OK, esmith, you made me stay up until 5AM to answer your post 🙂
Disclamer: I am not claiming to know all the answers, and my thoughts below are just that – my thoughts. They are based of my limited understanding of how things work and what Dr. Paul’s position is. I might be completely wrong.
The main premise of Ron Paul’s position on federal spending (as I understand it) is, using FEDERAL money and FEDERAL solutions is always less effective and more abuse-prone, than using State local programs to achieve the same goal. Using private money is more effective yet.
We’ll scale down our defense spending. There’s still a big hole? No problem, we’ll just cut some unnecessary programs. Here’s an idea: why don’t we shut down NASA.
I work in a science-related field myself, and it’s my opinion, that government-funded science is by far less productive than privately funded labs. It is OK to waste enormous amounts of money in hope to produce SOMETHING at the end, but I don’t think a country on a verge of bankruptcy can afford that. And who said NASA is the only right way for space exploration? It is as a wasteful and irresponsible way of spending our taxes as they come.
Cut social programs such as unemployment benefits and Medicare. You want to eat? Go find a job you lazy bum. You want to go to a doctor, but you can’t afford health insurance? Tough luck. You’re 75 and you have no savings (or, rather, not enough to pay $1000/month for health insurance in the absence of Medicare)? Tough luck.
For better or worse, changes in social programs can’t come overnight. People who are 75 now will still get all their benefits.
If you are 45 today, and you have a good income, but you spend it all in hopes that I will pay for your retirement – well, think again. With the income tax abolished, you will be able save by far more money than you ever could. If you decide not to, how come it is the responsibility of my son, who is 2 now, to pay your medical bills in 30 years?
Of course, in some cases the society is responsible to protect its weakest, but the federal programs that handle it right now are not the best way of dealing with the problem. Imho.
Start raising rates. What deflationary spiral? What 25% unemployment? We’ll just repeal minimum wage laws to bring manufacturing jobs back to America. If you can’t afford to own a car and a house on a $100/month manufacturing salary – you’ll have to live in a factory dorm and walk to work.
This is outside my area of expertise, and my views can be overly simplistic. But my understanding is, Ron Paul does not want the government to dictate the rates. Free market tends to self-correct. If the reasonable cost for the job is $100/month, artificially raising it to $200 will not make the company pay $200. It will make the company pay $100 to somebody who will take it, namely move it overseas. The company does not really have a choice here, other than going out of business. So, the small companies that cannot afford to build plants in China will be driven to bankruptcy, while the big corporations will outsource. How exactly is that helping the worker, who cannot earn even that $100 now? I know how – by paying his unemployment benefits from my taxes. No, thanks.
Anyway, it is nice to have a constructive discussion here, without name-calling and emotional statements. It’ll be great to hear everyones thoughts on the topic.
