It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by Americanist
"Wars" is the answer to this question?:
Please show me where a society, who was over it's head in debt, cut the spending and re-arranged the budget to profiting programs and debt reduction, ended up in the crapper?
Could you clarify that answer for us, by chance? Maybe it's just the lack of sleep, but I'm having a hard time piecing that together...
As for this, please show me where this has happened?
Originally posted by lunatux
reply to post by SeekingAlpha
You are, of course, absolutely correct. Government spends in the private sector directly and sends money back to the states through programs. When that money gets to the state, the state uses it to do business with private sector companies to accomplish program objectives. If that money suddenly disappears all sorts of businesses that depend on government expenditures for all or part of their revenues will suddenly find themselves in financial difficulties. When businesses find themselves in such difficulties one of the first things they do is throw employees overboard. The employee who gets tossed over the side in this economy is just plain screwed and so in the long run are businesses who depend upon his/her custom.
Moreover, government jobs or government funded private sector jobs tend to be exactly the sort we'd want to keep; professional positions in the social & natural sciences, law, medicine, accountancy, positions in the skilled trades and engineering and a plethora of other occupations. These are jobs that provide a middle class lifestyle that in turn supports much of the rest of the economy. Think of all those cheering JPL employees at Curiosity's landing; GONE.
Most of the members here think there is and should be a strict separation between the government and private industry. For followers of Ron Paul and Ludwig von Mises' Austrian Economics it is an article of "religious" faith. But such a faith is ahistorical. American economics in operation has always been about a mixed economy where government takes on huge risks and projects that help business and business in turn contracts with the government to provide goods and services consumed by the government or the people.
People here who demand proof that a 20% or higher federal spending cut would be disastrous can check out the current list of federal business opportunities here that will simply be suspended or disappear. Or you can work with the federal state and local payroll data here to calculate the effect of taking an axe to the spending on employment. When you actually start taking a look at who does business with the government you will begin to realize that almost every company and nonprofit has either a direct or indirect link to federal state and municipal spending. However, I suspect that most of those who place their faith in the simplistic nostrums of Dr Ron Paul and his Paulistas wont risk exposure to that much complexity.
I want a simple world as do we all; so long as that world is complex enough to satisfy our not so simple 21st century needs and lifestyles. Despite bravado and protestations to the contrary, few if any of us are equipped to walk out of civilization and into the raw state of nature. Buy all of that Alex Jones advertised survivalist crap you can; you will get to the end of it and then what? We really cannot have it both ways though we pretend to.
The Federal Government got big because our country got big. It got complex because our country got complex. When complex things are allowed to fail they do so complexly reaching out to every quarter of the nation and the economy. No one is left unscathed. Libertarians and Paulistas tend to think simplistically that if they have a little gold, some guns & ammo, freeze dried food and a rustic setting they are good. They delude themselves.
Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by lunatux
Perhaps instead of making certain statements and assumptions without much other information to clarify, can you reference actual cuts Paul has proposed and let us know how they might modify what you've said here?
If you think there is no wasted spending we can cut in government budgets - I'm simply flabbergasted. You really think the only option is to continue spending more and more money every year, as is otherwise forecast by pretty much every analyst reviewing the situation?
You really think that can go on forever? What's the inevitable outcome? It sure isn't "Everything magically gets rosy" despite the Fed, the GAO, and pretty much everyone else who's taken a look at it advising the exact opposite.
GOP presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul will unveil his economic plan Monday afternoon, calling for a lower corporate tax rate, cutting spending by $1 trillion during his first year in office and eliminating five cabinet-level agencies, including the Education Department, according to excerpts released to Washington Wire.
It does depend on who you roll with.
Now, this need for a transition period does not apply to all types of welfare. For example, I would have no problem defunding corporate welfare programs, such as the Export-Import Bank or the TARP bank bailouts, right away. I find it difficult to muster much sympathy for the CEO’s of Lockheed Martin and Goldman Sachs.
Cuts $1 trillion in spending during the first year of Ron Paul’s presidency, eliminating five cabinet departments (Energy, HUD, Commerce, Interior, and Education), 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.
Eliminating federal involvement in K-12 education should be among a constitutionalist president’s top domestic priorities. The Constitution makes no provision for federal meddling in education. It is hard to think of a function less suited to a centralized, bureaucratic approach than education. The very idea that a group of legislators and bureaucrats in D.C. can design a curriculum capable of meeting the needs of every American schoolchild is ludicrous. The deteriorating performance of our schools as federal control over the classroom has grown shows the folly of giving Washington more power over American education. President Bush’s No Child Left Behind law claimed it would fix education by making public schools “accountable.” However, supporters of the law failed to realize that making schools more accountable to federal agencies, instead of to parents, was just perpetuating the problem.
In the years since No Child Left Behind was passed, I don’t think I have talked to any parent or teacher who is happy with the law. Therefore, a constitutionalist president looking for ways to improve the lives of children should demand that Congress cut the federal education bureaucracy as a down payment on eventually returning 100 percent of the education dollar to parents.
Traditionally, the battle to reduce the federal role in education has been the toughest one faced by limited-government advocates, as supporters of centralized education have managed to paint constitutionalists as “anti-education.” But who is really anti-education? Those who wish to continue to waste taxpayer money on failed national schemes, or those who want to restore control over education to the local level? When the debate is framed this way, I have no doubt the side of liberty will win. When you think about it, the argument that the federal government needs to control education is incredibly insulting to the American people, for it implies that the people are too stupid or uncaring to educate their children properly. Contrary to those who believe that only the federal government can ensure children’s education, I predict a renaissance in education when parents are put back in charge.
Originally posted by benrl
reply to post by GoldenRuled
Can you tell me 1 project the gov has done for the citizens of this country that was NOT a colossal financial and destructive failure???
I think pretty much anything to do with national infrastructure during the new deal and such could fall under that.edit on 10-8-2012 by benrl because: 2nd
Originally posted by tothetenthpower
The Tea Party and Ron Paul are two VERY different sections of the political spectrum. Ron is a conservative, the Tea Party are liberals dressed up as conservatives.