Santorum is out !

[Q9]

Well lets pick one of the dept. that he will be eliminating. The Interior dept. he will save 51billion but what does the dept. do ? Well one thing is manages the mineral resources on the outer continental shelf, so who will do that under Ron ? Will all that just be stopped ? Who will manage the parks ?

Not to say there is a lot to cut and should be cut but I think when you look at his numbers there's a lot of smoke.

He also wants to end the FED because they print to much money well if the government will stop spending so much they wont have to print so much. Who will control monetary matters, control interest rates ? congress ? the president ? no one ?

Don't get me wrong I would like to see less troops overseas but I think there are some places we need to keep some. I think most people see him as a guy trying to fix a watch with a sledge hammer. but that's just my opinion.

The Federal Reserve shouldn't exist anyway. They'd be printing money whether spending "required" it or not, and it has a tendency to inflate bubbles that invariably go bust. Also, why should the government "control" interest rates? That's manipulation of the market, which contributes heavily to the boom/bust cycle. If you're willing to be bored out of your mind for half an hour or so, go to the Ludwing von Mises Institute website and check out Austrian Business Cycle Theory (Yes, I know. The term itself is mind-bendingly boring, but it's useful information.).

Regarding the Department of the Interior - I know a lot of people don't like this, but honestly, places like large parks are better taken care of by states or - gasp - by private citizens. Ever been to Monticello? It's totally privately run, and is in exceptionally good condition. Likewise, Natural Bridge, VA, is still privately owned, and is also fantastically preserved.

@Symphony - should I take that as a compliment?

I kinda like the term. It makes me picture Optimus Prime beating politicians over the head with a copy of the Constitution.

 

[hemet dennis]

The Federal Reserve shouldn't exist anyway. They'd be printing money whether spending "required" it or not, and it has a tendency to inflate bubbles that invariably go bust. Also, why should the government "control" interest rates? That's manipulation of the market, which contributes heavily to the boom/bust cycle. If you're willing to be bored out of your mind for half an hour or so, go to the Ludwing von Mises Institute website and check out Austrian Business Cycle Theory (Yes, I know. The term itself is mind-bendingly boring, but it's useful information.).

Regarding the Department of the Interior - I know a lot of people don't like this, but honestly, places like large parks are better taken care of by states or - gasp - by private citizens. Ever been to Monticello? It's totally privately run, and is in exceptionally good condition. Likewise, Natural Bridge, VA, is still privately owned, and is also fantastically preserved.

@Symphony - should I take that as a compliment?

I kinda like the term. It makes me picture Optimus Prime beating politicians over the head with a copy of the Constitution.

Are you saying we had no boom/bust cycle before the FED ? History would say you're wrong.
You didn't say who would control monetary policy ?

So give all the national parks to the states how will they pay for them ? Some can run at a profit but most cant. What about the rest of the Interior dept. duties ?

 

[Q9]

Are you saying we had no boom/bust cycle before the FED ? History would say you're wrong.
You didn't say who would control monetary policy ?

So give all the national parks to the states how will they pay for them ? Some can run at a profit but most cant. What about the rest of the Interior dept. duties ?

I never said that. I made it clear that the Fed contributed heavily to the boom/bust cycle. History says that our economy was most stable when there were no central banks - no Bank of the United States, no BUS 2.0, no Federal Reserve. Manipulation of the economy is the single largest cause of the boom/bust cycle, and obviously a central bank is not needed for the government to manipulate it, but it makes it much easier. Did you even search Austrian Business Cycle Theory? The Mises Institute has a lot of info on it.

As for the Interior Dept., all I can say is, wow. I went to their website, and they clearly serve no legitimate function. No government should control a fifth of a country's land mass. What I saw when I went there was a bloated bureaucracy desperately trying to justify its existence. The rest of the Interior Dept. "duties" are nothing that can't be handled by the states or by citizens, assuming that the function needs to exist in the first place.

Regarding national parks - most, IMO, should be privatized. If tourism didn't provide enough profit, limited logging could provide extra income. Parks aren't some kind of sacred ground, you know, and they're hardly a big enough issue to affect an election where much bigger concerns are being addressed.

 

[hemet dennis]

I never said that. I made it clear that the Fed contributed heavily to the boom/bust cycle. History says that our economy was most stable when there were no central banks - no Bank of the United States, no BUS 2.0, no Federal Reserve. Manipulation of the economy is the single largest cause of the boom/bust cycle, and obviously a central bank is not needed for the government to manipulate it, but it makes it much easier. Did you even search Austrian Business Cycle Theory? The Mises Institute has a lot of info on it.

As for the Interior Dept., all I can say is, wow. I went to their website, and they clearly serve no legitimate function. No government should control a fifth of a country's land mass. What I saw when I went there was a bloated bureaucracy desperately trying to justify its existence. The rest of the Interior Dept. "duties" are nothing that can't be handled by the states or by citizens, assuming that the function needs to exist in the first place.

Regarding national parks - most, IMO, should be privatized. If tourism didn't provide enough profit, limited logging could provide extra income. Parks aren't some kind of sacred ground, you know, and they're hardly a big enough issue to affect an election where much bigger concerns are being addressed.

Well everything could be done by the states so lets just end the federal government. If we are going to have nothing to do with any other countries what do we need them for ?

 

[RHRanch]

Well everything could be done by the states so lets just end the federal government. If we are going to have nothing to do with any other countries what do we need them for ?

Also, privatization of parks has always worked out well and never resulted in the expoitation or destruction of lands..

 

[Matthew3590]

Well everything could be done by the states so lets just end the federal government. If we are going to have nothing to do with any other countries what do we need them for ?

No war means no involvement with other countries?

 

[Capvin]

Q9...I read your posts and am really amazed..Your statements are fantastic but I try and make it a point to not argue with anyone under 16. I will just say WOW and assure you that Ron Paul is proud of you. I would like to support him but I was always encouraged to never do a useless act.

 

[kevs-chickadees]

Wow some of these posts are very informative and others are just plain hilarious!

 

[Mahonri]

Wow some of these posts are very informative and others are just plain hilarious!

Agreed. Most Paulbots seem brainwashed, and that's what makes most of us laugh.... Even though I agree with most of what Ron Paul says.

The garbage spewed by folks about Romney is troubling. Romney is MUCH more conservative, more so even than Ronald Reagan! I wish EVERYONE, could get to know him like I do. He truly is America's last great hope to restore us to where we used to be.

Unfortunately, there are too many now on the take. Most Democrats have walked away from John Kennedy's famous statement... "Ask not what your country can do for you"... A present that's all MOST Democrats now ask, "What can the country DO for me?"

Obama cannot run on his record. He has failed this country and has committed financial suicide for us.
If we tax the rich more as he asks, we get 6 billion more in 'revenue'.
If we cut government spending by simply 1%, we save 60 billion. Which makes more sense?!?!?!?!
When we take capitol out of the hands of those who hire and create jobs, we put ourselves into further jeopardy.

Obama tries to divide America along racial and gender lines thinking that is what will get him re-elected. I pray most Americans cans see through his stupidity. .... that and he still blames the previous administration, when he spent more and put us further into debt in his first year in office than Bush did in EIGHT years. (And I am NOT a Bush fan... Bush was a liberal too!) It's what got us into this mess!

Romney knows how to fix things financially, he backs the Ryan plan... the only thing that can get us out of trouble without too much pain.

Like I said, I'd love to see Ron Paul as Secretary of the Treasury in a Romney administration. DISSOLVE THE FED!

 

[bakerjw]

Well everything could be done by the states so lets just end the federal government. If we are going to have nothing to do with any other countries what do we need them for ?

The federal government has its place but the founding fathers never intended for it to become the bloated monstrosity that we now have. It has sucked almost all power from the states. Supporters of this bloated beast would be equally inclined to as "Why do we need states?"