5 ms·

Ron Paul wants to cut $1 trillion in the first year, and end the wars. That would go a long way to paying off the debt. Plus he was against increasing the debt

Ron Paul wants to cut $1 trillion in the first year, and end the wars. That would go a long way to paying off the debt. Plus he was against increasing the debt limit, so he's the only one who truly realizes the debt problem, and that the country might implode if they keep spending as they do, with no cuts whatsoever.

shareme 15y ago
Ron Paul is somewhat an illogical idiot.. ever hear of the 1920s crash? We got out of that situation by guess.wait for it.. debt spending in ramping up to fighting WWII..
- Uhhrrr 15y ago
  You do know that there was an interval of twelve years between the Crash of '29 and our entry into WWII, right?
  - jellicle 15y ago
    Not sure what your point is. The Great Depression didn't end for the U.S. until World War II had begun and the U.S. had embarked on a massive public spending program - buying weapons.
    - skylan_q 15y ago
      GDP rose during the war, but it felt like a depression. What good is an increase in GDP if basic foodstuffs need to be rationed and people are getting killed? The recovery actually came in the post-war boom when government spending was slashed and 5 million people left military operations and joined the civilian workforce.
      - cwp 15y ago
        Right. So ideally, we want a big public spending program without a war.
        brc 15y ago
        No, you want lots of people to enter the workforce and be productive. The growth happened after the government spending (ie, military) was wound down. It was the retiring servicemen and women wanting to get on with the rest of their lives that caused the productivity boom.
        cwp 15y ago
        Really? You think that the government spending lots of money on the war is not what got us out of the Depression? Of course the boom happened after the war was over. During the war... there was a war on. All that effort was getting dropped on Europe instead of raising the standard of living in the US. People may not have had a lot material luxuries during the war, but they sure weren't unemployed.
    - clarky07 15y ago
      The point is that it wasn't just us borrowing more money. We did that for 12 years with no real success. The war brought huge amounts of demand for our goods from all over the world.
      - learc83 15y ago
        We also underwent forced austerity measures through rationing.
      - jellicle 15y ago
        No, the war brought huge amount of demand for goods from the U.S. Government, which wanted tanks and fighters and artillery shells. This demand created full employment and economic rebound - during the war. Even - gasp! - women were sucked into the labor force. After the war, the U.S. was in a great position to supply the world, having an economy running at full steam and no war damage to repair. But the Great Depression ended as war began, due to demand for military equipment.
- brc 15y ago
  You do forget or skip over 12 long years of massive spending and borrowing in order to try and get the economy going. Spending and borrowing that, by any objective measure, achieved very little in economic terms. When excessive debt is the problem, no amount of spending can cure it. The debt must be paid down or written off, most likely a combination of both. Sadly your type of thinking is pervasive because it sounds so compelling. But while nobody in their right mind runs up a credit card thinking that this will somehow make them richer, there persists a widespread belief that borrowing and spending somehow makes a country better off. It doesn't, and it won't. If anything positive is to come out of all of this, it might be the final discrediting of borrow and spend programs created in the name of Keynes. It will hopefully be the death of the widespread belief that you can borrow or tax your way to prosperity. Perhaps someone will come up with a kindergarten rhyme to teach children not to believe in free lunches.
ajross 15y ago
Balanced budgets as a long term policy are a fine thing, and absolutely a good idea. Austerity in the face of recession is madness. This is the Greece/Portugal/Ireland solution, and it's a terrible one. Paul may be one of the few politicians to earnestly care about the first issue; but he's yet another tea party whackjob with his head in the sand about the second.
- brc 15y ago
  Actually if you look at the economic growth of the 'austerity' countries it has been better than the economic growth of the 'stimulated' countries. They are both feeble, but Austerity is marginally outperforming stimulating at the current time, and down the track it will beat it hands down. Yes, it sucks either way, but when debt is the problem, more debt is not the cure. 'Stimulating' is just borrowing future funds to try and get things going now, which, at best, just moves the problem down the road. Many people are quick to try and string up politicians who point out the truth. Sadly this means the politicians who push the problem forwards and reassure people are the ones that get voted in. And the problem gets pushed further down the track and gets even more malignant.
  - dasil003 15y ago
    Couldn't it go either way though? I mean ultimately it just depends on what returns they can get. My impression is that the New Deal in the Depression gave good ROI because the infrastructure improvements opened up new avenues of growth. However if you have massive corruption like in Greece then you're probably better off with austerity.
    - brc 15y ago
      When you build the Hoover dam and the interstate system, yes. When you loan money to stimulate defense contractors, non-competitive solar manufacturers and for all sorts of other boondoggles and build bridges to nowhere, no. The problem is that the process of spending on infrastructure rarely is positive in most places for a whole host of reasons. Therefore, austerity is better because it avoids malinvestment. Doing nothing is better than wasting capital. If you borrow money to spend, the spending has to create more return than the cost of the borrowed money, or the money is wasted. This is true in the case of the individual, the company and the government. Individuals rarely invest money for greater returns (think : new cars), companies that last always invest for greater returns, but governments have few incentives to do so. They would much rather make a big splash and announce jobs now, than worry about whether or not they are creating something worthwhile. The problem, of course, is always in measuring the positive returns of large public spending. But again, in times of over-borrowing, governments should always err on the side of caution.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

shareme 15y ago

Ron Paul is somewhat an illogical idiot.. ever hear of the 1920s crash? We got out of that situation by guess.wait for it.. debt spending in ramping up to fighting WWII..

Uhhrrr 15y ago
You do know that there was an interval of twelve years between the Crash of '29 and our entry into WWII, right?
- jellicle 15y ago
  Not sure what your point is. The Great Depression didn't end for the U.S. until World War II had begun and the U.S. had embarked on a massive public spending program - buying weapons.
  - skylan_q 15y ago
    GDP rose during the war, but it felt like a depression. What good is an increase in GDP if basic foodstuffs need to be rationed and people are getting killed? The recovery actually came in the post-war boom when government spending was slashed and 5 million people left military operations and joined the civilian workforce.
    - cwp 15y ago
      Right. So ideally, we want a big public spending program without a war.
      - brc 15y ago
        No, you want lots of people to enter the workforce and be productive. The growth happened after the government spending (ie, military) was wound down. It was the retiring servicemen and women wanting to get on with the rest of their lives that caused the productivity boom.
        cwp 15y ago
        Really? You think that the government spending lots of money on the war is not what got us out of the Depression? Of course the boom happened after the war was over. During the war... there was a war on. All that effort was getting dropped on Europe instead of raising the standard of living in the US. People may not have had a lot material luxuries during the war, but they sure weren't unemployed.
  - clarky07 15y ago
    The point is that it wasn't just us borrowing more money. We did that for 12 years with no real success. The war brought huge amounts of demand for our goods from all over the world.
    - learc83 15y ago
      We also underwent forced austerity measures through rationing.
    - jellicle 15y ago
      No, the war brought huge amount of demand for goods from the U.S. Government, which wanted tanks and fighters and artillery shells. This demand created full employment and economic rebound - during the war. Even - gasp! - women were sucked into the labor force. After the war, the U.S. was in a great position to supply the world, having an economy running at full steam and no war damage to repair. But the Great Depression ended as war began, due to demand for military equipment.
brc 15y ago
You do forget or skip over 12 long years of massive spending and borrowing in order to try and get the economy going. Spending and borrowing that, by any objective measure, achieved very little in economic terms. When excessive debt is the problem, no amount of spending can cure it. The debt must be paid down or written off, most likely a combination of both. Sadly your type of thinking is pervasive because it sounds so compelling. But while nobody in their right mind runs up a credit card thinking that this will somehow make them richer, there persists a widespread belief that borrowing and spending somehow makes a country better off. It doesn't, and it won't. If anything positive is to come out of all of this, it might be the final discrediting of borrow and spend programs created in the name of Keynes. It will hopefully be the death of the widespread belief that you can borrow or tax your way to prosperity. Perhaps someone will come up with a kindergarten rhyme to teach children not to believe in free lunches.

ajross 15y ago

Balanced budgets as a long term policy are a fine thing, and absolutely a good idea. Austerity in the face of recession is madness. This is the Greece/Portugal/Ireland solution, and it's a terrible one. Paul may be one of the few politicians to earnestly care about the first issue; but he's yet another tea party whackjob with his head in the sand about the second.

brc 15y ago
Actually if you look at the economic growth of the 'austerity' countries it has been better than the economic growth of the 'stimulated' countries. They are both feeble, but Austerity is marginally outperforming stimulating at the current time, and down the track it will beat it hands down. Yes, it sucks either way, but when debt is the problem, more debt is not the cure. 'Stimulating' is just borrowing future funds to try and get things going now, which, at best, just moves the problem down the road. Many people are quick to try and string up politicians who point out the truth. Sadly this means the politicians who push the problem forwards and reassure people are the ones that get voted in. And the problem gets pushed further down the track and gets even more malignant.
- dasil003 15y ago
  Couldn't it go either way though? I mean ultimately it just depends on what returns they can get. My impression is that the New Deal in the Depression gave good ROI because the infrastructure improvements opened up new avenues of growth. However if you have massive corruption like in Greece then you're probably better off with austerity.
  - brc 15y ago
    When you build the Hoover dam and the interstate system, yes. When you loan money to stimulate defense contractors, non-competitive solar manufacturers and for all sorts of other boondoggles and build bridges to nowhere, no. The problem is that the process of spending on infrastructure rarely is positive in most places for a whole host of reasons. Therefore, austerity is better because it avoids malinvestment. Doing nothing is better than wasting capital. If you borrow money to spend, the spending has to create more return than the cost of the borrowed money, or the money is wasted. This is true in the case of the individual, the company and the government. Individuals rarely invest money for greater returns (think : new cars), companies that last always invest for greater returns, but governments have few incentives to do so. They would much rather make a big splash and announce jobs now, than worry about whether or not they are creating something worthwhile. The problem, of course, is always in measuring the positive returns of large public spending. But again, in times of over-borrowing, governments should always err on the side of caution.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]