Posted on 03/18/2011 8:27:57 PM PDT by rrdog
en. Rand Paul, Republican from Kentucky, had a press conference scheduled for today unveiling his plans for a five-year path to a balanced budget.
- Reduces spending by nearly $4 trillion relative to the President's budget - Achieves a $19 billion surplus in FY2016 - Brings all non-military discretionary spending back to FY2008 levels - Requires the process of entitlement reform, including Social Security and Medicare, with final implementation by FY2016 - Does not change Social Security or Medicare benefits - Block-grants Medicaid, SCHIP, foods stamps, and child nutrition · Provides the President's request for war funding - Reduces military spending 6 percent in FY2012 · Eliminates four departments: - Department of Commerce (transfers certain programs) - Department of Education (preserves Pell grants) - Department of Housing and Urban Development - Department of Energy (transfers nuclear research and weapons to Department of Defense) · Repeals Obamacare
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
This man proves hope is not lost for the republic.
That was not a point I made well. Sorry if it sounded like a dig. My point is to disagree with what I perceive as you view that we need someone already imbedded in established government. I agree we do not want a flake or someone that does not understand government processes (experience through fire) but I am not willing to rule out the possiblility someone from outside established government will have those abilities.
I may have misinterpreted your points - and even done so in the above. Take this as me trying to advocate for anything but the status quo. We have had more than enough of that. And thanks for the thoughtful reply.
The problem is they are mostly socialists just like their demwit buds.
She's on my short list of choices for President, but she has very high negatives. Might be hard to elect her.
“This man proves hope is not lost for the republic.”
I agree. I wish more on our side were out there doing what we elected them to do: representing us. We need leadership, real leadership, and I wish there were more I could see. What happened to November, 2010?
Didn’t Hamilton support Central Banks?
Not a problem. My words don't always come out right, either.
I agree we do not want a flake or someone that does not understand government processes (experience through fire) but I am not willing to rule out the possibility someone from outside established government will have those abilities.
I'll just cut to the chase here, and say that, in my opinion, we have all of that in Sarah Palin. She's been an outsider during her whole career in public life, and she's beholden to no one, but the people and the Constitution.
On top of that, she's got the hands-on experience that I'm personally looking for in a president, as well as the fire and courage to be a fine Commander in Chief.
Mark my words. If Sarah announces her bid for the White House, and it even begins to look like she's going to beat Obama, the Middle East is going to calm right down. That's the Reagan Effect, and Sarah is the only potential candidate I know of who's got it.
Looking at the other side of the coin, Sarah's got higher positives than anyone else in our camp. There isn't anyone out there who's going to draw a greater and more enthusiastic level of support for their candidacy, than her.
The negatives you speak of look large now, before the fight has really begun, but once all hats are in the ring, everything's going to look quite different. The Japan quake has nothing on what's going to happen when Sarah announces. An explosion of support for her is going to burst forth, like nothing you've ever seen.
First and just the beginning.
Obama is very accomplished and his ideas are as old as dirt.
All real change is done by the young.
How about we put a full throttle conservative in, and kick the wasps nest over. Again, we’ve done the Bush/Chenney/Hastert/Lott route, and got more big gov, big spending, and big debt. The decapitation of the GOP of hacks like Bennett, Castle has been a good start. They, were the ‘experienced’ hacks that were water carriers, boot lick accomidationists. Every successful revolt begins with party purging. Process hacks, admins are a dime a dozen. Management staff can be hired to flesh out details.
Washington was a member of the House of Burgesses.
Truman started the Truman doctrine, stood up to Stalin, reigned in MacArthur. Stalin had E. Europe and no one was going to fight him for it. ( The Soviets lost more men in the last hundred miles to Berlin then we lost in all of Europe ) For todays GOP, he’d do fine in the Party.
Nixon like Truman found and managed his way out of a war he inherited. His opening to China was masterful. Wilson didn’t end the war, FDR left E Euorpe to Stalin, and China to Mao. Lincoln destroyed the south for a hundred years.
Anyways, your notion of what is needed is pretty sloppy. No one knows because no one knows what the future will bring.
Wow, now I see I really misunderstood. If you are talking about Sarah Palin, then you have it right. Just hit me over the head once in a while until I get it.
Sounds good to me. I'll be volunteering for Sarah's campaign on the day that she announces.
I was probably a bit slow in getting that out ;-)
I guarantee you, that once she's in office, and we've got a Republican-dominated Congress, we're going to see some historic changes being made at the federal level. Sarah and crew are going to take a wrecking ball to the Socialist monstrosity that's been built over the last half century.
You were doing pretty good with the history recap, right up to that point. My notions of what's needed aren't sloppy. They're based in what observably works in the real world.
Anyone with half a brain who's been watching current events for the last three or four years can see that we need some adult leadership in Washington again. And, even half-brained people can see that we're headed for dire times, if something isn't done to correct our course.
The country bet and lost on a relative newcomer with zero accomplishments, and no executive experience, in 2008. I, for one, will not support anyone for president, on just the strength of their ideas and promises, alone. I've got to see a fairly impressive resume, because frankly, too much is on the line, and we can't afford to get it wrong again.
If the country weren't two inches away from falling into the abyss, maybe I'd consider some charismatic and dynamic individual with a thin resume for president, but not now.
I only see one potential candidate out there who comes close to having all the right stuff to handle what's ahead, and that's Sarah Palin.
Please add me to your Rand Paul ping list! Thanks in advance...
Read Amity Shales, The Forgotten Man. The best executive qualified, was Hoover( Washington excepted ), and he was bassically FDR/Obama light.
It’s called by economist, ‘The Knowledge Problem’. Like, after WWII, who would know that more Europeans, more Chinese, more countries would be enslaved by a brutal regime, then before the war. Hows that for 50 million killed? How was that for all the bright Harvard/Yale/Cambridge men with the recent memory of WWI behind them.
Just like Korea, where the ventran men and officers were almost wiped out by a China that was starving and was ink wet new country.
The Knowledge Problem even shows up in 9/11, the surprise fall of the Berlin Wall, Saddams attack on Saudi Arabia. Like, didn’t we spend tens of billion per year on so called intelligence?
Or on the recent 2008 financial collapse. Where were the SEC, Fed experts.
You never know, can never plan to know. Do you think Wilson and the allies would of sign a armistice with the Kaiser knowing their sons would die, and Europe destroyed in a generation?
It’s delusion.
I actually if you believe that the cuts will stimulate the economy it would get is into the black even quicker than they say it will balance the budget. With these cuts interest rates could stay low, taxes could be cut, and most importantly, faith would be restored in the dollar which should lower unemployment. If unemployment were below 5% the savings should be four or five hundred billion per year. Tack that on to the existing cuts and we could actually pay down the debt we’ve left for those of us under the age of about 70.
It’s no longer being passed to our children, we owe it now.
I believe that's a matter of opinion. In fact, you can easily find examples in history where good intelligence and knowledge of events and circumstances has been used to avoid catastrophe, or which led to victory in war, or national success in peacetime.
That said, we're beginning to digress here. The only point I'm trying to stress, is that there are certain known, proven, and quantifiable attributes of effective leaders. It would behoove the American people to look for these qualities when choosing our next president.
Added. The list has doubled in the last couple of days - I hope more people listen to this man who’s actually showing some real leadership, proposing real numbers and not just speaking in generalities and platitudes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.