Ron Paul is the only fiscal conservative running for president on a major-party ticket
Vote Here
The voting period for this debate does not end.
| Started: | 1/30/2008 | Category: | Politics |
| Updated: | 7 months ago | Status: | Voting Period |
| Viewed: | 291 times | Debate No: | 2306 |
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (6)
Votes (19)
 Pro Rudy Giuliani had (more than) his share of negatives. However, he was the only candidate -- other than Ron Paul -- who was even remotely fiscally conservative. The nonpartisan National Taxpayers Union issued the following press release on January 29, the day Rudy called it quits. http://www.ntu.org... In it, the NTU says Rudy would cut government spending by $1.5 billion. That's chump change, for sure, but it's a lot better than the other frontrunners. On the Democratic side, Obama and Hillary are calling for proposals to expand government by $287 billion and $218.2 billion, respectively. But the Republicans aren't much better. The Christian Socialist Huckabee calls for an increase by $54.2 billion, and the industrial fascist Romney wants to expand government by $19.5 billion. John "interest rates should be 0%" McCain wants to expand by "only" $6.9 billion. How about Ron Paul? He calls for spending cuts of $150.1 billion. Every dollar of government spending has to be paid for. It can be paid for through taxation, debt, or inflation. Taxes are the most honest way of paying for government spending. Debt passes the burden on to future generations. Inflation robs savers and wage earners in a way they don't even see it. No matter how spending is paid for, it IS paid for by a "tax" -- direct tax, grandchildren tax, or inflation tax. Therefore, you CANNOT CUT "TAXES" WITHOUT CUTTING SPENDING, and of course, the government CANNOT BE RESTRAINED from spending so long as the Federal Reserve System continues to exist. Ron Paul is the only person still in the running that would cut government spending. Giuliani's puny $1.5 billion is outdone by a magnitude of 100 by Ron Paul. If you do not vote for Ron Paul, you are voting for a fiscal liberal socialist/fascist -- the data don't lie.  Con What my opponent has done is frame his argument, not in terms of practicality, but in terms of radical extremism. A $150 billion dollar cut, while, in many ways, could be considered a very good things, is impractical. I think that we can all agree that such a cut will never pass Congress, even if Ron Paul was President. Thus, a politician, such as Ron Paul, who promises such a radical spending cut is either practicing extreme rhetoric in order to garner votes, or is greatly disillusioned. Secondly, my opponent ignores the democratic spirit of America. The huge federal government that America has is the product of the people, and is very much supported by the people. There is a reason why Social Security and Medicare and welfare remain as government sponsored programs--because the people want them. While I personally believe that such programs are bad, there is a very significant majority of Americans who like the programs, thus, for better or worse, they are here to stay. Crunching the numbers from the 2005 budget, a person will find that the programs such as welfare, health care, and social security made up over 50% of the budget, or $1418.4 billion. Defense spending, which many conservative are calling an increase for, and is especially necessary in this time of war against Islamo-facists and an aggressive Iran and China, made cost $600.1 billion. Since a defense cut, especially under the current circumstances, would not pass a Congress where the Republicans had filibustering power, it the $600.1 billion is likely to remain, as well a the $241 billion for interest spending, the running of government, and internal security. That leaves just $212.7 billion to be cut from education, transportaion/infrastructure, and other spending. I would argue that it is unrealistic for any cuts of above $50 billion from this group--as they constitute hugely popular government programs. Thus, the question I have for Ron Paul, and clsmooth is, where will you cut the money? For these reasons, it is my belief that Ron Paul is not a fiscal conservative, but, rather, a fiscal extremists. While I disagree with government spending in general, I believe that fiscal promises should be practical. Both Romney and Huckabee have promised to cut taxes, as well as reduce unnecessary government spending. Such promises, I believe, fall within the pall of reality. In addition, my opponent's belief that a tax cut will only be a true tax break if combined with a spending cut is a simplification. The Laffer Curve shows a much better picture. In short, a society that is on the left-side of the curve is producing less government revenue because of overtaxation, which leads to less incentive to work and produce taxable revenue and income. A cut in taxes, according to the curve, would then result in greater revenue. Thus, a tax break, in today's tax enviroment, could be equated to an increase in federal revenue, thus providing for the necessary government funding without any more taxes, direct or indirect. 2005 budget breakdown: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com... |
 |
19 votes have been cast for this debate.
Coming in September, 2008
A complete graphical breakdown of the votes by:
- Age Group
- Country
- Education
- Ethnicity
- Gender
- Ideology
- Income
- Political Party
- Religion
Show people this debate by sending them this public link:
In a non-inflationary environment, the Laffer Curve can only work if individuals and firms pull money out of savings and put it into the economy as a result of the tax cut. This is where the money comes from. But the fact is that we have a NEGATIVE SAVINGS RATE. So where is the money going to come from? It can only come from expansion of the monetary base, i.e. inflation. Inflation robs wealth just as much as taxes do, but it does it even less morally, as it is secretive and often goes unnoticed.
Regardless of the faulty economics, I think you are making a grave error when you concede the idea that the government should increase its spending, and thus, its role in American life. We need a rapid reduction. $150 billion is not enough by a long shot. That's nothing. This inflationary "stimulus" plan is $145 billion. You think we can't cut government by at least that much? Come on, man!
JFK, LBJ, and other democratic political figures from the sixties and seventies considered themselves to be paleoliberals (paleo is Greek for old, or old time). Paleoliberals in the sixties and seventies launched the most aggressive foreign policy in American history by leading us into Vietnam, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and CIA covert ops (which are now declassified) responsible for overthrowing a plethora of regimes.
This is exactly what the 9/11 Commission Report written by the CIA deems to be the primary cause of what they call "blowback", which is what they deem to be the primary reason for the attacks on 9/11. Ron Paul has repeated this notion created by the CIA itself during debates, but he just gets laughed at by the other candidates, who spin his comments to sound like he's falling for extremist propaganda.
Paleoliberals later became neoconservatives. If you compare the actions of paleoliberals and the Bush Admin., you can see a number of similarities, such as adopting such an aggressive foreign policy, liberal spending, etc.
Neoconservatives are wolves in sheep's clothing because they operate under a conservative guise, but are in fact liberal. In a system where the right is supposed to balance the left and vice versa, there's no balance if both sides are liberal, and the scales tip to one side. We stand to loose what's left of our democracy if our checks and balances are eliminated.
Also, well argued on your end, I do agree that there is a serious issue with government spending that needs to be addressed.
Secondly, what does the FACT that all government spending has to be paid for have to do with the Laffer Curve? Are you merely suggesting that the tax cuts will pay for themselves AND the increase in spending all of the other candidates want? How can that be without inflation? Do you really expect the other candidates to preside over administrations that do not inflate AND increase our debt burden? You seem far too intelligent to actually believe that.