My Economic Plan

[helmuth_hubener]

I would take a seriously look and break down who this debt is owed to and investigate it. I wouldn't presume outright that 100% of it is legitimate debt.

Well none of it is legitimate debt that I owe to anyone. Is any of it legitimate debt that you have incurred? Have any of us, as taxpayers, entered into legally or morally binding contracts agreeing to borrow X dollars and then pay back X dollars by X time? No?

The best solution is repudiation. Harry Browne had a solution where federal assets were to be sold off to make several trillion bucks which would pay off the debt completely and vest an account to keep paying the oldsters but eliminate the SS tax. Maybe that was feasible back in 1996 when the debt was "only" 5.2 trillion. But really, why not just repudiate the whole thing? The bond holders get stuck with nothing, but is it right to rob people of their incomes in order to make sure that some individuals who decided to loan money to an evil and corrupt institution, with no collateral other than their expected continuing ability to rob -- to make sure that these opportunists get all their precious money back?

Sorry, guys: you loaned your money to a group of psychopathic mass murderers. Not only that, a group of consummate liars. Not only that, a group with no financial sense whatsoever, which has a long and publicly-advertised history of insane and irrational behavior, and carries huge and unmanageable debt load already. And your loans allowed them to slaughter even more people, and to destroy American civilization in ever-more ambitious ways. You get what you deserve. Total repudiation.

 

[Steven Douglas]

Just as Roosevelt's confiscation of wealth made depositors into "bad investors", rather than bankers into "embezzlers", collectivizing the entire money pool made "bad investors" out of all of us. Ironically, ordinary "depositors" are used as human shields; the very rationale for bailing out truly bad investors AND embezzlers, given that so many "innocents" would be caught in the crossfire and lose wealth as a result. So the only remaining question is one of how to "bail out the economy" - as if there really was a "THE ECONOMY".

 

[Travlyr]

Well none of it is legitimate debt that I owe to anyone. Is any of it legitimate debt that you have incurred? Have any of us, as taxpayers, entered into legally or morally binding contracts agreeing to borrow X dollars and then pay back X dollars by X time? No?

The best solution is repudiation. Harry Browne had a solution where federal assets were to be sold off to make several trillion bucks which would pay off the debt completely and vest an account to keep paying the oldsters but eliminate the SS tax. Maybe that was feasible back in 1996 when the debt was "only" 5.2 trillion. But really, why not just repudiate the whole thing? The bond holders get stuck with nothing, but is it right to rob people of their incomes in order to make sure that some individuals who decided to loan money to an evil and corrupt institution, with no collateral other than their expected continuing ability to rob -- to make sure that these opportunists get all their precious money back?

Sorry, guys: you loaned your money to a group of psychopathic mass murderers. Not only that, a group of consummate liars. Not only that, a group with no financial sense whatsoever, which has a long and publicly-advertised history of insane and irrational behavior, and carries huge and unmanageable debt load already. And your loans allowed them to slaughter even more people, and to destroy American civilization in ever-more ambitious ways. You get what you deserve. Total repudiation.

Total repudiation of all government debt, individual homesteading of all productive federal lands through a colorblind lottery system, and legalize industrial hemp.

 

[Steven Douglas]

Total repudiation of all government debt, individual homesteading of all productive federal lands through a colorblind lottery system, and legalize industrial hemp.

I'll buy that for a dollar!

 

[helmuth_hubener]

That would create some jobs, alright, Travlyr! And more importantly, some wealth! And I like that it's three points, just like 9-9-9 -- Welch-Free land-Hemp. A winning combo!

 

[Travlyr]

That would create some jobs, alright, Travlyr! And more importantly, some wealth! And I like that it's three points, just like 9-9-9 -- Welch-Free land-Hemp. A winning combo!

For sure helmuth. I am so tired of hearing that we are headed for certain doom when the counterfeiters lose their power. Opportunity abounds in this abundant world as soon as it is legal to prosper. I believe that the Autumn of 2011 will go down in history as the death of the lying media monopoly.

Honest prosperity is ours if we want it. It is just waiting for us to take it.

Welsh - Land - Hemp ... FTW!

 

[TomL]

Tom, cutting spending is key. If you don't want to cut transfer payments, and you don't want to cut the military, you can't cut very much. OK, you want to ax OSHA, EPA, and a bunch of others, but that's not going to substantially reduce the budget. Ron Paul's plan goes from 3.6 trillion to 2.6 trillion in one year. Frankly, that's not nearly enough, and I'm confident that actually, if he's elected President, Paul would push much more aggressively for even more cuts than that. We need to get down to 1 trillion, very very quickly (immediately) and then 500 billion, and then 200 billion, then 50 billion, and then by the end of Paul's first term we're looking at a proposed federal budget of 20 billion after the previous year's budget of 50 billion and the country is starting to look actually free again.

I'm sorry (no I'm not) but I don't care one single bit about these so-called entitlement programs. No one's entitled to a monthly check on my dime. Burn the checks. Demolish the IRS building. And breathe the free air.

You don't see massive spending cuts in my plan? Who said I wouldn't make cuts in the military. I agree with Ron Paul, we need to bring our military home, and close down those costly bases oversees. This plan is a jobs plan more than anything else. The private sector economy must be allowed to flourish if we are to correct all of our economic problems, and I believe my plan does that.

My plan cuts spending down to legitimate government functions authorized by the Constitution. I am sorry you can't see that.

You said, "No one's entitled to a monthly check on my dime." Would you prefer those people die?

You also seem to forget we have a massive debt. What do we do with that? Just forget about it? We will need revenue enough to fund legitimate government functions and pay down the debt, and whether you like it or not, that means taxes. My tax plan will generate the needed revenue, and get off the backs of the American people at the same time. Mine is the only plan that does that.

 

[TomL]

i still think my idea is very good.

1) everyone gets the first $30,000 with no tax ( even gates/buffet ) , then pays 20% on anything over 30k, no deductions for anything , no one could bitch as everyone gets the 30k.

2) all business pays 20% tax on the profits they tell their stock holders they made , if they have 100 million shares and tell stock holders they made $1/share that is 100 million, now they will tell the goverment they lost 50 million ( loop holes ) and get a tax refund.

as a futher note , i will believe congress wants to cut spending when they reduce their staff and their office budget.

Believe it or not, my original tax plan was something similar. I called it my 20/20 plan. 20% flat income tax, and a $20,000 cost of living tax deduction in the base year, that would go up every year as the cost of living goes up. But, I junked it as it really keeps the tax code pretty much in tact. And that tax code, along with massive federal regulations is killing American businesses.

I researched various forms of taxation. Mainly, direct versus indirect taxation. As I researched, I have come to the conclusion that it is direct taxes that are the most detrimental to our economy. But taxes are not the only detriment to our economy. That fact that many of our business have moved to other countries, which has cost our economy 1 trillion dollars. I heard Ron Paul speak of this. We have to bring that money back. And we need to give incentives for businesses to do so.

To accomplish this, in my opinion, we not only need a good tax plan, we also need a good jobs plan. I believe my tax and jobs plan will accomplish what needs to be done to repair the economy. Put people back to work, encourage investment.

I personally want to see a day when we have no federal entitlements. If you have read what I said about entitlements. But to take people off entitlements without having a job, and nothing else to sustain them would be heartless and cruel. And if that is what Ron Paul supporters are about, then I am obviously in the wrong, and I may have to find another candidate to support and hope for the best.

 

[TomL]

Oh my. Some of you are real looney-tunes. If the media has been exposed to some of you, I can understand why Ron Paul is getting a bad rap.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

First off, Tom, I'm not trying to attack you nor your plan. I personally would prefer to live in a place with your plan rather than the current USA system. If nothing else, it would be much easier for me to evade the retail tax you're talking about than the income tax . So anyway, it would be an improvement, but maybe not a real big improvement. Not as big of an improvement as I'd like.

You don't see massive spending cuts in my plan? Who said I wouldn't make cuts in the military?

Feel free to correct my understanding, but this is where I read it.

This seems to be the biggest part of the economic debate, which is spending. What to do about entitlements. Where should the spending cuts come from. There are those who would like to make cuts in entitlements. Others who would like to make cuts in defense. Some want to make cuts in housing subsidies and food stamps. I'm not in favor of either.[emph. added]

If you do want to cut the military, and are just making a distinction between defense and the military as Ron Paul cleverly does, let me know. What would your defense budget be? $300 billion? $30 billion? How much would you cut?

It may be that I don't see massive cuts in your plan just because you haven't expressed those massive cuts clearly and because I know the budgets of PBS, OSHA, and the EPA really are not that much. So I welcome you to correct me on this and join the Massive Budget Cuts Alliance. Would you cut the budget by at least a trillion the first year? What do you want the federal govt budget to be, ultimately?

My plan cuts spending down to legitimate government functions authorized by the Constitution. I am sorry you can't see that.

Well, don't take this the wrong way, but where in the Constitution does it authorize Social Security or any other entitlement? Where does it say "Congress shall have power to run transfer payment programs"? That is what I don't see. Show me that clause.

You said, "No one's entitled to a monthly check on my dime." Would you prefer those people die?

Look, I am not running for any office (at the moment) and so I can say this: of course! If the choice is between 1 million people dying and 1 million people living off of me for the rest of their lives, cut the cord, man! I can do way, way better and cooler stuff with my resources than support a bunch of deadbeats. I don't accept that this is the choice. I don't think any meaningful amount of people would die as a result of sudden and complete termination of welfare, AFDC, the SS, and every other robbery racket you call an "entitlement". But even if it were the choice, I don't accept that I have any moral responsibility to prevent 1 million people from killing themselves due to their refusal or inability to do anything productive. That is their responsibility, not mine.

You also seem to forget we have a massive debt. What do we do with that? Just forget about it?

I didn't forget that "we" have it; didn't you read the whole thread? I said exactly what I want to do about it: repudiate it.

We will need revenue enough to fund legitimate government functions and pay down the debt, and whether you like it or not, that means taxes. My tax plan will generate the needed revenue, and get off the backs of the American people at the same time. Mine is the only plan that does that.

So again, just let me know how much you think you need for legitimate govt functions. Me, I think the govt was way too big in the 90s, way too big in the 80s,..... and on and on, and so if you're just wanting to go back to 2 trillion or to the 1 trillion dollar budgets of the 90s, I'm not that excited or interested, though certainly it would be an improvement.

1. The State Department
2. The Defense Department
3. The Commerce Department
4. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services
5. The Transportation Department (limited)
6. Bureau of the Census (limited)
7. Copyright & Patent Offices
8. The Federal Court System
9. The Justice Department
10. The Treasury Department
11. The District of Columbia
12. The Federal Communications Commission
13. Congress
14. Social Security Administration

The SS and FCC are not Constitutionally authorized. The rest of them I guess are, but they're not Helmuth-authorized so they should eliminated too.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

I personally want to see a day when we have no federal entitlements. If you have read what I said about entitlements. But to take people off entitlements without having a job, and nothing else to sustain them would be heartless and cruel. And if that is what Ron Paul supporters are about, then I am obviously in the wrong, and I may have to find another candidate to support and hope for the best.

Ron Paul himself would not just cut people off; he wants to gradually phase entitlements out in a very humane and reasonable manner. That is, in a way that the mainstream and probably you yourself would see as humane and reasonable.

I myself think it would be perfectly humane and reasonable to just stop sending the checks! Just cut the welfare off! Give people a two month notice if you must; that is plenty of time to prepare. The USA are prosperous and no one will starve, they will adapt and life will go on.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Ron Paul himself would not just cut people off; he wants to gradually phase entitlements out in a very humane and reasonable manner. That is, in a way that the mainstream and probably you yourself would see as humane and reasonable.

I myself think it would be perfectly humane and reasonable to just stop sending the checks! Just cut the welfare off! Give people a two month notice if you must; that is plenty of time to prepare. The USA are prosperous and no one will starve, they will adapt and life will go on.

Send notice to your grandmother that you are going to end her social security payments in two months and that she should "lip up" and take care of herself now. Tell her that "life will go on" when the money she needs from Medicare to help purchase her medications will also be cut off. She will surely thank you. Or not. Perhaps you can take her in?

 

[runamuck]

Send notice to your grandmother that you are going to end her social security payments in two months and that she should "lip up" and take care of herself now. Tell her that "life will go on" when the money she needs from Medicare to help purchase her medications will also be cut off. She will surely thank you. Or not. Perhaps you can take her in?

Thank you for bringing some rationality to the conversation.

 

[ShaneEnochs]

Ron Paul himself would not just cut people off; he wants to gradually phase entitlements out in a very humane and reasonable manner. That is, in a way that the mainstream and probably you yourself would see as humane and reasonable.

I myself think it would be perfectly humane and reasonable to just stop sending the checks! Just cut the welfare off! Give people a two month notice if you must; that is plenty of time to prepare. The USA are prosperous and no one will starve, they will adapt and life will go on.

Can't do something like that cold turkey. My family, for instance, depends on food stamps. Without them, we wouldn't be able to afford to pay the rent. This isn't because of us taking on a place we can't afford, it's because I haven't been able to find a job in the last year and my fiance is supporting us working fast food. The job market is tight. If you want to get people off welfare, you have to create an environment where the market can flourish, and this, currently, is not that environment. If you want to see real rioting in the streets where tens of thousands of people will die, then yeah, stop sending the checks.

 

[runamuck]

Can't do something like that cold turkey. My family, for instance, depends on food stamps. Without them, we wouldn't be able to afford to pay the rent. This isn't because of us taking on a place we can't afford, it's because I haven't been able to find a job in the last year and my fiance is supporting us working fast food. The job market is tight. If you want to get people off welfare, you have to create an environment where the market can flourish, and this, currently, is not that environment. If you want to see real rioting in the streets where tens of thousands of people will die, then yeah, stop sending the checks.

I think the OP needs to understand that Ron's position is very understanding of the realities of today's economy, society, and government.

You cannot and should not just cut all "entitlements" at the drop of a hat. It's unrealistic, unfeasible, and cruel due to the environment that has been created by our crony-capitalistic, fiat monetary, Keynesian run economy.

Even Ron, the purest of free market thinkers, understands you cannot pull the rug out.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

If you want to get people off welfare, you have to create an environment where the market can flourish, and this, currently, is not that environment.

Ending all transfer payment programs would create that environment, and very quickly. No one is going to starve. No one is even close to starving in the USA. Outside of a very very few homeless people, no one in the USA even understands what starvation is. Do you have any idea how long it would take for your family to starve to death? A long time, let me tell you. If you suddenly had no food stamps, I have every confidence that you are ingenuitive, scrappy, and determined to survive, and that furthermore you are a decent person who has not burned every bridge you ever had via atrocious behavior and thus you have many friends and family willing to help you out. Your family is in no danger of death without food stamps.

 

[TomL]

First off, Tom, I'm not trying to attack you nor your plan. I personally would prefer to live in a place with your plan rather than the current USA system. If nothing else, it would be much easier for me to evade the retail tax you're talking about than the income tax . So anyway, it would be an improvement, but maybe not a real big improvement. Not as big of an improvement as I'd like.

Feel free to correct my understanding, but this is where I read it.

If you do want to cut the military, and are just making a distinction between defense and the military as Ron Paul cleverly does, let me know. What would your defense budget be? $300 billion? $30 billion? How much would you cut?

That's it exactly. We have a Department of Defense, and that is what they should do. It is not a Department of Offense.

A year ago, I tested the waters for a run for the Presidency. I had a platform which I placed on several conservative forum sites to get feed back. Since I decided not to run, I deleted the platform. But the ideals are in tact in various articles scattered throughout the internet. Some of them are on my own sites. My foreign policy was practically identical to that of Ron Paul.

I have no problem with the military in the role of defense in a Congressionally declared war.

It may be that I don't see massive cuts in your plan just because you haven't expressed those massive cuts clearly and because I know the budgets of PBS, OSHA, and the EPA really are not that much. So I welcome you to correct me on this and join the Massive Budget Cuts Alliance. Would you cut the budget by at least a trillion the first year? What do you want the federal govt budget to be, ultimately?

I think I have. Considering my plan would only fund 14 or 15, I forgot to add the Post Office, that means there are thousands of agencies, departments and offices that would be eliminated. Did you look at that list I gave a link to?

Well, don't take this the wrong way, but where in the Constitution does it authorize Social Security or any other entitlement? Where does it say "Congress shall have power to run transfer payment programs"? That is what I don't see. Show me that clause.

There is an ongoing debate about the "general welfare clause" of the Constitution. I will not go into that here.

Did you read what I said about entitlements? If you did you would know that I hate them. I hate what they did to this country, to the people of this country. If I could I would eliminate all of them. But, with so many people, including me, depending on them, it would heartless and cruel to to that.

Look, I am not running for any office (at the moment) and so I can say this: of course! If the choice is between 1 million people dying and 1 million people living off of me for the rest of their lives, cut the cord, man! I can do way, way better and cooler stuff with my resources than support a bunch of deadbeats. I don't accept that this is the choice. I don't think any meaningful amount of people would die as a result of sudden and complete termination of welfare, AFDC, the SS, and every other robbery racket you call an "entitlement". But even if it were the choice, I don't accept that I have any moral responsibility to prevent 1 million people from killing themselves due to their refusal or inability to do anything productive. That is their responsibility, not mine.

I take it then that you are not a Christian.

I didn't forget that "we" have it; didn't you read the whole thread? I said exactly what I want to do about it: repudiate it.
So again, just let me know how much you think you need for legitimate govt functions. Me, I think the govt was way too big in the 90s, way too big in the 80s,..... and on and on, and so if you're just wanting to go back to 2 trillion or to the 1 trillion dollar budgets of the 90s, I'm not that excited or interested, though certainly it would be an improvement.

And yet you are supporting Ron Paul who only wants to go back to 2.6 trillion.

The SS and FCC are not Constitutionally authorized. The rest of them I guess are, but they're not Helmuth-authorized so they should eliminated too.

Before I answer about the FCC, do even know what their function is?

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Send notice to your grandmother that you are going to end her social security payments in two months and that she should "lip up" and take care of herself now. Tell her that "life will go on" when the money she needs from Medicare to help purchase her medications will also be cut off. She will surely thank you. Or not. Perhaps you can take her in?

Of course I would! I totally would! Both of my grandmothers are plenty wealthy enough and provident enough that they can take care of themselves as respectable human beings. They have no need to stoop to accept a dole -- they have some dignity.

 

[TomL]

Send notice to your grandmother that you are going to end her social security payments in two months and that she should "lip up" and take care of herself now. Tell her that "life will go on" when the money she needs from Medicare to help purchase her medications will also be cut off. She will surely thank you. Or not. Perhaps you can take her in?

Can't do something like that cold turkey. My family, for instance, depends on food stamps. Without them, we wouldn't be able to afford to pay the rent. This isn't because of us taking on a place we can't afford, it's because I haven't been able to find a job in the last year and my fiance is supporting us working fast food. The job market is tight. If you want to get people off welfare, you have to create an environment where the market can flourish, and this, currently, is not that environment. If you want to see real rioting in the streets where tens of thousands of people will die, then yeah, stop sending the checks.

Thank you Shane. That is the purpose for my plan, to get the markets flourishing again. I have said it before, the best entitlement reform is a job.

 

[TomL]

I think the OP needs to understand that Ron's position is very understanding of the realities of today's economy, society, and government.

You cannot and should not just cut all "entitlements" at the drop of a hat. It's unrealistic, unfeasible, and cruel due to the environment that has been created by our crony-capitalistic, fiat monetary, Keynesian run economy.

Even Ron, the purest of free market thinkers, understands you cannot pull the rug out.

The OP does understand that. I have heard Ron Paul say many times that you can't just "pull the rug out." That is my position as well. Where did you get the idea that I didn't understand that?