We Must Spend - Ron Paul Supporters Have No Comprehension of Real Consequences

First let me begin by saying that IN THEORY, I get what the tea party folks and Ron Paul supporters are getting at when they are advocating in spending cuts, going back to the gold/silver standard, and balancing our budgets. I get it.

But in reality, if these positions were used, there would be HUGE societal issues that would result from deep spending cuts. I don't think your average Ron Paul/Tea Partier has any comprehension of what they are asking for.

Case in point, see the below article.
finance.yahoo.com...

Europe is going through its austerity measures and in some of those countries, it is just abysmal for your average joe. The article above shows just one of many issues that come with the package of people not having money, jobs, and living in misery.

Here in the US, if our federal govt. cut 20-30% of its spending, can you imagine how bad it would be for many of us? Not only will you have huge bread lines, crime would just go through the roof here, and protests all around the country. We would seriously see riots break out across the US. It would seriously drastically change the direction of this country in so many ways that your average joe just would not comprehend.

The reality is that, the government, for better or worse, must spend and continue to spend. Our way of life is dependent on spending whether we like it or not. Anyone who actually believes that either party system does a better job of spending is smoking crack and I have got swamp land to sell to you.

reply to post by SeekingAlpha


Is anybody else experiencing deja vu after reading this post?

Here in the US, if our federal govt. cut 20-30% of its spending, can you imagine how bad it would be for many of us? Not only will you have huge bread lines, crime would just go through the roof here, and protests all around the country. We would seriously see riots break out across the US. It would seriously drastically change the direction of this country in so many ways that your average joe just would not comprehend.

Man would I love to hear some reasoning behind this one!!!

Tell us please why this would be?? 20-30% cuts would result in THIS???

Bring that thought process on, I would love to hear!!

Don't forget about the billion - trillions lost, wasted, and misspent over the years.

The gov't can't keep track of the money they take in now, and they want more.

Spend more, oh yeah!!

I had this friend, he got used to his "lifestyle", he lost his job so he wen't from a 2 income family to one.

He lost everything trying to "maintain" what he was used to spending, he got more in debt paying his bills with credit cards, all while trying to maintain the spending he was used to.

He kept holding out hope that good times would come again, that he would get a job that would be the same as it was.

Burned through his stocks, his 401k, everything trying to keep his BMW and his McMansion.

It wasn't until he was functionally homeless that he began to deal with the Reality of his situation.

He has a job that doesn't pay the 6 figures that he was used to, but he has a roof over his head and a loving wife.

He has had to redefine what "success " is and is thriving...

Its time for the US to give up the BMW and MCmansions, we can't keep spending in hopes of "better" times.

I like opinion pieces, because they bring new insight to discussions.

But you have to bring some facts with you to back up these claims.

I see none.

reply to post by SeekingAlpha


How is it we bececame the most prosperous nation in recorded history before the gov started regulating things?
Look at our 1st 120 years versus the last 100. We brought the world into the modern age before 1900. 1 other question. 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???

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???

Hoover Dam?

I think pretty much anything to do with national infrastructure during the new deal and such could fall under that.

This is very easy.

Let's say the federal govt. cuts spending by 20-30%. That would most probably mean that funding for social programs such as, but not limited to, social security and medicare get reduced. Not only that, military spending, federal spending for education, infrastructure improvement are all hit hard on spending cuts. Most importantly, if we are the reign in the Federal Reserve spending, state and muni bonds are not bought which means no money for the states/localities as well.

So what do you think this would do to the job market? Lay offs would drastically increase in both the private and public sectors. What you would see is another huge fiscal heart attack again, but this time worse than 2007.

Your 401Ks and retirement accounts would most likely take a huge dump as well which means your overall net wealth decreases because companies would not doubt be earning less which will be reflected in their stock prices. When everything goes down in price like this guess what, the US goes into a deflationary spiral as we "deleverage."

The wild card here is that not only would you have millions of people living in poverty, we are also an armed society. Violence would definitely increase and we would have a strapped police force unable to properly address crimes due to budge cuts.

Don't believe in what I am saying. Do yourself a favor and read up on how the populace is reacting to austerity measures in Europe. It's actually much uglier than what the main stream media would have you believe.

Originally posted by Chrisfishenstein

Here in the US, if our federal govt. cut 20-30% of its spending, can you imagine how bad it would be for many of us? Not only will you have huge bread lines, crime would just go through the roof here, and protests all around the country. We would seriously see riots break out across the US. It would seriously drastically change the direction of this country in so many ways that your average joe just would not comprehend.

Man would I love to hear some reasoning behind this one!!!

Tell us please why this would be?? 20-30% cuts would result in THIS???

Bring that thought process on, I would love to hear!!

Tea Party = liberals dressed up as conservatives?!?!?!?!

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by SeekingAlpha

 

First let me begin by saying that IN THEORY, I get what the tea party folks and Ron Paul supporters are getting at when they are advocating in spending cuts, going back to the gold/silver standard, and balancing our budgets. I get it.

I don't think you do...

But in reality, if these positions were used, there would be HUGE societal issues that would result from deep spending cuts. I don't think your average Ron Paul/Tea Partier has any comprehension of what they are asking for.

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.

Here in the US, if our federal govt. cut 20-30% of its spending, can you imagine how bad it would be for many of us? Not only will you have huge bread lines, crime would just go through the roof here, and protests all around the country. We would seriously see riots break out across the US. It would seriously drastically change the direction of this country in so many ways that your average joe just would not comprehend.

No...I would like you to provide proof, that by cutting innefective programs and moving that money to programs that are effective, would somehow harm the United States? How is having real money bad for the US?

You have a lot of opinion, but no facts. You can't use Europe as a means to examine the economic system in the US, it's entirely, 100% non comparable because of the stark differences within monetary policies.

The reality is that, the government, for better or worse, must spend and continue to spend. Our way of life is dependent on spending whether we like it or not. Anyone who actually believes that either party system does a better job of spending is smoking crack and I have got swamp land to sell to you.

This is nonsense. Your entire theory is based on personal opinion, not facts. Please don't tout them as such.

There's is a huge difference between austerity measures and spending cuts designed to alleviate the bloated economy and off set the bubbles currently being created.

~Tenth

reply to post by SeekingAlpha
SA, some points you seem to have missed from the article:

"We are really afraid that in the future we will have a big number of families that cannot manage to keep their own children because of these problems. We are trying to be ready for this," he said, but the government must keep on funding social welfare services."

Paul's plan to restore America is about the only one that properly addresses the US equivalents of these social welfare services - massively cut military (NOT *defense*) and wasteful government spending, among various others, and channel half of these savings into shoring up our entitlement programs for those reliant on them in the meantime, while letting those younger ones who won't see any benefit from them opt out and make arrangements for their own futures.

"[The government must] stop downgrading services in the name of the austerity measures."

Paul doesn't seek to do this, but he does realize the entire house of cards will collapse if the government's stealing from the people and reckless spending spree doesn't come to an end. Instead of just saying "Cut government spending and people hurt!," it's best to think about what percentage of government spending actually HELPS people. The fact is that as government's size and spending has gone up (that money comes from We The People, BTW...), things have progressively gotten worse for the average US citizen. Think about that for awhile.

CNBC contacted the Commission's office for Social Affairs but policy makers were unavailable for comment. An EU-funded program, "Daphne," was commissioned to assess which children were most at risk, and the economic instability of a household was cited by the report as a major factor in the increase of child abandonment.

Care to take a guess at about how economically-stable the US' household is? If you're not sure, you might want to look up what David Walker, former head of the GAO, and many others have to say on the matter. Hell, even Bernanke at the Fed has warned us time and time again about our economic and fiscal situation...and he's one of the main bad guys in this regard!

"Many factors contribute to children being separated from their families. Research shows that the primary factors are everyday conditions e.g., poverty, unemployed parents, low or lack of income, a lack of material resources, and poor living conditions."

And guess how many of these issues stem either directly or very indirectly from failed US governmental policies, fiscal mismanagement, and ineffective or downright destructive spending?

Now, coming back to a proper view on this matter - would Paul's policies cause some effects in our economy and elsewhere? I don't think it can be denied - but that's because these systems have been built on mismanagement and misallocation for a long time now. But basically, the patient is very very sick, and if they don't take the hard medicine before long, their situation will only continue to worsen and might not be reversible.

Had we started listening to Paul's warning and recommendations many years ago, it's fairly demonstrable that we might have avoided this situation - arguing otherwise in light of Paul telling us exactly what we could expect on most issues years before they happened just seems silly when you can watch the videos on the record for yourself. When someone's right about multiple things years in advance, maybe they know what they're talking about - and their recommended solutions should also be considered.

Take care.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


In defense of those statements: It's not hard to imagine something similar happening - where the alternative to digging through garbage is to blow your head off in front of government buildings. I'd also argue you not be so naive.

reply to post by benrl


Nothing wrong with the BMW, the ROLEX and other higher end items. Just don't put it on credit. If you can't afford it by paying cash, then don't get it.

Most are fooled that credit is a tool, IT ISN'T, but its a free choice to use and it's your choice to accept the terms or not. I was once one of these fools, but I learned real quick.

I am all for free enterprise and here is the kicker, I do believe in regulations. Regulations in the terms of zero% tolerance for poisons/gmo in our water/food/air/earth resources. I MEAN ZERO TOLERANCE. But I am willing to pay a company to go and get that clear glacier water - bottle it up safely - distribute it safely and they can make all the profits they want... You need credit? Then I will gladly offer you my services and give you credit, but on my terms, you can choose to accept or decline. But this creditor is considered heartless and cold, I get that, but I also get that its not. Would you work for your employer for 3 weeks for free because he/she was in a bind?

You make a great product with the intentions of it being the best of its kind. I will buy.
Offer a great service that I need and I am pleased. I will pay.
Don't market to me by playing word games. i.e. NATURAL vs ORGANIC. then you lost me as a customer because you tried to ef up the transaction. Good product, good payback.

I build it with pride - I sell it with pride - I accept payment with pride - you choose to buy and you accept my product pleased. It really is a beautiful transaction.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by SeekingAlpha

 

Tea Party = liberals dressed up as conservatives?!?!?!?!

Yes.

Any group of people who believe the government has the right to legislate your life, is a liberal, not a conservative.

Saying things like " we want smaller government" and then saying " we want the government to make abortion illegal" is really really stupid and contrary.

Not conservatives, liberals who have been fooled into thinking their idelogy is conservative.

~Tenth

While you're stuck labeling people are wising up.

reply to post by SeekingAlpha

Here in the US, if our federal govt. cut 20-30% of its spending, can you imagine how bad it would be for many of us? Not only will you have huge bread lines, crime would just go through the roof here, and protests all around the country. We would seriously see riots break out across the US. It would seriously drastically change the direction of this country in so many ways that your average joe just would not comprehend.

How sad would it be if people did respond that way simply because the government stopped providing for their every need?

Maybe we need this kind of ‘reset’ so people will learn personal responsibility…

The reality is that, the government, for better or worse, must spend and continue to spend. Our way of life is dependent on spending whether we like it or not. Anyone who actually believes that either party system does a better job of spending is smoking crack and I have got swamp land to sell to you.

Why should the government continue spending my money (tax payer money) so that others can maintain their way of life?