Feisty,

Are you sure? Isn't it 6-6-6? The devil is in the details. Ron Paul could have at least waited for Halloween when the living dead come out to unveil his plan.

It would have more appropriate for Ron Paul's zombies.

Are you sure? Isn't it 6-6-6?

Now that I think about it... maybe 0-0-0 is more accurate!

Reminds me of what was standing on the stage last night! ;o)

Maybe a compromise name could be the 5-0 plan. Five departments gone, zero chance of implementation.

But I do hope it starts some discussion (as opposed to political pea flinging that usually masquerades as discussion). There is some important questions that can be derived from Paul's suggestions. What does the Department of Education do, and what impact would we have by not doing those things? Same for Commerce, Interior, etc. For some of the necessary functions of these departments, could this be consolidated under another department, while unneccessary functions cease or are reduced? Questions like that.

Bottom line is we won't ever get close to balancing the budget again until we start having those discussions.

This is a great plan for the 13 colonies. If we expand our nation all the way to the west coast, buy Alaska and acquire Hawaii, however, it could be a problem.

And we'll sell off the national parks and forests and monuments, getting rid of the system that Teddy Roosevelt started, and let developers take them over, and we'll let the housing market regulate itself because it's doing so well, and we don't need anyone to regulate the oil companies because they do so well on their own, as well, and we certainly don't need anyone to regulate commerce, even though that's called for in the Constitution, which Paul says he's devoted to.

It's all good.

So come on Feisty spill the beans.

You get taken out for a lovely night on the town?

You get some birthday love from Mr. Redhead?

Hey AM how is the housing market regulation by the Gov. working out so far?

For that matter how is the SEC and Dodd Frank's regulation working out?

Sadly, it is not all good. In fact from an overall economic perspective it's kinda all bad.

So what did we decide - was Class just a giant scam to get Obamacare through?

That should work really well, dismantle all the things that's made this country great over the last 235 years. Paul I didn't see where you were going to give the savings to the top 1%. Did you forget or are you trying to hide it?

Spanky:

Hey AM how is the housing market regulation by the Gov. working out so far?

For that matter how is the SEC and Dodd Frank's regulation working out?

And your idea is that, if we don't regulate them at all, they'll suddenly reform and always do the right thing?

LoL

Maybe Mr. Paul should model his jobs plan on what the federal workers make in Washington DC. $126,000 a year on average apparently. That's good work if you can get it. And it seems Obama wants to enrich government workers further by funneling another half trillion to the very same workers. Taxes to pay for it will come from the private sector, from whom ever Obama classifies as "rich" today. I guess the private working class people can do without.

Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-19/beltway-earnings-make-u-s-capital-richer-than-silicon-valley.htm

Mo, I haven't read the plan (and actually, most likely won't ever) but based on what I know about Ron Paul, I'd say it's a pretty safe bet he isn't talking about giving the savings to anyone. He's just talking about not spending it.

AM: And your idea is that, if we don't regulate them at all, they'll suddenly reform and always do the right thing?

"Not regulate them at all." Sure, lets go right to the extreme.

But as usual AM has no answer. How has Dodd/Frank encouraged the economy AM? Think it's gotten better or worse because of it? Or do you think regulation doesn't affect the economy at all?

So tell us spank..since you brought up "housing market regulation."

How about the obvious solution to the mortgage mess which unfortunately no one talks about. It is called CRAM DOWN legislation.

The legislation would allow bankruptcy judges for the first time to alter the terms of mortgages for primary residences. Under the proposal, borrowers could declare bankruptcy, and a judge would be able to reduce the amount they owe as part of resolving their debts.

Hell Spanky, corporations who are "people" you know do this all the time..Even your messiah the Donald did it on several occasions.

The bill was passed by the democratic house in 2009 and stymied in the senate by, you guessed it, heavy lobbying by Wall street.

Comon Spank..Use that big lawyer brain and explain why you connies don't want your fellow Americans to use the court system.

I don't know AM. I do know that the SEC sat by, with it's investigators downloading so much porn they needed new computers as the market tanked in 2008.

I know that Fannie and Freddie caused the housing bubble and are now hemorrhaging money in insane amounts.

I also know that no politician, especially barney Frank is doing anything about Freddie and Frannie.

It also appears that Obama intentionally lied about Class to fake the numbers.

So as far as the government being the answer- uh, no. It is largely the problem.

Ron Paul's plan has the same chances as Ron Paul in the nominating process: Zero.

Paul has a lot in common with Newt; both occasionally come up with a good idea or two, followed by several hundred really bad, no-good ideas.

TY: The legislation would allow bankruptcy judges for the first time to alter the terms of mortgages for primary residences. Under the proposal, borrowers could declare bankruptcy, and a judge would be able to reduce the amount they owe as part of resolving their debt.

Yeah, the courts don't have enough to do. They're actually shutting down courts in California, so that's the signal to load them up with more cases. Source: http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_18536379

So after it takes 4 years to hear the case, what then?

That's what we need, the courts reworking private contracts. So a contract is contract until a court says it isn't. That certainly will make for some uncertainty.

So Torps, who makes up the difference when the borrower has the amount they owe reduced by a court?

Torpedo - the bankruptcy courts are there and available to all.

The housing market needs to hit bottom. If you have a house you can't afford, that is unfortunate, but your option is to go BK, and let the bank foreclose and then sell the property at Fair Market Value.

This artificial attempt to prevent foreclosure/the pain just delays the reality, and reality will eventually win. We need to get there sooner, not later.

I just bought a $1.8 million commercial building for a client at a non-judicial foreclosure sale. Purchase price $800k.

I know you all want to "stick it" to the bank, but cramming this all down on them is not the answer and will cause them to fail.

And that is now what we want, just look to Europe. In fact many continue to fail now.

I also know that no politician, especially barney Frank is doing anything about Freddie and Frannie.

It also appears that Obama intentionally lied about Class to fake the numbers.

So as far as the government being the answer- uh, no. It is largely the problem.

So, then, if we get rid of regulation, business will never again fake any numbers or misrepresent anything on their balance sheets.

Excellent. Then, we should be able to get rid of accountants, as well, and tax lawyers. That move alone ought to save businesses a lot of money they could better spend on employee health care.

Good idea.

As for Fannie and Freddie, however, I don't see Congress in general clamoring to do anything about them, or about Goldman Sachs, or Lehman, or AIG, or any of the other evil-doers who did not happen to have Fannie and Freddie's connections.

Why is that, Spanky? Why are you only whining about Freddie and Fannie?

Could it be because .... it's all political?

Spanky, I have come to the conclusion that Class was a scam, but I appreciate your discusssion with AM.

This often happens with Lawyers and me, I think I already know the answer but ask for the legal opinion and just get confirmation that I was correct.

At least this time it didn't cost me anything.

Since most won't read the Paul plan, what is wrong with consolidating departments? Not enough government workers for you? What is wrong with not replacing retiring workers at the federal level? Not enough government workers for you? What is wrong with cutting congressional perks and staff? Not enough government workers for you? What is wrong with asking each department to cut a percentage of their budget each year to help the deficit? Not enough government workers for you? What is wrong with the President taking the median salary of the nation? What is wrong with cutting foreign aid to countries when we can't fix our own problems? All of these statements are in the Paul Plan--some of these plans are what many on here call for, yet instead of reading the plan and picking out parts you support, you name call and wait for your media to tell you what to think.

SSDD

OK Spank..But who took the loss? So you see either way the bank loses..

And JoAnna....Many people who "played by the rules" are underwater..Some 28% of them by last count.(Most of the BS Mtgs have been resolved and are out of the system)..That said, the banks want to keep that "performing" asset on the books. If the consumer walks away then he takes a credit hit and the bank has to bear the loss especially in a no recourse state like AZ. Better to force them to the negotiating table thru the threat of BK in my view.

Lastly by leaving this option open, the BK court can STILL order foreclosure so that kinda negates your argument now doesn't it? Or don't you trust the American judicial system?

Anna Molly, you really need to stop with the "All or Nothing" line of defense.

Surely you could agree that some Industries are overregulated. Nobody is saying dump everything, not even Mr.Paul:

the Education, Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Commerce, and Interior departments. "That’s a start,” Paul said with a laugh.

“Many of those important parts of each of those departments will be held in another department

The drama in your posts is starting to smack of desperation.

But I understand AM, it ain't easy being an Obama-ite these days.

AM - my beef with Fannie and Freddie is not so much political [as we know both sides screwed the Freddie and Frannie pooch] but just economic reality.

I believe Freddie and Fannie are the primary driver of the recession. As a real estate broker I saw all the lair loans, all the profits made by agents. brokers, banks, all made possible by Freddie and Fannie.

Until they get fixed we will never recover.

It's like this - sometimes forest fires are very good. They burn out all the dead brush and undergrowth, which allows for new, more healthy growth.

The whole real estate system need to burn out. Let it hit bottom, then it can come back. And part of that is no more federal money in the system, which allowed the risks and bad loans.

Oh and Lehman was taken care of. The right way. Just like AIG, JP Morgan and all the rest should have been.

WCA - you thing Dominico or Murray will touch Class with a ten foot pole? You think they can?

Torps: Many people who "played by the rules" are underwater..

Playing by the rules means holding up your end of the bargain. If you're going to court, someone thinks someone else didn't play by them.

Court cases like these are taking years to litigate. This helps the situation how?

And courts reworking contracts, to forgive the debt of the person that did not hold up their end of the bargain? Is that really playing by the rules? How does it make someone that did play by the rules by continuing to pay their mortgage feel? They too lost value in their homes, but maintained their contractual obligations. Are they also to have their obligations reduced? Is the government guaranteeing that your house will never lose value, and if it does, the bank is responsible to take the hit?

You need to think this through a little better Torp.

WCA:

Surely you could agree that some Industries are overregulated. Nobody is saying dump everything, not even Mr.Paul:

Actually, he is. I heard it myself. For example, he argued at one of the debates that we didn't need anyone regulating automobile safety.

Tell that to my daughter's grandparents, whose airbags probably saved their lives a couple of weeks ago. Left strictly up to the auto industry, those airbags would not have been mandatory.

The drama in your posts is starting to smack of desperation.

LoL Paul's proposals are dramatic, for sure, but I didn't make them up.

It's Ron Paul who's the crazy one, not me.

And desperation? Don't make me laugh. I'm desperate for some orange baskets on my Farmville farm, but I'm not so desperate that I think I need the oranges these crazies are selling.

If this is the best you've got, it's YOUR side that's desperate.

Obama versus Republicans. Apples and oranges.

9-9-9? Nein, nein, nein.

Torpedo -- The missing link here now is that banks are going after a homeowner even after a foreclosure through bankruptcy. They are suing the homeowner through the courts for the difference between the amount actually owed to the bank and what the bank actually sold the home for. So homeowners have no relief of debt it seems. The article was in the WSJ or WaPo.

BTW JAS1- My contract didn't have a clause that said banks could put my mortgage up for speculators to gamble with either. Private contract in my opinion.

That is exactly right JAS1.

Contracts are based upon the rule of law.

That fact that the deal you made is n a bad deal is your problem, not the banks, not the taxpayers, and not the courts.

Just ask the Chrysler bond holders. That little game still reverberates with potential and existing bond holders.

I sure as hell will never buy a bond given what Obama did.

Pauls deficit cutting plan is the equivalent of cutting off both of your legs and an arm so that you will need to eat less!

Well, look who all decided to show up today after all.....

"But O Bahhhhh Ma....but O Bahhhhhh Ma........"

Haw Haw.

I believe Freddie and Fannie are the primary driver of the recession. As a real estate broker I saw all the lair loans, all the profits made by agents. brokers, banks, all made possible by Freddie and Fannie.

LoL Spanky. And how does this get fixed?

It gets fixed by MORE regulation, Spanky.

Obviously, it does not get fixed by self-regulation, as you have just proven. When left unchecked, people do not behave ethically on their own. They stick their hand in the cookie jar and help themselves.

Sad, really, but these are people like you, Spanky. And you just exposed the way they -- and by extension, you -- think.

Classy.

Oh and Lehman was taken care of. The right way. Just like AIG, JP Morgan and all the rest should have been.

Are you kidding? The "right" way would have been for all the bad actors to go to jail. A lot of people took a big financial hit because of these goons, and a lot of people lost their jobs through no fault of their own, and these goons are still walking around, protected by both Congress and the White House, and once again making record profits and bonuses, while the average person still suffers because of their actions.

The bailouts weren't specifically intended to be for their benefit -- they were intended to be for the benefit of those average citizens who lost so much. But instead, the banks kept the money, the "little" people lost their jobs, and the foreclosures happened anyway.

I suppose you think that that was the "right" way, too.

Spanky: Contracts are based upon the rule of law.

Try getting a loan from a bank in the world Torp lives in, the world where a contract is contract until a court says it isn't. Liberals wonder why banks don't lend money? This is why, because of the regulations, risk, and uncertainty the government injects into their business that prevents them from doing so.

Dcia: BTW JAS1- My contract didn't have a clause that said banks could put my mortgage up for speculators to gamble with either.

Did you read the clause in the contract that said they could bundle and sell the mortgage? If you were offended by that language, why did you sign the contract?

AM: The bailouts weren't specifically intended to be for their benefit -- they were intended to be for the benefit of those average citizens who lost so much.

You got some documentation on that one AM?

I guess people that lost money in the stock market are next to be entitled by government decree to be compensation for their losses.

Wrong joAnna....Let me give you a typical example:

Consumer is transferred to work at the local Intel Plant in Chandler, AZ in 2006 and puts 50K down on 250,000 Home. Is carrying a 30 year 1st Mortgage of 200K @ 6% PITI @ about 1100.00 Mo.

Flash forward to 2010...Home now appraises @ $125,000...and homeowner cannot refinance because he is underwater....Homeowner cannot move because of a better job opportunity because he is Stuck....And so on...

Homeowner Walks away or sells short takes a credit hit and bank is responsible for maintenance and takes a hit at foreclosure. Bank sits down with homeowner and renegotiates both win. Like I said corporations do this all the time.

A broker licenced in Cali, huh, 'counselor'? Then I bet you knew that way back in 1917 or so, Cali was the first state to require licensure of Real Estate Brokers, but that it was declared 'unconstitutional' at the time, huh?

But hey the U.S. would be a much better place if that had held, and there were NO requirements for licensure of Real Estate brokerages, right? Or continuing Ed requirements? You know- free enterprise vs. 'onerus' regulation, and all that.

"Just like AIG, JP Morgan and all the rest should have been".

And " Did you read the clause in the contract that said they could bundle and sell the mortgage? If you were offended by that language, why did you sign the contract?"

Holy sh*t Joanna, are you on crack? In your little black and white world, every thing is beautiful. Google "Credit default Swap" and get back to me. Also google "peasant insurance policy."

Well Johanna, since my mortgage was done so long ago, before the bundling wouldn't that make my case....as there is no such clause. But just to be sure I'll get it out and look it over.

Spanky, not a chance these guys touch Class.

Don't know if you saw NJNB's smack down of Mark Murray yesterday regarding the boiler room question, but it was beautiful.

These guys report on what the candidates say, eat and wear. Anything beyond that is to much for them. To think a while ago they responded to a question I asked "Are you Pundits or Journalists?" with an emphatic answer of Journalists.

Yeah, right.

But hey the U.S. would be a much better place if that had held, and there were NO requirements for licensure of Real Estate brokerages, right? Or continuing Ed requirements? You know- free enterprise vs. 'onerus' regulation, and all that.

LoL I suspect not. Real estate is actually an area of law, but if you're a lawyer, you can't regularly practice real estate law unless you also have a broker's license to ensure you really know something about it. Right, Spanky?

Either that, or the requirement that lawyers have a broker's license is just another example of an artificial regulation that exists solely to allow non-lawyers to make a living practicing real estate law.

Either way, we don't hear Spanky complaining about that kind of regulation, do we?

As for the need for continuing legal education credits, res ipsa loquitur. ;-)

Everyone here who blames corporations and looks at free markets/capitalism with disgust are so ignorant to the obvious truth. The same exact government that you ask to save you from these evil corporations is the same government accepting the special interest bribes. The corporations you demonize wouldn't be able to do a shred of the damage they do if it wasn't for the government colluding with them. Do you not understand when you shrink government, you shrink the supply of special interest and diminish the power of corporatism (look it up)?

Attention: Mainstream Media

The money being donated to the Ron Paul campaign today - the "Black This Out" money bomb - is a direct result of your blatant manipulation of the Republican presidential primary elections. You have purposely attempted to marginalize the candidacy, criticize the electability, and mislead the public about the only true small government candidate running for the Republican nomination for President, congressman Ron Paul of Texas.
Your manipulative agenda has been made clear, and is now obviously apparent. Simply put, the supporters of the Champion of the Constitution realize you will never provide fair, accurate, and unbiased coverage for our favored candidate.

When the only true patriot in this race achieves a straw poll victory, you declare that his success is meaningless and signifies nothing. Even worse, you sometimes fail to report his accomplishment at all. However, when one of your "chosen" candidates wins a straw poll, you cannot cease from singing his or her praises.
When we demonstrate how well we are organized, how supportive we are of our candidate, and show up in numbers to an event, you declare that we have "gamed" the event, or cheated somehow. Our dedication to our candidate is declared to be fanatical, in the most negative sense of the word. However, when on occasion the supporters of an establishment supported "big government" candidate manages to show their enthusiasm, they are applauded.

When online polls are posted, and the defender of the Bill of Rights wins due to the number of his supporters, we are accused of having made the the results invalid. According to you, it is unacceptable for those of us who defend liberty to stay aware of online polls, and sacrifice a moment from our lives to participate. However, you never make the same accusation of other candidates if they manage to win a poll, after you have re-set the vote count several times because you disapproved of the first outcome.

When our candidate participates in debates, he obtains the least speaking time. Even when the question is directly relevant to him -- such as when a question on health care is asked -- you do not give him an opportunity to speak. Instead, you turn the debates into a snooze fest, in which meaningless banter is bounced back and fourth, instead of discussions about the most important issues facing our nation. If the only peace maker in the group does get asked a question, it is often the least relevant question that could be asked.
When "Dr. No" raises more money in a quarter than other candidates, obtains donations from a greater number of individuals than multiple other candidates combined, raises more money from members of the military than anyone else running, or raises millions of dollars in a single day, the significance is often downplayed or ignored while candidates who can't raise funds and have campaigns that are in debt, or who receive the bulk of their donations from huge corporations, are cheered.

We have faced the facts. You are trying to control the outcome of this election and will never cover in fair, reasonable, and journalistic manner, the only candidate that can beat Obama, so we have resolved to counter your efforts. Today's Black This Out money bomb is the metaphorical "first shot" of the "second stage" of the Ron Paul Revolution, triggered by YOU. From this day forward, we are going to redouble our efforts toward winning the nomination without you. We will make the necessary sacrifices to continually and steadfastly donate our money and our time, until our candidate has the funds and support to purchase the undistorted coverage that you have denied him. Ron Paul will not go without the funds and volunteers needed to win this race.

Sincerely,

The Ron Paul Revolution

Torpedo You, post #1.13- EXCELLENT post!

Ron Paul, EXCELLENT~EXCELLENT~EXCELLENT~EXCELLENT~EXCELLENT!!!!!

"5"~"5"~"5" is quintessential!!!!! Ron Paul was the only one that not only made the distinction to "Individual" Rights in rebuttal, but he also was the only one who made that same distinction, "Individual" Rights, to be "the" basis of Rights in this Country, as not precluded by Tribe, Family or Group. He also was the only one that answered to the Foreclosure question by "truthful" slant. Unfortunately, he didn't answer completely enough because he didn't include, just like in this discussion thusfar, "those millions who got blamed and then penalized by having ALREADY lost their homes over the past 3 years". That is where the answers to solution for today lie but it's not being properly acknowledged to be effectively addressed; and, apparently this improper slant is headed to the Courts for a possible settlement between "Fraudulent Scammers wanting to be recognized as Lenders" and all or some of the States with some States having walked out of settlement talks, and with good reason. This whole mess runs along many parallels with the damages and Violations to Japanese-American Internment (blamed and penalized) that took 50 years (and many irreparbly harmed, damaged and ruined lives) to be properly acknowledged as miniscule along with 50 year later "miniscule" compensation. And Congress can't write loopholes to The Constitution, for them, that allow them to "also" obstruct justice by prohibiting and preventing an Individual from having their day in court against these Frauds and Scammers by preventing Judges from remodifying loans in order to prevent and disallow any other possibilities for solution, except their own. Anyway, let me finish my "Thumbs-Up!" to Ron Paul, from this article. He's right. The "radicals" have been in charge for too long now and his plan is DEFINATELY not "more of the same".

GO! RON PAUL!!! gO!!! Go!!!! GO!!!!

Not sure how you draw the conclusion that shrinking government shrinks the ability of corporations to buy government. The only way to diminsh a corporations ability to buy government is to enact legislation that does not allow lobbyists though the front door.

Ron Paul's plan. Where are the JOBS??? I did not see one mention in this article about creating jobs or did I miss something??

Where are the JOBS???

I'll give you a hint Congress - they're NOT in my uterus!

Disclaimer: From my post above, # 1.44. I had no idea what was being said in the immediate post to mine that's signed "The Ron Paul Revolution" and just happened to read it right now. I had simply just come to the first available "reply" spot to reply to post 1.13 up above and just want to make sure that I'm not looked upon as a "die-hard" Ron Paul supporter or part of The Ron Paul Revolution. I still stand behind everything I said in my post, though. I greatly appreciate much about Ron Paul because "he cuts to the chase" with obvious "honest intention" and takes it to The Constitution. That doesn't mean I automatically agree with all his assertions and interpretations, because I don't; but, again, his honest intent takes you to a place of "honest premise" for "honest debate", relevant and relative to the issue/s at hand. Nothing like the Nationally televised open, blatant, lying cheat fraudulent cesspool of last night that will soon "runneth over" with "fraudulent ad" bombardments, like bells with meaningless disclaimers that can't be unrung, so the Media then won't have to suck so hard to get it to come forth.

Jobs? How do you arrive at "Solution" when all concentration and focus is on keeping the "Problem Creators" sustained and humming along and "The Victims" under the rug, as denied rubble, that you expect to just build ontop of while at the same time expecting them to be the solid, peaceful, accepting, thriving Consumer-oriented-spending inhabitants of the over-saturated structure that they're being crushed by? (Oh yeah, OR ELSE!) Be fined, lose your job, lose your home, lose your freedoms, lose your Rights, lose your speech, lose your thoughts, go to jail. GO TO HELL WALL STREET! And anybody who supports, coddles and fosters you, too. Congresspeople, The President and The Supreme Court included.

Yes, lets. And while we are at it let's see what effect it will have on unemployment.

Yes, let's get it scored. Something tells me EPIC failure might be the bottom line. Well, if anything the Paul plan would allow us to sell that pesky Yellowstone National Park with that burdensome Old Faithful. Heck, 2.2 acres at 1M and acre would raise 2T - enough pay off the debit and then some.

I just looked at his plan and the word JOB was not mentioned at all. Not once. SO WHERE ARE THE JOBS??? America needs JOBS, not closing of some government parks or other agencies, which will increase unemployment, we need job creation.

I doubt that anyone on this vine has read Ron Paul's plan. HOWEVER, the theory is that by reducing government size and regulation, business will free up capital to spend on assets and employees. On a long term basis, there may be some truth to the theory.

None the less, this plan has little chance of gaining any traction since most people denegrate it before even reading it.

The government creating jobs is a problem in itself.

Dottielou--ALL of the TPGOP candidates are flying over the cuckoo's nest! It staggers the imagination!

"We have met the enemy and he is us!" Pogo by Walt Kelly

Ron Paul is the most sane and logical person in the contest. You all need to actually do your own research. What he proposes is what we need. Reduce the government, bring our troops home, secure OUR borders and balance the budget... By the way, the Ron Paul money bomb is today. Donate at his website.

Right, like I am going to send money to someone who thinks that since I lost my job to the economy and lost my health insurance that I deserve to die if I were to get ill.

Ron Paul wants to give all the savings back in tax cuts. The richer you are, the more you get back. Paul doesn't think we should invest in our country, it is all about tax cuts for him.

Paul votes for the 1% to keep tax cuts while pretending he cares about our country.

For you he wants to kill social security and medi-care. Paul cares no more for the people of his own country than the people of the world.

Why do we need to do all this, why of course, more tax cuts for the rich.

[Right, like I am going to send money to someone who thinks that since I lost my job to the economy and lost my health insurance that I deserve to die if I were to get ill.]

Ron Paul is too extreme for even, well, Ron Paul...he still thinks there are 13 Colonies.

Its funny to see how liberals react at the mere thought of losing government handouts. Ron Paul is advocating that the States take care of things that are not the Federal Governments responsibility. You know, as it was written in that important document that our Republic is based upon. Whats the name of that thing again? Oh yeah, the CONSTITUTION.

Ron Paul never said anything about letting people die if they don't have insurance. He just said it isn't the Federal Governments responsibility to pay for it.

LOL! The "One" in that was Jack Nicholson and he was the only SANE one in the psych ward! So you're right! Ron Paul IS like the Jack Nicholson of that GOP field.

They'll be added to the unemployment list if they can't find a job and looking or are discouraged workers and don't want to look for a job. It's possible. But what is not seen is that the taxes that come from our pockets that help them be employed in those departments in the public sector. If they're cut from their jobs, then the taxes will be cut as well and returned to the market economy.

So Tis - do you think we need to cut spending, and if so what should be cut?

Spanks is playing out of the Karl Rove play book again this morning. We're on to you Spanks move on to some other tea people GOP republican talking points. We're not falling for your bull.

I would love for you to define talking points Mo.

What do you mean, and be specific.

See this is how I live my life, and I hope you do too - no debt, a budget for my business and family every year, and above all spend less than I earn.

You too?

So Mo, given that the gov pretty much does the opposite - huge debt, no budget and spending way more than it takes in, I'd say "we" are onto it.

Now Mo, what were you saying again?

Spanks: So Tis - do you think we need to cut spending, and if so what should be cut?

The Liberals do want spending cuts. The cuts will be made by private business owners and consumers so they can pay the taxes for Obama's $500 billion redistribution plan. The government does know better how to spend the money, you just need to look at Solyndra for proof of a success case for the government.

He has stated very clearly that jobs will be cut by attrition. That means, as someone retires, he will not be replaced. It is a gradual ease down, so it won't actually put anyone out of work. It will make the remaining workers "do more with less". Considering how little they've been doing with more, I'm all for it.

Why don't we test Paul's plan on one of the lttle states, first?

Just as an experiment, let's take away Delaware's Housing and Urban Development, see what happens.

You know it seems like every other day some libbies chimes in with a "but, but it's just a talking point" comment.

Each time I ask them to explain just what a talking point is in this context.

Sadly they never seem to be able to.

Mo - I had high hopes for you. Come on, don't let me down.

Amy - which is the "little-est" state? Why not Maine?

Too many Canadians?

Amy, you miss the whole point.

We don't need many of the FEDERAL agencies because the STATES already take care of it. They are redundant.

The biggest example and waste of money is the Federal Dept. of Education.

Oh Spanks, you just don't get it. Everyone including your tea people GOP republican buddies know what you're trying to do. One more time Spanks, the Karl Rove play book doesn't work anymore, you're the only one using it. You're wasting your time, (which is a good thing) when you keep trying to read out of it. BTW when you come up with something other than the tea people GOP republican talking points, we'll quite accusing you of using the talking points. Do you get it now? I doubt it.

So you can't answer the question, eh Mo?

Too bad.

Until then I guess the Debt, deficit, and taxation issues will have to remain "talking points" in you eyes.

Funny, in an odd way how these "Talking points" have been so completely adopted by Obama and Team Blue.

Obama cut tax rates, a Tea Party "talking Point" now come true.

Obama talks about cutting debt and spending, again another "talking point" of the Tea Party.

So what do you call these "Talking Points" after they become adopted by both parties?

Wait, I got it Mo - issues.

White Collar Auto

The State of Maine doesn't have a space program, but we'd like are kids to be astronauts too.

Funny that you choose NASA seeing as how your President just cut it's funding off at the knees.

Amy, we are not talking about space, defense etc. It is the useless depts in the govt that need to go.

Why are you and your friends so damn keen on holding on to things that just waste money.

So AMY you want to test Paul's plan in the state of Delaware. Will at the same time why don't we test Obama's Jobs Plan there too. Give Delaware a few $millions$ and tell them they must use the money to repair the bridges and roads, hire teachers and first responders and see if their unemployment rate increases or decreases. I don't know what it is now, but I am sure in will decrease.

Problem is tek, there is no focus. Or maybe it's a lack of will, but just look at the libbies above you and their comments.

Seems like they are good with the current state of affairs. $4 billion a day in new debt, spending $4 Trillion this year while only taking in $2.4 trillion.

Of course their guy is the establishment now, so any change would be bad for him.

Funny thing is they see Europe, know what caused it's failure, yet rail against any attempt to prevent that very thing from happening here.

Cause we have to keep lots of teachers and firefighters employed, don't you know.

We're not a growth economy, though, and I don't see much hope we will be again anytime soon. In that sense, Paul, Obama, Romney, Cain... heck, even Bachmann... probably doesn't matter which of them wins next November. Last presidential election probably was inconsequential as well, at least in terms of the economy.

We're primarily a service industry country with a hollowing industrial base and a population that can't afford to maintain growth-type service spending. Plus we have this fiscal situation, which isn't going away in our lifetimes - at least not without the currency going away first (which, sadly, could happen in our lifetimes).

Well, I'm a big fan of 'Visualize and Execute' and can only go off of what my own opinions on it are.

I'd totally support this plan, because I'm focused on internal affairs and not external given the current world climate.

If you try to do too much, you do them all poorly. If you concentrate on one thing at a time and execute on it, that's how you end up making some big strides in life.

But what do I know? I'm a 30yr old CEO who loves his computers.

It won't even work without external issues.

Paul M. I think you are probably right.

And you too tek.

But this is big picture stuff that likely eludes the casual First Read-er.

The fact that the gov is too big, does too much and all of it poorly is well beyond dispute.

Funny thing is they see Europe, know what caused it's failure, yet rail against any attempt to prevent that very thing from happening here.

Now you must be talking about the tea people GOP republicans Spanks. You see the tea people GOP republicans know what caused the failure of are economic system, yet rail against any attempt to prevent that very thing from happening again. You got it right, just the wrong country and the wrong party.

I agree with what you said, Mo, though I doubt I agree with your philosophy behind it.

We should've let the banks and automobile industries fold like they would've in a healthy environment.

You can't privatize gains and socialize losses.

"You can't privatize gains and socialize losses."

Why not? We have, and pulled it off relatively successfully before. Like everything, it's probably a matter of the devil being in the details. Don't want to do it when criteria X, Y and Z exist, etc. But sometimes there is arguably a compelling need to do it. We have railroads today because we nationalized and then re-privatized them.

In 2008, we were pretty close to financial meltdown. I realize bankers have fallen below Don's Johns maintenance on the scale of respectable careers, and none of us likes the fact they needed bailing out, but I don't think any of us would be happier today with the situation if we hadn't.

Why not?

I got 14.8 Trillion reasons.

Like Ron Paul says - we are broke. That means we have no money to socialize anything.

So Mo - it is the tea Party that is calling for increased spending and more debt? You know like Greece, Italy, Spain.

huh?

I would be.

I don't really have much faith in the banking industry. The only real use they provide to people are homeloans.

Business loans? Eh, I've had better luck raising from friends and family. By the time a bank is willing to lend, you don't need their money.

Stock market? That's a rigged game, and eventually the odds catch up to everyone.

Credit Cards? Stay away, this is the middle-class pitfall if there ever was one.

And I didn't say anything about nationalizing. I've said it time and again, macro-economic concerns SHOULD be nationalized. Healthcare, Military and Transportation. Areas where 'one size fits all' actually works. Cancer is cancer, a gun is a gun, and a plane is a plane.

Spanky - The fact that the gov is too big, does too much and all of it poorly is well beyond dispute.

This is where you lose credibility. Do you really think that government runs our nuclear defense system poorly? Do you really think we would be better off letting a corporation decide who and when to nuke? I personally feel much safer having the government in charge of those types of systems and choices. And they do it well. Perfect, no, but well, yes. I have yet to see a government scandal version on the scale of Enron or the Savings and Loan crisis.

Almost as bad as the bunch of corporate shills running around here, eh?

Well, Jody--we won't want to leave our country anyway---we will be "isolationist" by quitting the UN and not apologizing for our country.

So Jody, at the current rate of debt increase, what do you think the total amount of national debt will be in 2030?

In 2030, what do you foresee the share of that debt per household will be?

What will the government have to spend in 2030/ what percent of the government's revenue at that time will have to go to debt service?

Sounds totally great and fantastic, right?

That's sort of zany, Jody.

From everything I've read, our test scores were much higher when education was conducted at the local level. There is no 'one-size-fits-all' solution to education, and your local demographics DO matter.

States are much more able to create a cirriculum based on their populace, industry, etc.

Federal Government doesn't have that flexibility.

None of what you said would happen. Read Paul's jobs plan and see what it details. Paul is not for pollution and waste, he even argued against allowing the nuclear waste facility in Yucca Mountain to be re-opened in last night's debate.

Read up on Paul and you'll see he's the real deal. He's the only one who's consistent and honest in his efforts.

Dangit, Zebdor, we don't want honesty and consistency as a nation!!!

We want the guy who lies the best and looks best on camera. Just look at our previous voting records since the 60's, starting with JFK.

Dude got crushed in debates, but still won because he looked the prettiest and could lie with a big smile on his face.

Didn't you know that?

More Karl Rove play book from old Spanks. It's backfiring on you. Instead of wasting our time you're wasting your time. Keep it up at least we don't have to read your bull.

Jody, it is too bad you only have an 8th grade education. If you were a little smarter you would be able to figure out that Ron Paul is right.

Jody, isn't that what the OWS (Poop in the Park) people are doing now. Whatever happened to individual responsibility?

Shoot, Tek, you know what, you're right! :)

It's sad but true: we elect the crooks to run the nation. It just amazes me that we even bother letting people like Romney and Perry in the debates to begin with. I mean after watching the two argue with each other for minutes at a time in last nights debate, it's clear they're more worried about protecting their false integrity than about the economy and the American people. We follow what's on the news instead of looking up our candidates history, policies and what they really stand for.

First off Spanky I will agree we definitely have to de-leverage not only here but throughout the world. Where we disagree is that personally I feel we need to put as many people back to work as possible through various legislative actions first. After we stabilize the unemployment situation we institute in increments debt and deficit reductions. Otherwise, in my opinion, we will find ourselves in a Depression. Long term permanent solution with a shorter term employment push. IMF is now saying severe austerity is harmful. A reverse of their initial position. (If one listens to IMF)

Can't have it both ways Don't Carry.

We are broke. Being broke sucks, it means you can't do a lot of what you want to do.

That's why it's ALWAYS a bad idea to spend more money than you have.

Right Mo? Or is that just the Rove "talking points" and not something we all learned in 2 nd grade?

Jody certainly pays attention to Obama's rhetoric and quickly picks up on his talking points.

Obama: "Republicans are for dirtier water, dirty air, and less people with health insurance"

Jody: "in a sewage dump for a country with undrinkable water and air so filthy as to force us never to step foot outside except when necessary."

Do you think Jody and Amy walk hand and hand over the hot coals for Obama? Yeah, it's clear they do.

Wrong, Spanky we are a great nation and have the ability to multi-task. Partnership with business etc. We are only limited by those who say impossible. I say believe in the possibilities. Think outside the box. Defeatist beget defeat.

So is the $14.8 trillion/2.0 trillion debt and deficit in "the box" Don't?

We are constrained by reality. Those numbers are real, and they have consequences.

No amount of happy thoughts, or "can do" attitude changes the reality.

Not understanding that begets BK. insolvency, and ultimately to end of the US as a sovereign state.

That's bad Don't.

Spanky says:

Those numbers are real, and they have consequences.

So will a policy thats goal is to implement severe austerity. Long term solutions will prevail.

For those who say that Ron Paul is honest and straight forward and speaks truth to power, even if inconvenient, you are correct. I don't agree with everything he says, but he doesn't care who he says it in front of even if it goes against his own party's talking points.

While, I agree with some of his foreign policy positions and see his reasoning behind others, the full scale elimination of entire departments? Really? Won't that affect unemployment much?

Paul appears to be an honest broker and truly believes in his extreme, ultra free market form of liberatarism where everyone will play fair and safe. However, even if he would that will not be the case for the majority. If profits are to be made, and business and people are out to make profits, left unchecked who knows what damage they can do to the health, safety and welfare of the rest of us.

From what I gathered through his books and rhetoric, he's not aiming to eliminate anything. He's aiming to push these responsibilities down to the individual state level, and expect the governors and state legislatures to do it.

It seems that's the big rift a lot of my own party isn't getting. It's not the elimination of these departments, it's the push to make these departments state-level initiatives and not federal issues.

I said it up above...you can do everything poorly, or focus on a few things and do them extremely well.

teknishan - I looked at the post where DCIA actually had the pdf of Ron Paul's budget vs. Obama's, his projected deficits vs. Obama's etc.

If the case is that those departments get shifted to the states, where does the money come from the states. Almost every state has a balance budget amendment, how will the states provide those services when almost all are hurting for more revenue. Will there be a call for increased taxation at the state level.

If the idea is to integrate multiple departments into one like they did at homeland security I think that was a big fiasco and just created more bureacracy without an added benefit (in my opinion).

Actually, I welcome Paul's plan as at least he has put together his charts and specified what he would cut. The other GOP seem to be all about bumper sticker quotes.

So Zebdor, you think we should just five the market our money and let them do with it as they please and they will do the right think and give it back to us with interest when we retire. Kind of like Madoff giving all that money back to the people he robbed.

I think that people should be allowed choose where they invest their money in all aspects of their spending, especially retirement funding. We should have the option to pay into a retirement benefits program or not. I'd rather have the ability to start up a fund that will build interest than have the government force me to pay them now and hope they pay me what I am due when I retire. I can see already that our government is broke and doesn't have the money to pay into the Social Security fund without having to steal from another department or from the people. The SS program is turning out to be another Madoff.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the market is infalliable. There are flaws to it like any other economic theory out there, but there are more reliable checks and balances in the market than what government can do. Government can be lobbied and persuaded one way or another. It's a lot harder to sway the market since it's driven directly by the people.

We've gone for so long with Keynesian thought that I think it's time to try something different. Austrian economic theory makes sense and it ties in more closely with our Constitution so I believe that is the right way to go.

The theory of self investment is good on the surface Zebdor. But what happens when through the years you get laid off from your job for a period of time and you have to spend your savings. Who takes care of you when you retire? The way it is now even if you have to spend your retirement SS is still their to get you by. What about those who just see their investments as another bank and keep robbing it? Who is going to take care of them. You see Zebdor not everyone can be trusted to do the right thing when it comes to money, just look at all the people that kept borrowing against the equity in their homes till they had more borrowed than what the house was worth. Do you think these people could be trusted with their retirement funds? I lived through the 1980's and I was told SS wouldn't be there when I retired, well they were wrong then and their wrong now. It's s scare tactic politicians use when it fits their agenda.

You mean the constitution that was written in the late 1700's? Then you want to disavow all the amendments since and take us back to what the writers in the late 1700's thought about where our nation should go.

Of course all republicans including Ron Paul want to get rid of social security. Something about old people not living in poverty just gets them all riled up.

Everyone I talked to in my office after the 2008 crash lost half of their 401k, how are you going to retire that way either? Bush was working hard to get social security money in on that crash too.

You play with your own money all you want but keep social security as the safety net it was meant to be.

Why would we want to go back and re-capture our past and not to the future where we are actually headed?

Pass the American Jobs Bill, something for America for a change.

For the love of America Obama 2012

Mo - The SS is only here now because the government keeps borrowing money from people and creating new money to put back in to government aid. Basically the government is taking out credit to pay off their dues to the American people. It's the same as someone getting a new credit card to pay off an older one. Ron Paul is giving a plan to actually cut back in many areas of the government so it can start paying off it's debt and also filter that money through to SS. And this is not to say there wouldn't be charities and non-profit organizations that would help out senior citizen communities. I'm all for that. I think people should take it upon themselves to help out others around them instead of the govenment intervening, taking our money, cutting a portion out for themselves and then giving the rest back to the community. We count on the government for so much when we don't really need to. We have an unnecessary reliance on government when we can rely on each other. That's what makes our nation great.

AF - Yes, I do mean the Constitution that was written in 1787 and it's amendments as well. But there's nothing in the Constitution or the Amendments that allows the federal reserve to even exist or the government to be a welfare state. With the audit that was recently done at the federal reserve we now know trillions of dollars went to banks both nationally and internationally. See my response to Mo about SS. The crash of 2008 was caused by our government trying to hold interest rates low and bailing out banks! We wouldn't have taken such a beating on our savings if the government hadn't tried to "help" us and regulate the economy. We need to create our own safety nets. It's each of our responsibility to do so as I also believe it is our responsibilty to help others, not the government's.

Why is your tag 'Give it a rest?'

Paul ran for President and went no less deep in the process than he is now and moreover is a current member of the Congress.

DETAILS is all he is immersed in. Far as I'm concerned he and Romney should have had plans Day 1!

re-read the article. It answers that question.

Tek - So I reread it, and you are correct, it was addressed. Sort of.

“Many of those important parts of each of those departments will be held in another department ... so nobody gets laid off immediately, they get laid off through attrition, because we’re going to learn to live with a lot less government and we don’t need to keep hiring more and more people to replace those who should be retiring.”

The thing is there is a reason these departments are kept separate. I don't think Paul understands that. And consolidating the Interior Departments functions into an unrelated department won't necessarily save you money, it could end up costing money in the short run.

Like I've said before, it is entirely irrelevant. Ron Paul will never win, ever. He has about the same chances of winning that Dennis Kuchinich had in the last Democratic primary season: ZERO. And for the same reasons.

If you liked that you should google the following:

Our Daughter isn't a selfish brat; your son just hasn't read Atlas Shrugged.

You'll find a link to an essay by Eric Hague that will make you laugh out loud.

To all you know-nothing conservatives who want no government: Look long and hard at Yemen, if you get your way that is your future.

To all you crazy conservatives take a long hard look at Ron Pauls plan, his deficit reduction plan is the equivalent of cutting off both of your legs and an arm so that you will eat less! If that somehow makes sense to you, you really are nuts!

Free stuff for everyone!screw thinking about how to pay for it!

So we need to borrow or print money to assure a bunch of government employees keep their job?logic?

Most of the money will be cut by ending the wars and closing down military bases that have no need. Ron Paul's plan is looking to reduce the size of the Federal Government by only 10%. People should actually read the plan before jumping to conclusions.

We need to keep printing money to ensure that we do not have deflation. And we need to hold on to a few government jobs. In case you haven't noticed, the private employers, who are enjoying record profits, appear to have no appetite for hiring. They just want to squeeze a little more juice out of the haggard employees they already have. That's just the cold reality. If you want to continue in the Ron Paul alternate "reality", go ahead.

Some companies are seeing record profits. Most companies are teetering on the brink. Remember all that fast easy credit of the last 25 years? Lots of companies borrowed "money" to pay for new equipment, facilities, salaries, etc. Then when they couldn't borrow anymore "money" they had had to reduce staff to stay afloat. Private employers can't hire anybody. This country needs to get it's debt addiction under control. That is the reason there are no jobs. The more "money" that is printed the worse it will get.

Yeah, just let Mississippi and West Virginia run their own ship on education. Forget about national standards and all that federal intermeddling. The beauty part of that strategy is that all that science stuff that Republicans hate so much won't be such an irritant any more. As a nation we are about 30th in education now. We should fall to our natural station. The invisible hand of the free market and strictly local controls can let us fall below some third world standards. You know the national government strictly controls the school curricula in China. And now, as a nation, they are publishing more research papers than us. And the national government contributes to their industries. And they are kicking our ass in industry too.

Beyond,

If you like the Chinese system so well I suggest you go to China. Compare the schools in the developed Asian countries like S. Korea, Japan, China, and Taiwan, you will see that they do not coddle their students. You do not see disruptive students in their schools, like here. They don't allow the schools to be used as baby sitters. There don't allow students disrespecting teachers and they get rid of teachers that don't or can't produce. You are talking about two entirely different educational systems. Further I am willing to bet they don't spend as much per student either. The parents respect the teachers and do not tolerate their kids acting out in school. Did you ever stop to think that maybe the intervention of the federal government in our education system is one of the main reasons we are falling behind some of the foreign countries?

I also noted you never answered my question about what the Department of Education has done to enhance our education system with the $71 billion annual budget, and 5000 employees? Also I noted now of the other big government liberals have tried to answer it either.

We had a balanced budget up until W. started doling out tax cuts to the rich. In fact, we had a record surplus. What federal jobs have the Republicans cut in the last fifteen years? What actual jobs is anybody in the Republican Congress willing to cut? Lots of blather about getting rid of departments and reorganizing. Al Gore cut more federal jobs in one efficiency study in the late 90's than any Republican has ever cut. You remember Al, the one who won the popular vote for President by 540,000 votes. Republicans just can't do math. (And they hate evolution.)

Most of these people do not understand, or are not educated enough to know that many of the departments to be phased out, never existed, except in the modern era. These departments did not have anything to do with the rise of the US in terms of living conditions, economic and social growth, but rather came about because somebody yelled "it's not fair" loud enough. Much of the functions of these departments could be handled at a more local level through state government, and probably more effectively. Why should we spend federal money on a particular spotted owl habitat that only exists in one fraction of one state? Trying to standardize and nationalize education has not done anything significant to improve test score averages....once again, a more local approach might be more effective. This is not to say that there would be a cessation of services, but more likely, the services being returned to the governing body which should have been regulating it in the first place.

Ron Paul for peace, small government, a balanced budget, pro-life, liberty, freedom and AUDIT THE FED.