In fairness you should note the Paul version of starve the government involves defaulting on our debt and stripping virtually all services. Perhaps we can maintain a small semblance of government and perhaps a military 20% of todays size.
He should have had a plan yesterday.
You're right that some other candidates don't have detailed plans. But they don't make the radical proposals Paul does.
As an example, I believe both Gingrich and Giuliani have advocated shrinking government by only replacing half the federal retirees through their term. That would have an impact, an I'm not that concerned that they may not have addressed a disparity in retirements in one area versus another.
I'm comfortable that a candidate advocating closing the Department of Education could formulate plans once in office. Obviously many functions might persist elsewhere.
There's extensive planning out there regarding a flat tax, or a fair tax, VATs, and federal sales tax; none mentioned in the Constitution.
Paul advocates a repeal of the "unconstitutional" income tax, amendments being unconstitutional by nature, with no replacement.
Essentially requiring a default on our debt and a virtual shutdown of all government functions. Much depends on whether or not Paul wishes to cease SS taxes and benefits immediately as well.
That's thoroughly irresponsible.
The lack of a plan doesn't surprise me.
Because it's a bunch of BS, I doubt Paul even belives it, he just knows his supporters, and tosses them fresh meat.
As a Congressman from Texas, he's an amusement, as a Republican Presidential candidate, he's an embarassment to the Party.
Why bother publishing it? Those that are against him are not against him because of his stance on limited government. As I said he could lay it out tomorrow and you'd still be railing against him
As an example, I believe both Gingrich and Giuliani have advocated shrinking government by only replacing half the federal retirees through their term.
Oh well you didn't mention you believe in fairy tales. You should have said something before starting this conversation
Essentially requiring a default on our debt and a virtual shutdown of all government functions. Much depends on whether or not Paul wishes to cease SS taxes and benefits immediately as well. That's thoroughly irresponsible
Well I believe he's said that it would take time to get rid of SS and I honestly believe he understands that it would take time to get rid of the IRS. However trying to pass off 'privatization' of 1-2% of SS as some sort of huge change isn't very responsible, or truthful.
But I don't see why you say it would be irresponsible to get rid of SS tomorrow either. It was irresponsible to rely on government in the first place. I'm not related to those getting it so why should I have to pay for it? There used to be these things, charities and churches I believe they were called, that took care of the elderly as the Bible tells us. However I don't remember the Bible requiring the government to take care of us.
As a Congressman from Texas, he's an amusement, as a Republican Presidential candidate, he's an embarassment to the Party
To the party of big government that has no plan to pay anything more than lip service to limited government I imagine he is.