Ron Paul Statement on Debt Ceiling

“While it is good to see serious debate about our debt crisis, I cannot support the reported deal on raising the nation’s debt ceiling. I have never voted to raise the debt ceiling, and I never will. “This deal will reportedly cut spending by only slightly over $900 billion over 10 years. But we will have a $1.6 trillion deficit after this year alone, meaning those meager cuts will do nothing to solve our unsustainable spending problem. In fact, this bill will never balance the budget. Instead, it will add untold trillions of dollars to our deficit. This also assumes the cuts are real cuts and not the same old Washington smoke and mirrors game of spending less than originally projected so you can claim the difference as a 'cut.' “The plan also calls for the formation of a deficit commission, which will accomplish nothing outside of providing Congress and the White House with another way to abdicate responsibility. In my many years of public service, there have been commissions on everything from Social Security to energy policy, yet not one solution has been produced out of these commissions. “By denying members the ability to offer amendments and only allowing an up-or-down vote that will take place in the hectic time between Thanksgiving and Christmas, this Commission essentially disenfranchises the vast majority of members from meaningfully participating in the debate over reducing spending and balancing the budget. Furthermore, despite the claims of the bill's proponents, there is nothing to stop the commission from recommending tax increases. “One of the reasons why I humbly suggest that I am the most qualified Presidential candidate is my experience to see and understand the long track record of failure, disappointments, and bad recommendations made by such commissions. Times like these require statesmanship and steady leadership, which I and the grassroots activists who have joined my campaign believe I am uniquely qualified to provide. “What should bother Americans most is that under cover of this debt ceiling circus, we learned from a recent GAO one-time, limited audit that the Federal Reserve secretly pumped $16 trillion into American and foreign banks over three years. All of the Fed's fat cat cronies were taken care of at the expense of the American public. “To put that into perspective, our entire national debt is $14.5 trillion, and our annual deficit will be about $1.6 trillion, meaning the Federal Reserve created and appropriated more than our entire national debt to banks around the world in a few short years. We have been fighting in Congress these past few weeks over raising our debt ceiling by $2 trillion, an amount the Fed secretly gave away to just one big bank.

Source

I 100% agree with him all this arguing over the debt when the Federal Reserve gave away much more than this in about 3 years. I for one support Ron Paul and he has my vote for the primaries and the potus election. I have yet to hear either house or senate leader mention this or even put some emphasize behind it. Dealing with the taxes and the spending cuts is more than needed. But as of right now imo action against this Federal Reserve spending is much more important.

OK id like to see a video of this,Does anyone know if theres a video of him discussing the whole debt crisis stuff?
lemme know if someone finds one... ive read and wrote to much in thelast 4 hours... to read all that lol

reply to post by txraised254
He has my vote the only guy that makes sense in the whole system

he has my vote too


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/575ca2a0dc56.jpg[/atsimg]


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/57b3fec585f5.jpg[/atsimg]


Go Paul 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

reply to post by neo96


I love the bumper stickers

reply to post by txraised254


If mr. Paul wants to solve the debt, he's going to have to advocate increased taxation. You cannot close a debt unless you actually put money into it. This is something that those of us who actually have to watch our checkbooks know about, but which mr. Paul, in his wealth, probably has forgotten.

Its hard to argue with his sentiments.

Im glad he used the word statesmen instead of politician. Thats what we need, public servants not conmen.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by txraised254

 

If mr. Paul wants to solve the debt, he's going to have to advocate increased taxation. You cannot close a debt unless you actually put money into it. This is something that those of us who actually have to watch our checkbooks know about, but which mr. Paul, in his wealth, probably has forgotten.

There's plenty to cut...(without starving granny!) We currently put 200 billion in revenue into the govt every month.

Q: In a given month how much does the Treasury owe as interest on its debt?

A: Roughly about $15–20 billion (more on this in a moment).

Q: How much revenue does the Treasury take in on average in a month?

A: Roughly about $200 billion.

Q: Are you saying the Treasury could pay interest on its debt 10 times over (or more) from monthly income?

A: Yes. Therefore the likelihood of not paying interest on its debt is zero.

blogs.marketwatch.com...

how much is "enough" taxation "fox"? $200 billion taxpayer bux taken directly out of the economy a month is just not cutting it?


Patently ridiculous...

if noone addresses the federal reserve and the devaluation of the dollar any cuts are meaningless

1000 bucks in 1960 has the value of over $7000 bucks today

and costs rise including the biggest cost of the us government medicare and medicaid and social security with population increases

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by txraised254

 

If mr. Paul wants to solve the debt, he's going to have to advocate increased taxation. You cannot close a debt unless you actually put money into it. This is something that those of us who actually have to watch our checkbooks know about, but which mr. Paul, in his wealth, probably has forgotten.

Ron Paul knows more about economics and the financial system than any of the morons who told you increasing taxes is what this country needs. You can't honestly think the American people need to be taxed more than we already are. Jobs are being shipped over-seas because of the government regulations and taxes in this country, its out of control. You just have to cut spending back to the levels prior to 9/11 and work things out. Close entire departments that do nothing but get in the way of the private sector. Watch a couple of his videos before you bad mouth him.

So as it goes, I'm 30. I have had 2 opportunities to vote. Neither election did I feel compelled to vote. As I was young, I wasn't politically knowledgable, not that I am now, but I'm better off now than I was for sure. The reason I never voted is because every time I'd ask why people were voting for a specific party or official, they'd respond, you have to choose the lesser of two evils! All I could think is wow really? For this great country ? I can proudly now say I am excited to have the opportunity for Ron Paul for this election. I didn't know much about him last run, but all I've seen has secured at least one vote from me. Go Ronny!!

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by txraised254

 

If mr. Paul wants to solve the debt, he's going to have to advocate increased taxation. You cannot close a debt unless you actually put money into it. This is something that those of us who actually have to watch our checkbooks know about, but which mr. Paul, in his wealth, probably has forgotten.

What about just real year over year cuts in spending??????? Lets say your household has a debt problem. You make the same amount of salary (revenue) both years. Do you use credit cards to spend more than you did the previous year to get you out of debt? No you tighten your budget, cut out frivolous things, make due with putting off new purchases and spend less than you did the previous year if you want to get out of debt.

Our Government hasn't even frozen the levels of spending, they have just lowered the amount of increase in the budget and try to pawn it off as budget cuts!!!! Lets see..... if I spend $100,000 last year and this year plan to spend $145,000 yet only spend $125,000, I've cut my budget by $20,000. Wow I must be really good at saving money, huh? Forget that fact that both years I only had a salary of $60,000..... I've cut my budget, life is good and I can get re-elected.

Does that make sense to anyone here?

I'm firmly convinced if you let Congress and the President take more of the citizens money in taxes, they will just find a way to spend it without cutting anything. I have ZERO faith in them actually trying to shrink the size the Government. It's just not in their interest to have a smaller Government, it gives them less control.

What the...? The name "Ron Paul" is in the title? Only one Taxocrat has posted in it? They usually come crawling out of the slime pit of entitlements in droves to feed on his name. Strange.

Anyway, good post. Dr. Paul is being bat crap crazy as usual...also known as "being right".

/TOA

Originally posted by Jeffah
Ron Paul knows more about economics and the financial system than any of the morons who told you increasing taxes is what this country needs.

You kind of prove my point that he doesn't. I've discovered that most of his supporters have even less of a clue about economics than he does, which is impressive, in a sad sort of way. The way I figure is that most of you would simply have a herd instinct towards any demogogue who blathered some semi-ambulatory nonsense about "the fed" and "gold" and "Segregation is okay if it makes money"

You can't honestly think the American people need to be taxed more than we already are.

The likes of you and I? No. Nor have we historically had much of a tax burden at our income levels. The trouble is all those tax cuts at the top. The advertising is that if we cut taxes at the top, all that savings will come down to those of us at the bottom... which... doesn't actually happen, because obviously the top percentiles are under no obligation to invest in the bottom percentiles, so they do not do so.

Repeal the Bush tax cuts (hell, repeal the Reagan tax cuts) and watch the debt start to shrink.

Jobs are being shipped over-seas because of the government regulations and taxes in this country, its out of control.

Okay. First off, chuckles, we've been constantly de-regulating for the past thirty years. We've been stripping worker protections for longer than that. We've been giving massibve tax breaks, writing in huge tax loopholes, and, well, quite literally fist#ing ourselves to make Wall Street happy.

And then they say, "oh, it's not enough. Sure we're recording record profits and breaking them every year, but... but... we're FORCED to outsource and relocate, because our tax burden of 0% is just too high!" it, obviously, has nothing at all to do with all that deregulation asked for by these companies that allow them to ship jobs and manufacturing overseas, right, it's all because they pay too much in taxes, despite the fact that most large businesses actually turn a PROFIT from the treasury, via a combination of subsidies, tax cuts, and loopholes.

And you, for some unfathomable reason, believe them when they tell you this. Just like you believe that someday, all those record profits at the top will rain down to the bottom like mana from heaven. Just so long as you keep the supply-side faith, and hold to the holy book of The Fountainhead.

You just have to cut spending back to the levels prior to 9/11 and work things out. Close entire departments that do nothing but get in the way of the private sector.

Oh, I don't argue there' we could cut "defense" by seven eights and still be unquestioned rulers of the world. hell, we might actually get better at it, if we could redirect all that funding towards education and cultural institutions. My point is just that cutting spending alone does not absolve a pre-existing debt. You have to actually put money INTO that debt to get rid of it. Which I see no one on the right side of the aisle - Paul or otherwise - seriously considering (most seem to actively be trying to default our debt, which tells you a lot about their idea of "fiscal responsibility")

Watch a couple of his videos before you bad mouth him.

What, you think I haven't? You sound like one of those Christians that advocate the idea that only a believer can have an opinion on the subject matter. I've heard Ron Paul. I've read Ron Paul. I've seen and participated in discussions of Ron Paul. he has some good points, but then, so do most people. He's got the right position on war and drugs and all that, but when it comes to economics, he's just another member of the supply-side cult of the wealthy. When it comes to social issues, he's actually worse than a lot of his fellow Republicans.

What i've seen of Ron Paul - and I've seen a substantial amount - leads me to considder him just so much rubbish, along with so many other career politicians in Washington.

And as for badmouthing him, well...
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/74ae30ec65f3.jpg[/atsimg]

The main thing I see about Ron Paul is that he just isn't persuasive enough. Despite all his time in Congress he has been unable to convince his sidekicks about all the things he speaks about today.

If he can't convince them as a Congressman, I can't see how he will convince them as President.

Yes, he was somewhat successful in auditing the fed. But besides the fed being audited it did very little to change the course we are on.

Originally posted by pavil

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by txraised254

 

If mr. Paul wants to solve the debt, he's going to have to advocate increased taxation. You cannot close a debt unless you actually put money into it. This is something that those of us who actually have to watch our checkbooks know about, but which mr. Paul, in his wealth, probably has forgotten.

What about just real year over year cuts in spending??????? Lets say your household has a debt problem. You make the same amount of salary (revenue) both years. Do you use credit cards to spend more than you did the previous year to get you out of debt? No you tighten your budget, cut out frivolous things, make due with putting off new purchases and spend less than you did the previous year if you want to get out of debt.

Well, fair enough. it's a loose comparison. The point is the same - you have to put money into a debt to get rid of it.

What if your debt is caused by both spending and a reduction of wages? Which is basically the case here. Mr. Bush cut taxes and then ramped up spending - I'm sure even an apologist for the man could look at that and scratch their heads. Now what if you're in that situation... and your wife is pregnant (aka, the US' positive population growth)?

Cutting expenses alone just isn't going to do it, is it? You could sell off your house and car for a short-term income boost (AKA, cut "social spending") but in the end that just puts you in a worse condition. Shouldn't you start considering a second job (aka, tax increases)?

The trouble is, of course, exactly what our government considers "frivolous."

Our Government hasn't even frozen the levels of spending,

Trouble is, doing so is next to impossible. You're not going to find any nation that has done this, even the ones who have economic artillery pointed at them by the IMF.

they have just lowered the amount of increase in the budget and try to pawn it off as budget cuts!!!! Lets see..... if I spend $100,000 last year and this year plan to spend $145,000 yet only spend $125,000, I've cut my budget by $20,000. Wow I must be really good at saving money, huh? Forget that fact that both years I only had a salary of $60,000..... I've cut my budget, life is good and I can get re-elected.

Does that make sense to anyone here?

In practice? no. In politics? Well, these are people who are representing a bunch of people who want lots of programs, a giant military, and absolutely no taxes at all. So it's possibly a case of the blind leading the stupid. Maybe if the American people had a brain above their buttocks...

I'm firmly convinced if you let Congress and the President take more of the citizens money in taxes, they will just find a way to spend it without cutting anything. I have ZERO faith in them actually trying to shrink the size the Government. It's just not in their interest to have a smaller Government, it gives them less control.

edit on 1-8-2011 by pavil because: (no reason given)

You're serious, aren't you?

Buddy... you want a smaller government. Okay. You want lots and lots and lots of cuts - you want them to go Freddy Kreuger on the budget. Okay. You know what will never get cut? The military. You know what else never gets cut? Congressional pay. They'll cut everything but those two - both of which will probably be expanded because hey, we cut so much, we can afford a little extra, besides, we deserve it for balancing the budget, derp herp.

The smaller the government, the more power concentration there is, and the more power, the less incentive to listen to the people; a dictatorship is basically the pinnacle of small government.At the other end of the spectrum, a sprawling government has its power so diffused as to be useless to its people, basically just becoming a money sponge.

I don't want "big government" nor do I want "small government." I want "Goldilocks govenrment," a functioning, responsive government scaled to the needs of its nation. It is my opinion that our government is currently TOO small, and unable to function properly to address the needs of its nation. Alternately it could be that the resources of the government are seriously mis-invested.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


I'm not entirely opposed to increasing revenues, it's just that it's a bandaid on a gushing wound. Spending has to be brought down into line at the same time. If we were to have a one or two year spending increase freeze and applied any taxes/revenue increases towards reducing the debt, I would be on board for that. Sure it will be a couple years of pain, but after this last recession/depression, I think we have all learned to live with a lot of pain. The spending freeze would have to be across the board or at least balance out to the whole total of spending for last year. My major problem is that Washington is acting like a spend happy teenager and then wants to ask their parent's (us) for more money to get them out of trouble, when they aren't going to change the way they spend. I don't want to pay more in taxes to have the government just spend it right away.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


the government is more than big enough to handle our needs as a nation. The problem is that our needs are not the number 1 priority. IMO our government is too large for anyone to be held accountable the larger the government the more lobbyist. Reducing the size in government will reduce waste, yes there will still be waste but not to this magnitude. A smaller government will make politicians more accountable for what they do. The need to raise taxes is nothing short of an excuse to expand or keep government at its current size.

When will people stop worshipping this guy??? Ok so he wants to legalize drugs and when he speaks he sounds 'edgy'. He still suports giant corporations and the deregulation of the economy. He is NOT a good person. Just had to get that out... too many people on this site worship him like he's a god or something.

Oh, I do so love to read the condescending rants of a self satisfied liberal

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
You kind of prove my point that he doesn't. I've discovered that most of his supporters have even less of a clue about economics than he does, which is impressive, in a sad sort of way. The way I figure is that most of you would simply have a herd instinct towards any demogogue who blathered some semi-ambulatory nonsense about "the fed" and "gold" and "Segregation is okay if it makes money"

Why don't you go ahead and explain why Mr. Paul is so clueless about economics or would we be getting another lesson in Keynesian economics which have always failed thoughout history, regardless of what the "name" of the economic theory was at the time? Amazing how liberals (and modern conservatives)are so entrenched in a faulty ideology, but I supose that is impressive in a sad sort of way.[See herd instincts comment above and apply here]. Typical namecalling demagoguery about the proven effects of central banking and the one form of money that has maintained value for over 6000 years...
Oh, and equating the more conservative opposition to racists? Well, that trick is pretty used up at this point. Very weak.

The likes of you and I? No. Nor have we historically had much of a tax burden at our income levels. The trouble is all those tax cuts at the top. The advertising is that if we cut taxes at the top, all that savings will come down to those of us at the bottom... which... doesn't actually happen, because obviously the top percentiles are under no obligation to invest in the bottom percentiles, so they do not do so.

Repeal the Bush tax cuts (hell, repeal the Reagan tax cuts) and watch the debt start to shrink.

Bait and switch? Supply Side economics is just a part of Keynesian economics. You guys are just fighting about which way to fail fastest. If you actually did listen to Ron Paul's words, he is "advertising" nothing of the sort. You begin an attack on Paul, then switch to mainstream Republican viewpoints with which he disagrees . Very disengenuous you'll have to wake up earlier in the morning to have that one get through.

Okay. First off, chuckles, we've been constantly de-regulating for the past thirty years. We've been stripping worker protections for longer than that. We've been giving massibve tax breaks, writing in huge tax loopholes, and, well, quite literally fist#ing ourselves to make Wall Street happy.

And then they say, "oh, it's not enough. Sure we're recording record profits and breaking them every year, but... but... we're FORCED to outsource and relocate, because our tax burden of 0% is just too high!" it, obviously, has nothing at all to do with all that deregulation asked for by these companies that allow them to ship jobs and manufacturing overseas, right, it's all because they pay too much in taxes, despite the fact that most large businesses actually turn a PROFIT from the treasury, via a combination of subsidies, tax cuts, and loopholes.

And you, for some unfathomable reason, believe them when they tell you this. Just like you believe that someday, all those record profits at the top will rain down to the bottom like mana from heaven. Just so long as you keep the supply-side faith, and hold to the holy book of The Fountainhead.

Again with the supply side economics bashing. Again, not Ron Paul's belief system. If you want to have a conservative Keynesism vs. liberal Keynesism debate, please take it to a more appropriate forum. Also, please learn the definition of the term "literal", esp. when using foul language. While regulation certainly plays a part in outsourcing, it is really the "free trade" agreements that came out of the Clinton era(and supported by both sides), isn't it? Bottom line is, if a company can pay a lot less for the same work, they will. But I haven't seen a protectionist argument coming from a liberal since John Edwards got spanked.

Oh, I don't argue there' we could cut "defense" by seven eights and still be unquestioned rulers of the world. hell, we might actually get better at it, if we could redirect all that funding towards education and cultural institutions. My point is just that cutting spending alone does not absolve a pre-existing debt. You have to actually put money INTO that debt to get rid of it. Which I see no one on the right side of the aisle - Paul or otherwise - seriously considering (most seem to actively be trying to default our debt, which tells you a lot about their idea of "fiscal responsibility")

You can certainly reduce debt by cutting spending alone. If you maintain the same income but reduce spending and apply that "saved" money toward your debt, it gets paid off. Not as quickly as if you were to raise income, but it still makes basic common sense.

What, you think I haven't? You sound like one of those Christians that advocate the idea that only a believer can have an opinion on the subject matter. I've heard Ron Paul. I've read Ron Paul. I've seen and participated in discussions of Ron Paul. he has some good points, but then, so do most people. He's got the right position on war and drugs and all that, but when it comes to economics, he's just another member of the supply-side cult of the wealthy. When it comes to social issues, he's actually worse than a lot of his fellow Republicans.

What i've seen of Ron Paul - and I've seen a substantial amount - leads me to considder him just so much rubbish, along with so many other career politicians in Washington.

And as for badmouthing him, well...

An attempt to equate a more conservative viewpoint with "irrational" Christians. In addition to the racist quip. Nice. Particularly informative when Mr. Paul prefers to keep religion out of politics and public policy.
So, anyway, good job in arguing against mainstream Republican policies that Mr. Paul does not support. As far as the jab with the picture, well, take out "Ron Paul" and replace with "Keynesian economics" and right back atcha.

I support any genuine debate, but this was typical liberal spin, full of misplaced condescension, incorrect facts, character assassination, and self absorption.

Just what is so terrifying about people being self reliant and communities being more independent from central control and government invasion on all levels?