HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Ron Paul isn't anti-defen...

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 08:18 PM

Ron Paul isn't anti-defense spending, he's anti-everything else

From Ron Paul's Restore America Now:

<...>

DELIVERS A TRUE BALANCED BUDGET IN YEAR THREE OF DR. PAUL’S PRESIDENCY:

Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who doesn’t just talk about balancing the budget, but who has a full plan to get it done.

SPENDING:

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.

ENTITLEMENTS:

Honors our promise to our seniors and veterans, while allowing young workers to opt out. Block grants Medicaid and other welfare programs to allow States the flexibility and ingenuity they need to solve their own unique problems without harming those currently relying on the programs.

CUTTING GOVERNMENT WASTE:

Makes a 10% reduction in the federal workforce, slashes Congressional pay and perks, and curbs excessive federal travel. To stand with the American People, President Paul will take a salary of $39,336, approximately equal to the median personal income of the American worker.

TAXES:

Lowers the corporate tax rate to 15%, making America competitive in the global market. Allows American companies to repatriate capital without additional taxation, spurring trillions in new investment. Extends all Bush tax cuts. Abolishes the Death Tax. Ends taxes on personal savings, allowing families to build a nest egg.

REGULATION:

Repeals ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank, and Sarbanes-Oxley. Mandates REINS-style requirements for thorough congressional review and authorization before implementing any new regulations issued by bureaucrats. President Paul will also cancel all onerous regulations previously issued by Executive Order.

MONETARY POLICY:

Conducts a full audit of the Federal Reserve and implements competing currency legislation to
strengthen the dollar and stabilize inflation.

- more -

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/


First, not only has Ron Paul signed Grover Norquist's pledge, he voted for both of Bush's tax cuts.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll149.xml
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll182.xml

On “entitlements,” why would anyone trust this man: Ron Paul Compares Social Security & Medicare To Slavery
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002101818

On defense, Paul made three points in his NH speech yesterday:

they say, “Oh, that means you want to cut defense.” No, if you cut the military industrial complex, you cut war profiteering, but you don’t take one penny out of national defense.


But we will come home, but if we do it now, calmly and deliberately, we can save our economy here at home, because there are a lot of people who are suffering here at home.


"We will balance the budget by year three without cutting from...our national defense"


http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002151380

From Paul's plan, proposed defense spending:



Given Paul’s statement on leaving Afghanistan “calmly and deliberately,” it’s interesting that all he basically does is subtract the war spending (about $117 billion currently) to come up with his defense budget, and spending still goes up more than $20 billion for the four-year period.

Notice he’s using CBO projections (from 2010, not sure) that include war spending. The $1 trillion President Obama proposed cutting from defense will impact the overall numbers.

The 2012 base is $553 billion, so a base of $501 billion is only $42 billion less, and from there Paul's budget grows.

He cuts about $79 billion the first year, an additional $6 billion in each of the following two years, and about $13 billion in the fourth year. (Wow, that'll destroy the MIC - sarcasm). Even if one looks at that the savings carried over, it’s $79 billion, $86 billion, $92 billion and $105 billion, for each of the four years respectively. That’s $362 cumulatively. It’s only by eliminating the Afghanisan war funding that makes it about $860 billion.

In essence, Paul leaves the base defense budget intact, spending $523 billion in 2016.

On the other hand, the President’s proposal uses $523 billion as the base in 2013, and applies the $1 trillion in cuts (reduction in the nuclear arsenal, troop numbers, overseas military operations, etc.) going forward. This is likely the reason Paul hasn't commented on Obama's proposal. I mean, Paul proposal still allocates more than $500 billion a year in defense spending.

It also pales in comparison to what Barney Frank proposes.

How to Save the Global Economy: Cut Defense Spending

BY BARNEY FRANK

In the United States, cuts in public-sector spending have caused the loss of 550,000 public-sector jobs -- think teachers, police, and firefighters -- since January 2009, adding to the raw unemployment numbers and removing the multiplier effect that takes place when employees spend their paychecks...Yet my Republican colleagues have insisted on retaining all of George W. Bush's tax cuts, thus all but guaranteeing that future revenues will continue to fall far short of what is necessary to reduce U.S. debt and create the conditions for a strong recovery.

One major change that can reverse this: a substantial reduction in America's military spending. In the current fiscal year, the United States is spending upwards of $650 billion on its military, including the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is far more than it spends on Medicare and, more importantly, considerably in excess of what is required for America's legitimate national security needs.

The United States should and will be the strongest country in the world. But it can achieve that status for significantly less than it is now spending. An early withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan over the next six months would save hundreds of billions of dollars. In addition, we could reach savings of more than $100 billion annually by adopting strategic concepts appropriate to the current world situation, rather than continuing to rack up bills fighting threats that no longer exist. We could also save tens of billions of dollars a year by curtailing our commitment to the defense of Western Europe -- which was perfectly sensible when President Harry Truman made it but is wholly inexplicable now that Europeans are wealthy, strong, and threatened by no one -- as well as by reducing our military presence in Japan and forgoing the new proposal for stationing U.S. Marines in Australia. We do not need to maintain the fighting capacity we had during the height of the Cold War to engage the Soviet Union in an all-out conflict. Terrorists are terrible people who should be confronted, but they are not a thermonuclear-armed Soviet empire. Fighting them, though in many ways more complicated, should be less expensive.

<...>

If we commit to reducing military spending to a rate of approximately $430 billion a year over the next decade, with suitable inflation adjustments, it would do a great deal to reassure people that we had our deficit problem under control, that the long-term drain this puts on our economy would be diminished, and that we could then afford the near-term economic stimulus we need to help accelerate our currently sluggish growth.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/03/4_cut_defense_spending


Using Paul's math, Frank's proposed $430 billion per year would result in a cumulative savings of $1.7 trillion in four years.


Truthiness and Ron Paul
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002153654


Truthiness and Ron Paul - Part 2
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002153853

14 replies, 3670 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 14 replies Author Time Post
Reply Ron Paul isn't anti-defense spending, he's anti-everything else (Original post)
ProSense Jan 2012 OP
dionysus Jan 2012 #1
ProSense Jan 2012 #3
dionysus Jan 2012 #4
ProSense Jan 2012 #5
Scurrilous Jan 2012 #2
ProSense Jan 2012 #9
Merlot Jan 2012 #6
Fire Walk With Me Jan 2012 #7
ProSense Jan 2012 #8
athenasatanjesus Jan 2012 #10
ProSense Jan 2012 #13
TigerToMany Jan 2012 #11
ProSense Jan 2012 #12
Post removed Mar 2012 #14

Response to ProSense (Original post)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 08:29 PM

1. kick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dionysus (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 08:55 PM

3. Thanks. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #3)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 09:13 PM

4. any time (re-kick). ron paul is just a proxy in the neverending game of trying to get as many DUers

as possible not to vote, because of a grudge.

silly thing is, it so transparent it is to laugh....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dionysus (Reply #4)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 09:53 PM

5. Ron Paul

is a RW Republican.

Facts are facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 08:34 PM

2. Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scurrilous (Reply #2)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 01:40 AM

9. Well,

the MIC has nothing to worry about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 10:15 PM

6. It's great that he would end wars and military spending but not at the expense of

everything else. By cutting military spending you cut a lot of civilian parts production and jobs.

And if you think the money he'd save from cutting military spending would be going to things like healthcare and education, think again. He doesn't believe in public education and medicare or social security.

He's anti choice when it comes to women, but not when it comes to drugs. Wonder if he's anti birth control too?

Although I like to hear rpaul ruffle the feathers of the repubs in the debates, everything that he says that sounds so good has a big downside.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 10:21 PM

7. ...

 

In stark contrast to Romney, and every other candidate for that matter, the top three organizations that employ Congressman Ron Paul’s supporters are the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Army, and the U.S. Navy.

Indeed, the latest figures once again show that the Ron Paul 2012 Campaign has raised more donations from active military than all other presidential candidates—Republican or Democrat.

http://www.conservativeactionalerts.com/2011/10/federal-records-show-romney-campaign-bought-and-paid-for-by-big-banks/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fire Walk With Me (Reply #7)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 10:32 PM

8. Interesting. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 09:50 AM

10. returning responsibility for security to private property owners

WTF So we can now fight each other over territory?Does he want to build up private police,and military?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to athenasatanjesus (Reply #10)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 12:34 PM

13. Yes, that's basically it. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 10:17 AM

11. Very informative post

 

Ron Paul is a scumbag. He's a warmongering statist like the rest of the Rethuglicans party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TigerToMany (Reply #11)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 01:35 PM

12. Thanks n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TigerToMany (Reply #11)

Reply to this thread