the Great Depression.
So your link really shows how crazy the 33% increase in RPs plan is.
The yearly average increase since 1946 is 3%…….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@DebbieWringles If you’re not really an Obama supporter, just who would you recommend as a candidate for the Republican party to oppose Obama, and why?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@pl21224 I dunno. I was very disappointed to see that the RP plan is another joke because I really though he would be the one to explain to the American people the hole that the American budget is in.But his economic plan is just another political gimmick like Cains 9-9-9 plan.
I don’t think I will bother voting….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@DebbieWringlesYou are exactly right, I don’t know how you get 33% more revenue from today to 2013. But also if you look at RPs #s his baseline for 2014,15,16 are all over 100B higher than the insanely optimistic CBO #s so I have NO idea where he is getting those #s. But if he uses the same #s it NEVER BALANCES.
Although if he uses the same #s and KEEPS the capital gains tax then he would balance.
Remember that capital gains is just money made on GAMBLING so it should definitely be taxed at a higher rate than anything else. This is the most dissappointing thing about RPs budget.
But all this is moot, because automation and cheap labor has PERMANENTLY eliminated most jobs, today even 90% of the jobs are just doing paperwork and manipulating the system. WE MUST… END ALL WARS – FORGIVE ALL DEBTS -Produce Food, Water, Energy, everything else is BS.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Capital gains tax is on collectibles and investments, not just gambling.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@DebbieWringles: Where did you take this 15%???
From the page 3 of his pdf:
year revenues difference, percent increase
prev year
2013 2476200
2014 2669000 192800 7,78%
2015 2911000 242000 9,06%
2016 3069000 158000 5,42%
So he does not claim to have an increase of 15% per year.
Also Herbert Hoover NEVER introduced an austerity plan after 1929, he fought to prevent the workers wages to fall and brought his own “new deal” before FDR.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ron Paul predicts that the federal revenue will increase by 15% in 2012, 15% in 2013 and 15% in 2014. If you buy into that BS I have a bridge to sell to you…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@DebbieWringles Where, exactly did you find this claim?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@pl21224
In RPs plan on page 4.
The problem is that he is using a revenue baseline that is 3069 billions for 2013. The revenue in 2011 is 2302 billions. So RP predicts that the revenue will increase with a whopping 33% between now and 2013 i.e. before RP would implement his tax and spending cuts.
You do not believe that the federal revenue will increase with 33% in two years do you ? If that happened it would be the most fantastic turnaround of the economy in modern times and we should all vote for Obama because he would be an economic genius.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@DebbieWringles Could you provide us with accurate revenue figures for the years 2013 through 2016?
He does go on to state that the baseline figures are: “Dynamic scoring based on foreign tax repatriation, elimination of Dodd-Frank, Sarbanes-Oxley Law, Individual Tax Relief Extension and Certainty, Significant Reduction in all Federal Regulations, Repeal of ObamaCare, Corporate Tax Reduction, and Controlled Government Spending. Have you taken that into account, and if so please provide us with the supporting figures and where they were obtained from.
Putting all that aside, in my opinion, Ron Paul proposes balancing the budget primarily through the reduction of the size of the Federal government, and Federal government spending. Balancing any budget can only be achieved in two ways, increasing the revenues or reducing spending to the point that outlays are less than or no more than equal to the revenues collected.
No, I don’t believe that revenues are likely to increase 33% in two years, although they have increased in the past much more than that on several occasions prior to 1988, and could once again in the future. But even more important, can we continue to have trillion dollar plus annual deficits and remain economically sound?
My only complaint about Ron Paul is that he does not point out the fact that repealing the 16th amendment, in addition to closely examining and reducing the power of the Fed is likely the only way for the people to really regain control of the Federal government, I should note that repealing the 16th amendment would also be needed.
Government of a free society should never be allowed to acquire more power than it is given by consent of a super majority of the population and the States, Sovereignty begins with the people, NOT with the States, and most definitely NEVER with the Federal government.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Could you provide us with accurate revenue figures for the years 2013 through 2016?”
Nobody knows exactly what the economy will do in the next few years but one thing we all know for sure is that it will not increase by 33% in the next two years. If we believed that we would all be Obama supporters.
But you do not have to make crazy predictions to test the RP plan. Just see what would have happened in 2010 if it was implememented then.
By doing this we can look at some reel numbers instead of fake ones:
2010 Revenue: 2163 billion
RP tax cuts: 593 billions
PR revenue: 1570 billions
2010 Outlay: 3456 billion
RP budget cuts: 667 billions
PR Outlay: 2789 billions
2010 deficit: 1293 (37%)
RP deficit: 1219 (44%)
Do you get it ? The RP budget cuts and tax cuts are of the same size so the RP plan will not cut the budget deficit at all. Instead he uses the prediction of an increase of the federal revenue by 33% to make it appear as he is reducing the deficit. But he is not.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@DebbieWringles Nowhere does he say that. From 2013 to 2016 the baseline revenues climb from 3069 $billion to 3956 $billion. This is 29% over 4 years or about 7% per year. Read carefully about the 4 “15%” (15.3, 15.27, 15.59 and 15.59), that you see on page 4! it’s the percentage of the GDP that _ total spendings_ represent. Debbie, I don’t know if you are economists but you seem to bring such claims without even verifying before! So far I’m more interested to see the arguments that some economists will bring against this plan, I haven’t seen any so far, but at least they will take the time to read carefully before to comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Only candidate making logical statements, and rational suggestions. No wonder he has won over 50% of various straw polls. Sounds like he is the candidate of the people. Too bad he is being black listed by corporate media.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/ron-paul-leads-the-gop-in-book-sales-could-he-win-the-primary/question-2243593/ Ron Paul 2012!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It is touching to see how many people here has faith in Ron Pauls plan.
The truth is that it will not provide a balanced budget in a million years.
If you read his plan you will see that he claims that he can cut the federal budget by 2013 with 25% compared to now. But he also wants to give tax breaks to corporations and the wealthy, which according to his own figures, would decrease the federal revenue with 27% compared to know. So how does his plan manage to reduce anything ?
Well, he does this by the same dishonest tricks that all politicians use namely by predicting that the federal revenue will start to increase by a fantastic amount in the next coming years. Between year 2000 when Clinton was running a budget surplus and today the federal revenue has increased from 2025 $billion to 2302 $billion i.e. an increase of 14% or 1.2% on average.
Ron Paul predicts that the federal revenue will increase by 15% in 2012, 15% in 2013 and 15% in 2014. WHAT A SICK JOKE !
This guy is as big dishonest clown as all the other politicians in Washington. Not a single one of them has an honest plan for how to get a balanced budget.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@DebbieWringles Do you have a better alternative candidate? You conveniently do not mention Ron Paul’s 30+ year consistent record against big government.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@SovereignGlobalist My advice to you is to not believe the propaganda that the politicians put out but to look at the data yourselves. It is easy to see what is wrong with the RP plan. It is also easy to see what is wrong with Cains 9-9-9 plan.According to the data on his own web site his plan would not cut the federal deficit with a single dollar. So with his 9% taxes the federal budget would still be 40% under water and growing (fast).
Both RP and Cain has a plan. Both are snakeoil because the try to fool the voters in believing that there is an easy and painless way to balance the federal budget. And there is not ! If you want to balance the budget while the economy is doing poorly and the babyboomers are going into retirement you have to cut, cut cut and rise, rise, rise (the taxes).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@DebbieWringles I do believe the vast majority of his savings will come from the reduction of our militarism. By reducing overseas expenditures and repatriating income generated over seas we should be able to both save significantly and increase revenues if only marginally. Re your question of the % of increase I am still unsure of the mechanics behind it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The defense budget was 847$b in 2010 or 25% of the federal budget. If you would eliminate it completely you would not save 40%.
If you want to save more than a trillion dollars you have to take social security and medicare away from the elderly. But RP is not proposing this since it would not be a very nice thing to do to people that has paid into social security during their entire working life.
As for the magical increase of the revenue in the coming years. It probably comes from the CBO but that does not make it less of a snakeoil. You can look at the numbers yourselves on the web sites that I have given. It is not rocket science …..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Debbie you are on exactly the right track. This plan does NOT add up.
I loved Ron Paul for years and if he was elected instead of Bush we might be OK now. But his plan is way too weak and his blind faith in the invisible hand won’t work any more.
There MUST be MAJOR PROACTIVE SOLUTIONS.
1. ALL banks should be nationalize and disolved
2. ALL debts zeroed and all houses, cars, etc. transfer deeds to current possessors
3. ALL other houses, apartments, etc. deeds given to eveyone else via lotery
4. Start a manhattan type project to create ABUNDANT energy, food, water, etc.
We do NOT need banks, markets, money, JUST TECHNICAL solutions to HUMAN NEEDS…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Debbie you are on exactly the right track. This plan does NOT add up.
I loved Ron Paul for years and if he was elected instead of Bush we might be OK now. But his plan is way too weak and his blind faith in the invisible hand won’t work any more.
There MUST be MAJOR PROACTIVE SOLUTIONS.
1. ALL banks should be nationalize and disolved
2. ALL debts zeroed and all houses, cars, etc. transfer deeds to current possessors
3. ALL other houses, apartments, etc. deeds given to eveyone else via lotery
4. Start a manhattan type project to create ABUNDANT energy, food, water, etc.
We do NOT need banks, markets, money, JUST TECHNICAL solutions to HUMAN NEEDS…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@SteveMaThen just vote a second term for Obama.
1. Privatize NOT nationalize.
2. Debts need to be repaid, NOT forgiven.
3. You get what you pay for, nothing else.
4. Begin utilizing our own abundant energy resources.
Rational and responsible humans should be allowed to provide for their needs without government inhibitions or assistance.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@pl21224
obama is a puppet. RP is not bought but he is misguided.
Let’s see on one hand you have banks that are using mortgages on their books as collateral to speculate and gamble hoping they can keep from going bankrupt BUT THEY CAN”T EVEN WITH BAILOUTS.
On the other hand is we just allow ALL those banks to dissolve and forgive all loans, and make sure every american has a shelter FREE AND CLEAR, WHAT A BOOST FOR THE ECONOMY.
If I was saying let the government take all the real estate and use it for stupid programs you might be able to argue, BUT I am saying every american family should OWN their house, no mortgage, no property tax, no rent. This is SIMPLE.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@SteveMa You have the wrong site. This is not the communist party site!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@SteveMa@pl21224 At whose expense? Get out your wallet Steve. Buy everyone a house. By the way I am a renter. I own only stocks and gold. You are the socialist so you have to share by giving me a roof.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@SovereignGlobalist@pl21224
STOP SPAMMING THE COMMENTS. If you don’t have anything intelligent to say keep it to yourself.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@DebbieWringles Please direct me to where in Ron Pauls plan does he indicate Federal revenue GROWING 15% in 2012, 2013, and 2014?
On page 4 of his plan he does show Federal government expenditures for the years 2012 through 2015 would be around 15% of the GDP, but not revenues increasing by 15%.
Balancing the budget by reducing spending, NOT increasing taxes to acquire the revenue to allow out of control government spending to continue.
I’m wondering just who it is you would support as a candidate to run against Obama as I’ve not seen one who speaks more truthfully than Ron Paul. Gary Johnson comes closest, and I wouldn’t mind seeing a ticket with him as Pauls VP choice.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You are looking at the right place on page 4.
The problem is that he is using a revenue baseline that is 3069 billions for 2013. The revenue in 2011 is 2302 billions. So RP predicts that the revenue will increase with a whopping 33% between now and 2013 i.e. before RP would implement his tax and spending cuts.
You do not believe that the federal revenue will increase with 33% in two years do you ? If that happened it would be the most fantastic turnaround of the economy in modern times and we should all vote for Obama because he would be an economic genius.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@DebbieWringles With all due respect, (It’s obvious you did your homework) I believe you’re over-thinking the plan.
Paul wants to end five cabinet departments, effectively knocking ALOT of people off of the federal payroll. He intends to cut the military budget and bring home our troops from around the world immediately, so that they would be spending their paychecks HERE, instead of in other countries.
Under his plan companies would return to the U.S., and non-interventionism of government in the market would create a huge number of jobs, and put alot of people back to work. This would take alot of people off of government programs, make them self-sufficient, and then they too could pay income taxes until the budget is balanced.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@DebbieWringles
Paul intends to cut his own pay from $450,000 to $40,000, and I’m sure whoever he chose as his VP would more than likely do the same. (The VP can’t make more money than the top-dog)
With the drastic cuts he plans to make, combined with the free-market having room to flourish, I’d be shocked if our revenue did NOT drastically increase in 2013. My belief in the fact that he CAN do just that, is a huge reason why the Good Doctor will get my vote.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The problem is not that I am over-thinking but that you RP supporters are under-thinking……
RP is proposing 667 billions in cuts. That part is fine. I have no quarrel with that.
But then he turns around and cut taxes with 593 billions. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to see that the budget deficit will then not go down.
I do not think you can claim that RPs economic policy will increase revenues with 33% BEFORE IT HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED. So that suggestion will not fly.
If he was honest he would say: -Here are my budget cuts. I would like to cut taxes too but the federal budget is in such deep do-do that it has to wait until we get the budget balanced. I will in fact have to raise taxes to get a balanced budget.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@DebbieWringles Debbie I’ve been looking for some answers here, because I do not choose to follow blindly. Many of Ron Pauls supports are in my opinion much more intellectual and critical thinking than some other candidates flocks. However that does not mean that we are completely with out emotion. Dr. Paul has been beating the drum of fiscal conservation and realistic foreign policies for decades. He has my ear and many others for his proven stances against inflating the federal government and the currency.
Your question is valid, and I am not a economist nor do I possess the research skills that you seemingly have. What I have seen as a theme in the last few days of looking for an answer is the term excise tax. If Dr Paul is able to levy an excise tax that targets consumption than that would raise additional revenues. Additionally the repatriation of corporations capital will generate some additional revenue even thought the existing tax rate may be lower. The recalling of our forces overseas will generate income for US based businesses as well as taxable wages for these men and women. Currently over seas military income is not taxable.
Tonight I am attending a session with Gary Johnson and if I have the opportunity I will hand him a print out of your question and report with my findings to the group.
Ultimately however even if I am unable to find an answer to your question that is satisfactory I still will work to Get Dr. Paul elected. His integrity and fortitude are unmatched in my eyes. It would take a gigantic slip up in his character to sway that for me or; another more worthy may be able to earn my support.
I think that the comments made by some of the other RP supporters here are fair insomuch as who would be the next most viable to champion for freedom for the common man. Certainly not Gov. Perry “yes corporations are people” not Mr. Cain “9-9-9″ and “just call the Federal Reserve up” and not Gov. Perry “You hired illegals MItt” .
Dr Paul has been a staunch advocate for personal freedoms and free markets and that is why he has my support. He talks the talk and walks the walk.
I do appreciate you bringing up this issue and I hope I am able to answer it in the near future with a level of certainty that satisfies us both.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Matt,
your civility and honesty is a lesson to us all. To say that you do not have an answer to a question but that you will try to investigate is perfectly fine and so much more intelligent than to resort to BS. You have really shown here that you have an open mind and I salute you for that. And I want to apologize if my own debating style sometimes is too harsh.
Getting to the points of your comment:
1. Excise tax. The problem is that the budget suggests that the federal revenue will increase by 33% before a RP budget would start to work.
2. The repatriation of corporations. Same answer as 1. but it has in addition been counted in the numbers I gave previously since there is an extra revenue of 31 billions for this in RPs plan.
3. Forces overseas. Same answers as 1.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@MattPapke Matt, I have been thinking about the 33% and where these numbers comes from. They must come from CBO. But why would CBO predict such a crazy increase ?
I have an idea. Could it be that CBO has assumed in these figures that the Bush tax cuts will not be prolonged ? The treasury has estimated that these taxcuts lowers the revenue with 370 billion so if the tax went up with that amount that would significantly increase the revenue in the CBO calculation.
But I assume that RP wants to keep the Bush tax cuts so this is then the mistake that RP has made in his plan.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
worth taking an honest look…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
this is a dissent plan on paper . But just like the people rallied behind Obama in 2008 they need to rally behind Ron Paul the future Liberator in Chief , to help him fulfill his destiny..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If the government legalized substances to put into your body, then being drunk or stoned can be a defense against breaking the law. As long as substances remain illegal, it is a double negative against breaking the law. So, in the short term, legalizing substances will increase bad decisions, people will die, and people wii be incarcerated. But, in the long run, individuals will learn how to control their usage, many fewer people will die, and many fewer will have to go to jail for related crimes. It’s a process of healing from this curse of prohibition.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Absolutely wrong. Alcohol is legal and being drunk is not a defense against breaking the law. Logic fail.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@tetrahedralflowers
Furthermore, Ron Paul does not want to legalize anything. He simply wants to remove the federal laws against substances. He wants to leave the decisions up to the states, and guess what, states already have their own drug laws.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Comment from internet. Somebody hit the nail on the head with that one:
“U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000National debt: $14,271,000,000,000Recent budget cut: $ 38,500,000,000 Let’s remove 8 zeros and pretend it’s a household budget: Annual family income: $21,700.Money the family spent: $38,200.New debt on the credit card: $16,500.Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710Total budget cuts: $385.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This PDF needs to be promoted at the top of the page, somewhere. Put a nice graphic at the top right column, with a direct link to download so it’s easy to find. Such a great plan – it needs to be spread like free money!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
when Herman Cain falls from the spot light there will be only one other choice.
the Liberator in chief Ron Paul. so far the voters have gave every candidate a chance when Herman Cain loses the steam there will be only one other candidate they have not given the spot light to and that is Ron Paul and if he can hold he will be the man with the master plan. he has some good idea’s but i don’t think he will change anything.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@micahbronkell I think the MS media and the RNC have already decided on Mitt Romney as the one they will allow to prevail in the primary. The time to act is right now if a candidate other than Romney is preferred, and that would require an intense National effort to try and bring about as much support as possible for a common candidate by those who wish to change the direction government is taking us, and not just the speed we are traveling.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hopefully, during the 2012 season, some of the candidates will disappear and the race will become more two-sided as economic events take over the discussion. Nobody is nearly as prepared as Ron Paul to discuss economic issues and solutions. The economy is still the number one issue.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@pl21224 You have a strong comment but. when the dems and the Dnc had chosen Hilary Clintion and put Obama under the rug. Look what happen it does not matter who the elite chose but the people came together and supported Obama in 2008 all races,creeds,religions,and nationality came together and help Obama win the nomination and the Presidency. so if you really want ron paul to win you as a supporter should rally the troops knock on doors get his message out. All these candidates have a message but the point is for your candidate message to superseded all the other messages and visions for America . If you really believe that and support Ron Paul and his vision you will do what you can to get his message out there and rally for him
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@micahbronkell The key is getting the ‘people’ to come together, and that’s much easier to do when there are essentially only 2 candidates, but the Republican primary consists of at least 9 possible candidates, and narrowing that to a single one is a much more difficult task, and not something a single person is likely capable of accomplishing alone. As I live abroad I am somewhat limited in what I can accomplish, so I put as much effort as possible in trying to motivate others to join in the effort. Is Mitt Romney really who we want from the pack of nine?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I did pledge.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
How to we vote to get Ron Paul nominated? Sorry, I am new at this.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
SO this may be more confusing than help
but here is how hte nomination process works..
http://www.thefastertimes.com/politics/2011/07/02/how-the-republican-nomination-work-part-i-the-basics/
As for me I”m just spreading the Good Dr’;s word and working to gather support from with in the party as well as outside.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
When the media composes an editorial attacking Ron Paul, it tends to be a long, rambling piece, into which they will strategically insert damaging opinions and outright lies. One opinion piece, on Bloomberg’s website, actually wrote that Ron Paul’s returning sovereignty to the individual states would result in environmental desecration and pollution of nationally protected resources, such as Yosemite and the Mississippi River. Do they not understand Ron Paul’s strong position on individual property rights? Pollution of another’s property is a capital offense and will be enforced. That is not debatable. I challenge each and every one of you to notice the lies the media prints and to point them out. Show everyone what the media is doing. Make a big deal! Maybe it will curb their behavior some.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
All of the candidates offer plans, but which of those have the probability of actually being implemented?If, through some unimaginable chain of events, the economy suddenly worsens dramatically, people will demand a solution. Many short term solutions will be proposed and the president will urge us to “pass this right away”, but each plan must have two things: 1. It must be able to be accepted quickly, by a divided congress, and 2. It must not fade away with the initial fanfare. The current jobs plan, which should remain DOA, fades away after one year. Obama’s last term as president will enjoy the supposed benefits of this spending/jobs/stimulus plan, but Obama’s successor will endure the hardship created by the added financial burden. Beware of short-sighted solutions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Be careful. Would you support any party the Tea party supports, even though they support a candidate you have not supported? The Tea party will not support a candidate because none of the supposed “front-runners” have been people they choose to support. When a candidate they support emerges as the front-runner or when the primary is concluded, the Tea party may choose to support and possibly endorse a candidate; however, at this stage, supporting a candidate may actually work against their fragile standing and ultimate value in endorsing a candidate. Let the candidate “cycling” continue.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This website takes too long to load up on my wifi connection to my netbook.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I was under the impression that Ron Paul was a primary, if not ‘THE’ primary source of bringing about the creation of the TEA party, and after joining and eventually leaving a number of the many TEA party organizations around the country, it would appear that the TEA party(s) are content to wait until after the primaries are over and a Republican party candidate has been chosen before they will try and support a candidate. This makes absolutely no sense at all to me as it wastes the greatest opportunity of all, and that is making a difference in choosing which of the primary candidates would best serve the country and the people, and not just make it a selection of the lesser of two evils.
I found the TEA party(s) to be too fragmented to be of much use in anything more than House District elections, or perhaps Senate elections at the National level. If those of us on the Right who believe in Freedom, Liberty, and government BY the people are unable to consolidate our effort prior to the primaries, a rare opportunity will have been lost and it may be a very long time before, or if we ever have such an opportunity again.
Although I have Ron Paul on the top of my list as the preferred candidate, if not him there surely must be another candidate that we might all agree to be better than some of the others, who we could give our support. Or are we content to allow the media, RNC, and opposition party to provide us with the candidate they would prefer?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I went to DC with the Tea Party and I am no going to let this opportunity slip away. So I will vote for Ron. If Perry , Romney, Bauchman or Cain get the nomination, I will just have to grit my teeth and vote for them. I can in no way go with Obama for four more years. But my guess is if we end up with Perry, Romney, Bauchman or Cain we will keep straight on the road to destruction. People do not seem to understand that his play is coming to an end and quick. If we do not support Paul and his cuts and bring this debt under control it is all over for us.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This is for all the people who says that Ron Paul can not get elected. I beg to differ with that. If he can get the GOP nomination he will slide to victory over Obama. Why? Because then the biased news media will be done for and Paul can get his message out. Once people get to hear the truth about him it will be all over for Obama, People stop saying he can’t, stop paying attention to the biased news media and do your own research. Go to the Ron Paul site and read about the man. I have learned one thing and that is this. If the media is against him then I am for him. The media including Fox (fair and balanced) want’s to dictate who you vote for. Do not be fooled by the media.
Lets all work hard to get him the nomination. If we can do that then our job will be over.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I find a lot of these ideas familiar, I’ve been saying some of the same things for a long time. Check out my blog earthfire-sunnyravenwood@blogspot.com.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Of all the candidates running, Ron Paul is the one who promotes the changes that might begin to bring the Federal government under control of the people. There are 3 things that occurred in 1913 that allowed the Federal government to assume power over the States and the people, and they are:
1. The Federal reserve act – which controls the value of our fiat currency, the amount of money in existence, and interest rates. We need sound money.
2. The 16th Amendment – which allowed the Federal government the ability to tax individuals directly, instead of taxing the States equally in proportion to their population of the Nations total population.
3. The 17th Amendment – which removes Sovereignty of the States as defined in the 10th Amendment, moving away from the founding as a Republic to more of a pure Democracy.
It would be difficult to clearly explain in detail how those three items have changed our government from being one empowered from the bottom up, or one in which each higher level was empowered by the people with their consent, into one which exercises power from the top down, with little regard to either the majority or the minority, but more so by the agenda of those who finance the campaigns of those we are allowed to choose from in our elections. A free society can only remain free by retaining the checks and balances the founders tried so hard to provide us in the Constitution they wrote, and ‘WE’ the people should remain the most powerful source of checks and balances in our government.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Amen and Amen. If only we could get the people of this country to understand this. I talk to people all the time and find that they do not even have a clue. If some how we could wake them up Ron Paul would go in by a land slide. Some are starting to wake up, I just hope it is enough. @pl21224
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@w1945@pl21224 I have awoken. Ron Paul 2012! It is because of dedicated supporters like ALL of you that I have registered as a (Blue) Republican to vote for the only Doctor/Veteran/Hero that can truly save our country. He may have to make tough choices, but at least I know he makes decisions on principles and he is consistent. Please please PLEASE continue to spread Ron Paul’s message because if it were not for all of you I would not know the truth.
I have lost faith in our current system and as much as I support some of Obama’s views (50/50), I can say I support ALL of Ron Paul’s views (100%!). Obama did a few good things for this country, but after researching facts I can see that he did more harm than good. I wish Obama all the best, but we need a real President. It’s time for Ron Paul!!! Even though I don’t have as much faith in the system and I will participate in the #OccupyMovement, I am still going to vote and voice my opinion. I also urge Ron Paul supporters not to dismiss OWS as some sort of “Left-wing hippy movement”. Don’t listen to the media, they are trying to separate us!! OWS and Ron Paul supporters should be working together. The main stream media FEAR a united movement! As much as I would like to tax the rich, I now understand that it is like putting a band-aide on a gun shot wound. We need a real Doctor in our White House!! Please join OWS in peaceful protest or at least LISTEN to them as you would like others to LISTEN to you and our hero Ron Paul. If you would like to discuss ideas with me, you can find me on Google+ http://gplus.to/johnnyrivera
Ron Paul 2012
Johnny
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@fingers@grayrougw1945
As much as I would like to be elaborate on this matter, I still find it useless to try and change grayrough’s mind. We all know this guy has no reasonable explanation for his stance against RP. He’s like all the other GOP candidates in Nevada! Accuse him of false hope and deflect from the real issues!
Skimming through some of the comment list, it is obvious that this man is someone who just wants to spark arguments and doubt into those just tuning into RP’s message and are not yet certain of his genuineness.
Either way, I encourage anyone who has any doubt about RP, to do their research on him, then do research on other the other candidates, and really think to oneself: “Which candidate really has a reasonable and rational plan for fixing our problems in the US?”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@fingers66 @grayrough @w1945
As much as I would like to be elaborate on this matter, I still find it useless to try and change grayrough’s mind. We all know this guy has no reasonable explanation for his stance against RP. He’s like all the other GOP candidates in Nevada! Accuse him of false hope and deflect from the real issues!
Skimming through some of the comment list, it is obvious that this man is someone who just wants to spark arguments and doubt into those just tuning into RP’s message and are not yet certain of his genuineness.
Either way, I encourage anyone who has any doubt about RP, to do their research on him, then do research on other the other candidates, and really think to oneself: “Which candidate really has a reasonable and rational plan for fixing our problems in the US?”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Hi I am on Freedom Connector and it has been a up hill battle trying to convince those who are swallowing the Liberal Media twists on everything you say, mostly on states rights and Foreign Policy. The Freedom Connector mostly consists of Tea Party Members and I have been trying hard to tell them the truth. I am a total Constitutionalists and want my Constitutional Republic back. Most of my problems are: ” I like him but he cannot get elected”, “he wants to legalize drugs”, ” he is a isolationist”, “he wants to allow Iran to build atomic weapons” to name a few, These are all supposed to be Republicans or Conservative Independents like me. What can I do to turn some of these around?? Thank you Ron Paul!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@araymondw@hi I think the truth is that you are not going to change everyone’s mind. And to focus on the most bang for your buck Re energy expediture vs return. From a strictly sales view point the focus would be on the common ground that you share. If someone is vehemently opposed to Iran having atomic power but really would like to be able to home school their kids. Then the argument may go something like this.. John, I really understand your concerns about Iran, we have been taught to view them as we used to view Russia in the cold war. Right now text books across the country are being modified to meet the perceptions and beliefs of the government employees assigned to developing the curriculum’s. Some will omit the bay of pigs some may decide to change the way the civil war is taught. I like you want to be able to guide my child’s education I want a say in what they are taught. Ron Paul advocates the parents right to home schooling and would like to abolish the Department of the education and it’s failed policies. They said no child left behind; we are leaving them all behind.. Get the federal government out of your house and your childrens’ classroom Ron Paul will work to do that.
This wass an example of redirection. You assauge them by restating thier concerns and agreeing with their view. But then you redirect to a more relevant subject.
“You never win an argument ” Dale Carnigie
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Son you need to be in charge of something. Ever think about running for office? @MattPapke @araymondw@hi
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@araymondw@hi
re he can not get elected, that is quite common. as well.
Here is what I would say. ” You know you right, your absolutely right John.” The way America has been in the last decade (or few decades) makes me sick. I have been voting and really feeling like my vote did not matter because who ever was gonna be elected was going to riase my taxes, lower my paycheck and strip search me. But then I found Ron Paul. This guy has been saying the same thing for 30 years. He has never ever voted to raise taxes or for an unbalanced budget. I say you know what, what if.. What if this guy got elected, For the first time I see a guy who really resonates with me, someone who I would be proud to salute. So can he get elected Yeah he’s been elected 12 times. Will he get elected I donlt know, but I do know that I’m going to work hard to help him out. If you really like his message and would like to see him as president then it’s up to you, it’s up to me. To do what we can to save our country.
there are many more objections but I will say this.. the best thing about DR Paul is that he has so so so many deep positions that we can refference .. There is very little gray here, he says how he feels and votes the same way. if one point is not acceptable by your audience you have 10 more that should be,
These are just my thoughts after reading your post. We all need to work together to really build form 10% to 15% to %51.
I know with people like you we can do it. This is Grassroots this is Democracy this is America. (please excuse typos)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@MattPapke@hi Thank you for the reply I am very great full for that. I have some of Dr. Paul’s Books and I do know his stand, I have tried some of your suggestions all ready but I will try others. My problem is many of these people are so nick picky. I am 71 and am not new in politics and am hoping that this time we do not elect another RINO!!
Thank you and God Bless
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
People do not pay attention and too the media takes what Paul says and spins it.
On drugs Paul said “the federal war on drugs has proven costly and ineffective, while creating terrible violent crime. But if you question policy, you are accused of being pro-drug. That is preposterous. As a physician, father, and grandfather, I abhor drugs. I just know that there is a better way — through local laws, communities, churches, and families — to combat the very serious problem of drug abuse than a massive federal-government bureaucracy.” Now does that say he will legalize all drugs? No.
If Iran gets a Nuke what will they do? Lets see they could commit suicide. If they even flinch towards Israel, Israel will toast them. I am like Paul, I do not think Iran is going to do squat, except maybe sneak around and do a few things to keep the world in an uproar. I have not lost one minutes sleep over Iran.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@araymondw
” I like him but he cannot get elected”, Anyone can get elected. (being that you’re arguing with tea partiers) Obama… “he wants to legalize drugs”, Like Oxycontin, Levitra, Alcohol, Tobacco, Pseudoephedrine (all of which you can OD on). Even if he did, is that going to make anyone go out and pick up a needle. Small Government vs Big Government… ” he is a isolationist”, Who died and made us world police? He doesn’t want to cut off all ties with foreign countries, just stop trying to fix them at our own expense. “he wants to allow Iran to build atomic weapons” They don’t have to build them. Pakistan, NKorea, China, Russia, they all have them, and for the right price you can buy anything. Besides the ONLY way to stop them 100% is to start another war. Seeing that the probably is high that they already have them or at least access to them, any possible aggression could possibly trigger a nuclear world war. The only other thing to do is just cut off ties and let them starve. If you get more come on back.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Mattpapke has it going on. This guy is smart beyond belief. Hell I am 66 years old and I can not stand up against hm. Look son run for freaking president. Not one of the ones we have running can match you. We have some very smart people out there and this guy is one of them. God bless you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
That’s a pretty good start. When he says smaller government, he’s not messing around.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
End the Fed, Stop the bailouts, Balance the budget. Ron Paul 2012!!!
http://www.ronpaulgrassrootshq.com/ron_paul_quotes.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Here is a big problem with Herman Cains 9-9-9 deal. It puts in place the infrastructure of a VAT, a Value Added Tax, That’s bad, No that’s very bad. A value added tax is a form of a national sales tax that is collected at every stage of the process from the initial sale of raw materials to a manufacturer to the final sale of a finished product to and end-consumer. It’s the most insidious of all taxes, because it is built into the price of everything and consumers can’t see how much of the price is due to the tax. When taxes rise prices rise, but consumers mistakenly assume that’s just market force at work. Politicians love a VAT, it lets them take a lot more money out of our wallets. And VAT’s usually exist side by side with income taxes not in lieu of them. Taxpayers should hate VAT’s for the same reason politicians love them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Good old Herman Cain.Bottom line good old Herman was not only in the Kansas City Federal Reserve he also screw the Aquila’s employees out of their retirements loosing hundreds of millions of dollars. One thing for sure you will never hear him mention this when he tells you how good a business man he was. By the way they lost the law suit. When contacted he had no comment. I guess not, how do you defend being a crook.
Cain served on the board of directors throughout Aquila’s ill-fated trading misadventure and the subsequent collapse of the company’s retirement fund. In fact, he chaired the board’s compensation committee, which, according to the lawsuit, had direct oversight of the push to get employees to invest more and more in Aquila stock. As chair of the compensation committee, Cain also saw fit to dole out $30 million in bonuses, not including stock options, to the top five execs at Aquila in 2002, with the company’s stock plummeting.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@w1945 I did my own research and I found out the same information about his involvement in Aquila. Wouldn’t it be great if, this would be brought up at the next debate or at any other time and to see hear his response. But, the media never brought this up and Ron Paul briefly brought up the fact that he sat on the Board of Directors of the Fed. The big government republicans just love him. Why?? Because, he has allegiance to the Fed and he would keep it as status quo. Did you notice at the debates that he hesitates and stumbles alot?
Ron Paul 2012
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What Paul should do is let them ask one question and work that in on Cain. I bet he would stumble then. I try and tell every one I can about this guy. He has trouble stamped all over him. By the way he is from my state. I will not be voting for him because I know him.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Stick a fork into Perry, he is done. Romney will not do good at all in the south plus he has that health care deal sitting on his back. Looking better for Paul ever day. The only one I worry about is Newt.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Every one will just love this one. There are 365 days in a year, 24 hours in a day and 60 minutes in an hour. Multiply that out and we get 525,600 minutes. Now we divide that into $3.6 trillion and we get $6.85 million per minute. So our government is spending $6.85 million per minute.
Now the House Republicans trimmed $35 million from the Houses operating budget. Then Boehner stood up, pounded himself on the chest and decalred they were willing to make the tough choices.
That $35 million got us through five minutes of spending. WOW! That is great. Let’s all drink the Cool-Aid.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0