United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: RON PAUL “PLAN TO RESTORE AMERICA”
Source:
ronpaul2012.com
URL Source: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issu ... -paul-plan-to-restore-america/
Published: Nov 27, 2011
Author: Ron Paul
Post Date: 2011-11-27 09:51:27 by We The People
Keywords: None
Views: 9437
Comments: 33
SYNOPSIS: America is the greatest nation in human history. Our respect for individual liberty, free markets, and limited constitutional government produced the strongest, most prosperous country in the world. But, we have drifted far from our founding principles, and America is in crisis. Ron Paul’s “Restore America” plan slams on the brakes and puts America on a return to constitutional government. It is bold but achievable. Through the bully pulpit of the presidency, the power of the Veto, and, most importantly, the united voice of freedom-loving Americans, we can implement fundamental reforms. 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. CONCLUSION: Dr. Paul is the only candidate with a plan to cut spending and truly balance the budget. This is the only plan that will deliver what America needs in these difficult times: Major regulatory relief, large spending cuts, sound monetary policy, and a balanced budget. Charts, graphs and data at link above.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: We The People (#0)
Now, we are talking about REAL presidential material and leadership for America. Have you seen the other candidates so far? All they can do is SPIN some new BS about Iran's nuclear stuff and how Israel needs America to defend them. All of these folks aren't worth anymore keystrokes. WTP, you are correct, Ron Paul for POTUS!
There are many neoconservatives in the race, but only one conservative.
Is Ron Paul going to repeal FDIC insurance as well? Who will trust an unregulated banking system?
Crime and theft will still be illegal, but under Ron Paul violators will actually be prosecuted. We haven't tried enforcing the Constitution and rule of law yet.
Obama's watch stopped on 24 May 2008, but he's been too busy smoking crack to notice.
I don't know. But he did state, in 2005, "Finally, I would remind my colleagues that the federal deposit insurance program lacks constitutional authority. Congress' only mandate in the area of money and banking is to maintain the value of the money. Unfortunately, Congress abdicated its responsibility over monetary policy with the passage of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, which allows the federal government to erode the value of the currency at the will of the central bank. Congress' embrace of fiat money is directly responsible for the instability in the banking system that created the justification for deposit insurance." www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul289.html So I would hope so. Who will trust an unregulated banking system? Do you trust our current regulated banking system? I don't trust our banking system period. That's why I only use banks as a 'flow through' tool.
...instead of being bailed out.
Sounds like the prison building industry will be the big benefactor. Hopefully a few that wear white collars WILL make it in for a change. I doubt it though. Paul still needs a Congress and the Judiciary, unless we plan on electing a dictator.
"ROTFLMAO... Perfect! She longs... for someone to Teabag her. a man that squats on top of a women's face and lowers his genitals into her mouth during sex, known as "teabagging" She aches for it"... ~~~JWpegler. Head Tea Bagger and Tea Party supporter extraordinaire, explicitly expressing his fantasies in public about other posters.
Tens of millions of tax paying Americans do with FDIC insurance being a key component of that trust. I also note that the Ron Paul campaign itself is careful not to put more than the maximum insurable amount in their own bank accounts. Ending FDIC without providing a viable alternative for the average saver not a good idea, neither is ending bank regulation while leaving FDIC in place.
I doubt it too, but I'd love to see it at least tried. Paul still needs a Congress and the Judiciary A bully pulpit and the backing of a large (and loud) sector of the American public can go a long way.
I have instantly fallen in love with you, mininggold. When can we tie the knot?
I don't need no irate wife in my life right now. Sorry.
"ROTFLMAO... Perfect! She longs... for someone to Teabag her. a man that squats on top of a women's face and lowers his genitals into her mouth during sex, known as "teabagging" She aches for it"... ~~~JWpegler. Head Tea Bagger and Tea Party supporter extraordinaire, explicitly expressing his fantasies in public about other posters.
Crime and theft will still be illegal, but under Ron Paul violators will actually be prosecuted. Don't regulations define what is a crime?
Wall Street owns the country…Our laws are the output of a system which clothes rascals in robes and honesty in rags. The [political] parties lie to us and the political speakers mislead us…Money rules. Mary Elizabeth Lease, 1890
And here all this time, seeing your posts.... I always thought you to be a woman. I retract my offer, immediately.
How about the responsibility of protecting the average saver, lie on the shoulders of the saver? I save the bulk of my family income each month, and I have for years, and I do not rely on any government program to guarantee or protect my savings. Why would I, or any American citizen for that matter, expect government to guarantee or protect their savings? It's my, or their responsibility, and I wouldn't trust government to do it in the first place. I understand there are many who expect government to protect them from cradle to grave, but that is a mentality that we need to erase. Do you have any ideas on a viable alternative that doesn't include government guarantees?
Why would I, or any American citizen for that matter, expect government to guarantee or protect their savings? It's my, or their responsibility, and I wouldn't trust government to do it in the first place. Sounds like you want government for the bankers, by the bankers. They get to steal my money AND I have no recourse.
"ROTFLMAO... Perfect! She longs... for someone to Teabag her. a man that squats on top of a women's face and lowers his genitals into her mouth during sex, known as "teabagging" She aches for it"... ~~~JWpegler. Head Tea Bagger and Tea Party supporter extraordinaire, explicitly expressing his fantasies in public about other posters.
I will probably regret asking, but how could anything that I've ever posted give you that impression? They get to steal my money AND I have no recourse. The only way 'they' get to steal your money is if they have possession of your wealth in the first place. IF they do, that was your choice. We are all responsible for our own choices. If you allowed your neighbor to hold your wealth, and he steals it, who is ultimately responsible?
Are you going to explain how something that I've posted has given you this impression?
Let's look at the early primary states... Paul could win a squeaker in Iowa and come in a respectable second in New Hampshire. He could also do very well in Nevada -- no worse than 3rd. He's going nowhere in the two big early states -- Michigan and Florida. Those two plus South Carolina will put him out of the race.
Unfortunately, you're probably right. I'll still push till the end.
My simple alternative to today's TBTF banking system is to repeal the 1999 Financial Serices Modernization Act in its entirety and restore the Glass- Steagall firewall between commercial and invesmtent banking. FDIC stays in place for commerical banks only and on accounts up to $100,000. IOW, I'd put back in place the rules that kept our financial system stable for almost 70 years. To his credit Ron Paul voted against FSMA in the Congress.
The problem is that the world has changed dramatically over the last 70 years. The changes that Clinton made to the financial system were obviously not the right ones. They were designed by Bob Rubin (Clinton's Secretary of the Treasury, who was ex-Goldman Sachs) to benefit their buddies on Wall Street. But to say that a global, fast changing, technological environment can benefit by 70 year old rules, written before the credit cards, debit cards, ATMs, electronic funds transfer, etc. even existed is just nonsense. The problem is that "de-regulation" was not "de-regulation". It was simply new regulations, that benefited large, existing financial services firms like Goldman Sachs. A better idea is to completely deregulate the entire system. No bail outs. No concept of too big to fail. No regulations that protect existing companies by keeping new competitors out of the market. Insist on one thing -- complete transparency. Focus 100% on prosecuting fraud. That will fix the problems long term.
He also voted against Glass-Steagall. A free market system wouldn't have a Glass-Steagall Act or a Financial Serices Modernization Act. EDIT: Oops, I meant he was against Glass-Steagall, not voted against it.
Yes!
mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae1_1_1.pdf
Despite your rhetoric, the American banking system worked just fine prior to 1999. Everything you described above can and did exist under Glass-Steagall. In fact, it took less than a decade after Glass-Steagall was torn down for the global financial system to collapse despite all the assurances to the contrary. The notion that FSMA was anything but a backroom deal between corrupt politicans of both parties and crooked Wall Street bankers to fleece the American taxpayer is ludicrous.
Lol! Was Ron Paul a congressman in 1932? Sorry I missed your edit.
EDIT: Oops, I meant he was against Glass-Steagall, not voted against it. He voted against the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Glass-Steagall was created in 1933.
"ROTFLMAO... Perfect! She longs... for someone to Teabag her. a man that squats on top of a women's face and lowers his genitals into her mouth during sex, known as "teabagging" She aches for it"... ~~~JWpegler. Head Tea Bagger and Tea Party supporter extraordinaire, explicitly expressing his fantasies in public about other posters.
Yes, I'm aware of that. Sorry, I misspoke. I meant that he was and is also against Glass-Steagall itself.
LOL! No problems. Sometimes my fingers work faster than my brain and I don't proof like I should.
You are completely missing the point. The 70 year old rules were breaking down because of technological change and globalization.
That is absolutely incorrect. First of all lets be clear.. nothing in our financial system was 'breaking down' (The irony of even using such a term to describe our pre-FSMA system should be apparent). Financial institutions that couldn't do investment banking wanted to..thats all. So they lobbied Congress until enough corrupt politians from both parties gave them what they wanted. All this mumbo-jumbo about technological change and globalization (whatever the heck that is) is just that. Glass-Steagall wasn't preventing either either of those things from occurring and I challenge you to cite even a single instance where it was.
You're rarely correct but the nail got driven home in one stroke here. They had a HUGE ally in HIs Most Excellent Grand High Poobah of All Things Right and Monetary Jurisdiction Thereunto Belonging working the room too.
I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...
#2. To: buckeroo (#1)
All they can do is SPIN some new BS about Iran's nuclear stuff and how Israel needs America to defend them.
#3. To: We The People (#0)
Repeals ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank, and Sarbanes-Oxley.
#4. To: Thunderbird (#3)
Who will trust an unregulated banking system?
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#5. To: Thunderbird (#3)
Is Ron Paul going to repeal FDIC insurance as well?
#6. To: hondo68 (#4)
Crime and theft will still be illegal, but under Ron Paul violators will actually be prosecuted.
#7. To: hondo68, Quote of the Day! (#4)
We haven't tried enforcing the Constitution and rule of law yet.
#8. To: We The People (#6)
...instead of being bailed out.
#9. To: We The People (#5)
Do you trust our current regulated banking system?
#10. To: mininggold (#8)
Hopefully a few that wear white collars WILL make it in for a change. I doubt it though.
#11. To: mininggold (#8)
unless we plan on electing a dictator.
#12. To: buckeroo (#11)
I have instantly fallen in love with you, mininggold. When can we tie the knot?
#13. To: hondo68 (#4)
Who will trust an unregulated banking system?
#14. To: mininggold (#12)
#15. To: Thunderbird (#9)
Ending FDIC without providing a viable alternative for the average saver not a good idea, neither is ending bank regulation while leaving FDIC in place.
#16. To: We The People (#15)
How about the responsibility of protecting the average saver, lie on the shoulders of the saver? I save the bulk of my family income each month, and I have for years, and I do not rely on any government program to guarantee or protect my savings.
#17. To: mininggold (#16)
(Edited)
Sounds like you want government for the bankers, by the bankers.
#18. To: mininggold (#16)
Sounds like you want government for the bankers, by the bankers.
#19. To: We The People (#0)
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure
#20. To: jwpegler (#19)
He's going nowhere in the two big early states -- Michigan and Florida. Those two plus South Carolina will put him out of the race.
#21. To: We The People (#15)
(Edited)
Do you have any ideas on a viable alternative that doesn't include government guarantees?
#22. To: Thunderbird (#21)
(Edited)
IOW, I'd put back in place the rules that kept our financial system stable for almost 70 years.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure
#23. To: Thunderbird (#21)
(Edited)
#24. To: jwpegler (#22)
A better idea is to completely deregulate the entire system. No bail outs. No concept of too big to fail. No regulations that protect existing companies by keeping new competitors out of the market.
#25. To: All (#24)
#26. To: jwpegler (#22)
But to say that a global, fast changing, technological environment can benefit by 70 year old rules, written before the credit cards, debit cards, ATMs, electronic funds transfer, etc. even existed is just nonsense.
#27. To: We The People (#23)
(Edited)
He also voted against Glass-Steagall.
#28. To: We The People (#23)
He also voted against Glass-Steagall. A free market system wouldn't have a Glass-Steagall Act or a Financial Serices Modernization Act.
#29. To: mininggold (#28)
He voted against the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Glass-Steagall was created in 1933.
#30. To: Thunderbird (#27)
#31. To: Thunderbird (#26)
the American banking system worked just fine prior to 1999
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure
#32. To: jwpegler (#31)
You are completely missing the point. The 70 year old rules were breaking down because of technological change and globalization.
#33. To: Thunderbird (#32)
Financial institutions that couldn't do investment banking wanted to..thats all. So they lobbied Congress until enough corrupt politians from both parties gave them what they wanted.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]