(12-18-2010 09:51 PM)Rebel Wrote:  Bush isn't in office. Hasn't been since 20Jan09. Why in the hell would Herman bash someone that isn't even in politics anymore? That's what Democrats do. You're not a Democrat, are you GTS?

Herman had about 5 minutes. He wasn't going to waste it talking about Bush. Who the ---- would?

Dubya destroyed the Republican brand, shredded the Constitution, set all time records in debt on the annual budget, set all time records in debt on the cumulative budget deficit, destroyed civil liberties, created ENTIRE NEW DEPARTMENTS, set the stage for ObamaCare and even more massive debt with the Medicare Rx Benefit, set the stage for even more federal government in education with No Child Left Behind, bailed out banks, turned his back on the free market, etc, etc, etc, etc. I mean COME ON. I cannot take ANYBODY seriously for President unless they repudiate Dubya. If you are a Republican, and you not state you disagree with Dubya era policy, you are every bit as part of the problem as Obama. Dubya got you Obama. You run Dubya again, and you damn well deserve to get 4 more years of Obama. I will see the country collapse into mass rioting before I see another Dubya assume the Presidency.

(12-18-2010 09:53 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(12-18-2010 05:24 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  (And he's just as bad a public speaker as Ron Paul is, but at least every once in awhile it clicks and Paul delivers a gem line.)

BTW:

"We don't have a revenue problem in D.C., we have a SPENDING problem in D.C."

That's a line I've used, and it's credited to him. Paul is a lightweight when it comes to business compared to Cain. PERIOD.

Ron Paul has more than half his wealth in hard gold and silver. He got into gold at $35/ounce when Bretton-Woods collapsed. Just sitting on it, even in the last 5 years, he's quadruped his wealth. Oh yea -- and he ran his own obstetrician practice. He didn't manage somebody else's mess ... he started from scratch. And this is the best line I heard in the '08 cycle:

(12-19-2010 12:53 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  
Dubya destroyed the Republican brand, shredded the Constitution, set all time records in debt on the annual budget, set all time records in debt on the cumulative budget deficit, destroyed civil liberties, created ENTIRE NEW DEPARTMENTS,

Wow, so he's done pretty much what every president has done since Teddy R. Your point?

Quote:Ron Paul has more than half his wealth in hard gold and silver. He got into gold at $35/ounce when Bretton-Woods collapsed. Just sitting on it, even in the last 5 years, he's quadruped his wealth. Oh yea -- and he ran his own obstetrician practice. He didn't manage somebody else's mess ... he started from scratch. And this is the best line I heard in the '08 cycle:

So did my dad. I aim to rack up when my parents pass, on gold, silver, ammunition, and guns.

Paul is an OB/GYN. He's never actually brought up a company from death. His business is one that never suffers as it's subsidized (Medicare, Medicaid, company-contributed health insurance, etc.) Burger King, Pillsbury, and Godfather's, however, is not.

Ron Paul is ALL talk. He loaded up a f'n bill with earmarks AFTER TRASHING earmarks. He is NOT the real deal. He's a f'n politician. Nothing more, nothing less.

(12-19-2010 01:43 AM)Rebel Wrote:  Wow, so he's done pretty much what every president has done since Teddy R. Your point?

The only President other than Dubya to have ever suspended habeas corpus was Lincoln during the Civil War. That's hardly every President since Teddy. Bush was much -- MUCH WORSE -- than anybody since Woodrow Wilson and FDR.

Quote:Paul is an OB/GYN. He's never actually brought up a company from death. His business is one that never suffers as it's subsidized (Medicare, Medicaid, company-contributed health insurance, etc.) Burger King, Pillsbury, and Godfather's, however, is not.

Ron Paul is ALL talk. He loaded up a f'n bill with earmarks AFTER TRASHING earmarks. He is NOT the real deal. He's a f'n politician. Nothing more, nothing less.

Actually, Ron Paul refused to take Medicare and Medicaid at his practice, and never did.

And Ron Paul's stance on earmarks is this:
1) If my constituents are going to be taxed, I'm going to try to get back their share of the tax dollars, instead of letting others feast upon it.
2) If you have appropriated money AND YOU DO NOT earmark it, it goes into a slush fund to be used how ever the executive branch so chooses.
3) Despite the fact that he puts in earmarks, he has voted against virtually every appropriations bill.

Earmarks are largely symbolic, and a drop in the ocean of our deficit woes, and you know it. If you're serious about the debt and spending, you have to start and finish at Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and the Military. Ron Paul wants to phase out the first three, and substantially cut the last. What does Cain have to deal with the four problems?

(12-19-2010 10:42 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Bush was much -- MUCH WORSE -- than anybody since Woodrow Wilson and FDR.

Until Obama.

Quote:Earmarks are largely symbolic, and a drop in the ocean of our deficit woes, and you know it. If you're serious about the debt and spending, you have to start and finish at Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and the Military. Ron Paul wants to phase out the first three, and substantially cut the last. What does Cain have to deal with the four problems?

The problem with earmarks is leverage. They don't technically add to the deficit, per se, but they contribute in the following way. I want to spend $10 billion. I don't have your vote. I say, "Hey, if you vote for my $10 billion bill, we'll put in $1 million to establish the You Center for Fruit Fly Mating Research at Farmville State University in your home district." I buy your vote. The $1 million that you earmark does not add to the budget. But the $10 billion that you voted for to get it damned well does. Ron pretty much does not engage in that sort of horse trading.

I'm going to support the candidate who comes closest to advocating the way that I would address the four problems:

First, I would address the revenue side with flat taxes at lower rates on wages and salaries (basically social security with no wage cap), business profits, and consumption, with the Boortz-Linder prefund or Friedman negative income tax to put a floor under the safety net. No more 1040 or April 15 (it just comes out of your paycheck, like in Europe or like social security here), no more personal deductions, a 15% tax rate across the board, with a 30% prefund/negative income tax, nets more than our current tax system produces. Legalize drugs and tax them, and raise excise taxes on motor fuel, alcohol, and tobacco for a net revenue increase of $400 billion.

Now, to get to the big four.

Medicare/Medicaid. Replace with French health (Medicaid immediately and Medicare phase out, with people over a certain age getting to choose and everybody younger than that going over to the French system). Net cost is about $300 billion, which you save because the prefund/negative income tax makes most current welfare programs redundant, so you eliminate them. Cut medical costs by implementing Swedish-style no-fault malpractice (works kinda like workers' comp here).

Social Security. In the tax plan above, payroll taxes are dedicated to social security, and the wage cap is removed. Make social security non-taxable, which stretches benefits. Phase in older retirement age (68 by 2050, 70 by 2100). Phase in a cap on upper levels by growing benefits in the upper ranges slower than inflation. Offset this by creating Swedish style investment accounts for 5% of payroll (2.5% employer, 2.5% employee). Funds go to a sort of super 401k that could invest in three places:
1. Invest in newly-privatized enterprises--TVA, western power authorities, interstate highway system (convert to 100% toll roads), postal service, air traffic control, others--which would seek a 5% ROI. If achieved, that would effectively double to triple the lifetime benefits-to-contributions ratio over the current 0% ROI social security program. Several of these enterprises would now have significant capital to invest in things like renewable energy.
2. Invest in the market through very diversified and safe index funds. Note that even with the 2008 crash, a person retiring in 2009 would have done substantially better putting money into something like an S&P index fund over his lifetime than into social security.
3. Allow individuals to self-direct a portion of their funds once they achieve some minimum balance--say $100,000, adjusted for inflation) in part 1 and part 2 combined.

Military. The trick to having a strong military at an affordable price is to keep a lot of it stood down from hair-trigger readiness. Bring 90% of troops home from places like Germany and Japan (leave a 10% cadre with prepositioned equipment) and convert their billets from regular to reserve slots. Overall, increase the total capability (more soldiers potentially, more ships, boats, and airplanes) but keep probably 75% in a stood-down reserve status. We would still be the largest and most capable military in the world, and have every intent to remain so, by a wide margin, for $100 billion less than we spend now. This has the huge advantage of substantially lowering the temptation to send in the marines every time something does not go to suit in some third-world country.

Cato and several other libertarian/conservative think tanks have identified cuts totalling in the $500-600 billion range. Do every one of them. Replace the Department of Education with a voucher program; $3,000 per student per year costs $150 billion. Replace the Department of Energy with taxes on fossil fuel use to encourage alternatives.

That's a framework, anyway.