11 votes

Why Ron Paul's Massive Cuts to Social Programs Wouldn't Be An Economic Disaster

Implementing Ron Paul's plan to "Restore America" would require massive cuts to various social programs across the board. Such things as food stamp programs would see over a 50 percent reduction in funding. Whenever a politician - other than Ron Paul - is asked about cutting 1 trillion dollars from the federal budget in just 1 year, they say it would be economic suicide or disastrous to do so. Even Mitt Romney is on the record for saying such things. There are others who say that those who depend on these programs would end up homeless and would starve as they are forced to fend for themselves.

Hearing such critiques of Paul's economic plan might turn away the average, casual listener of the news. One could see how the repetition of the words - disastrous, homeless, and starving - on televised news stations could make a plan sound impractical even though it remains the only detailed planned provided by any politician to address our economic crisis. Millions of people who watch Fox News everyday have just acquired their ammunition to shoot down a plan that could "Restore America." Their talking point becomes, "Cutting 1 trillion dollars from the federal budget in 1 year would cause millions to starve." Simple, yet reasonable enough to no longer consider it a valid option. Just what Fox News - or any other outlet for that matter - wants you to think.

It is this ideology that I have a major problem with. Many people believe that government is needed to prevent starvation, homelessness, or even economic crisis. Besides the agreed upon exception of national defense, I believe government should have a very limited role in the day-to-day aspects of our society. To the casual viewer of televised news media, I probably sound inhumane, racist, or any one of the other labels given to those who believe in true freedom and liberty.

To those casual viewers, I would like to share some information with you that might provide some insight on what a truly free society might look like. One where government is not needed to regulate or control a situation. The casual viewer might ask, "well if government does not help the starving and homeless, who will? Wouldn't they end up dying!" Here's a link to a news story that I'm sure millions of casual viewers already know about:


This story comes straight from Fox News which millions watch/read/listen to every day. A feel good story if there ever was one. This lady was not starving nor was she homeless. Yet for withstanding a slew of verbal assaults from middle school students on a bus ride, she now has a trip to Disneyland and over 500,000 dollars in donations from average citizens which that amount continues to climb as I write this. Now don't get me wrong - no one should have to experience such belittlement - but answer this. Will millions of Americans die of starvation because Ron Paul's plan to "Restore America" cuts over 50 percent of funding for food stamps? You decide.

For Liberty,


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

People won't be dying

Because Ron Paul isn't an idiot. People weren't dying in the streets before all of these social welfare programs existed and he doesn't plan to simply shut them all down at once. He's made it clear that rather he plans to slowly phase them out while making deep cuts in government spending. The cuts in spending and halting of inflation would strengthen the economy and make it much more reasonable and doable for people to help each other out. Most people saying we need government to make sure people don't starve and such is is usually due to a lack of information.

Politics, freedom, truth, Ron Paul.Feel free to check out my blog on politics in my profile.

It WOULD be a problem if it

It WOULD be a problem if it wasn't going to be also followed by massive deregulation across the board and massive tax cuts.

Cutting the life support while still holding the economy in a choke hold would guarantee it's death.

This Post Does Not Address Negativity Of General Populace

concerning the consequences to real people if $1 trillion dollars were to be cutfrom the budget in 1 year. Is it not true that cutting a bunch of federal agencies would result in may thousands being unemployed? What does Paul propose to help those people until they find employment again? Is it through unemployment benefits? Welfare? Does such cutting include tax laws and deregulation such that a RP supporter could claim that productivity and job creation in the PRIVATE sector would be realized in a relatively short amount of time? Paul NEEDED to convey how those losing jobs through "slash and burn" would be able to provide for themselves and their families - something realistic that could be repeated over and over. Otherwise, the budget idea was just a waste of time, a gimmick, because the campaign would have to know that the general populace would reject the idea and the candidate.

I am very glad you posted this subject, and I hope people who wish for a smaller, less intrusive government will realize that libertarian philosophies and ideology can be realized if ideas for budgeting are transitional. This means that libertarians, consrvatives and consitutionalists must create policies that are intelligent and creative to the point that the general populace can understand and support. After all the biggest "industry" in America is goverment.

I think what most people do not realize is that the budget proposed by Paul and all candidates is a "wish list" and would have to be compromised on through thevoting process in congress. It would have been very useful if Paul could have conveyed that he would be willing to compromise - that his budget is just a starting point for a balanced budget debate process.

That argument was raised about the sharp reduction in govt

spending following WW2, but it proved to be false.

In the four years from peak World War II spending in 1944 to 1948, the U.S. government cut spending by $72 billion—a 75-percent reduction. It brought federal spending down from a peak of 44 percent of gross national product (GNP) in 1944 to only 8.9 percent in 1948, a drop of over 35 percentage points of GNP.

While government spending fell like a stone, federal tax revenues fell only a little, from a peak of $44.4 billion in 1945 to $39.7 billion in 1947 and $41.4 billion in 1948. In other words, from peak to trough, tax revenues fell by only $4.7 billion, or 10.6 percent. Yet, the economy boomed. The unemployment rate, which was artificially low at the end of the war because many millions of workers had been drafted into the U.S. armed services, did increase. But during the years from 1945 to 1948, it reached its peak at only 3.9 percent in 1946, and, for the months from September 1945 to December 1948, the average unemployment rate was only 3.5 percent.


Free energy would be a

Free energy would be a disaster for the energy industry:


No Man's need constitutes an obligation on the part of another man to fulfill that need.

you are correct

One thing that I don't see mentioned in this talk of losing jobs with a cut in government, is the under ground economy and the potential productivity possibilities. I think the assumption is the people unemployed are unemployed and any layoffs will result in people not working. It may be a shock to some, but many people collecting unemployment and food stampa are working, just as there are people who are defaulting on mortagages that can well afford to pay their bills. There some very highly skilled people in government that if laid off would find new and very productive employment in the private sector. I know cutting government and its benefits would add to the economy not detract from it. I am sure for many food stamps are necessary, however I also know for a fact many are collecting them because they can. Its just another way government can justify itself and create a dependent class

Ultimately, I think this is

Ultimately, I think this is mostly true. A healthier economy would allow such massive cuts anyways.

However, I get the counter-argument that you need to raise taxes as well. We can't balance the budget on spending cuts alone, especially since the calculus of his cuts are a little off.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Ron Paul has said, its a spending problem

Not a revenue problem. So as I understand RP, yes you can balance the budget with spending cuts. IMO when RP says he will cut a trillion in a year, he is well aware much more can be cut, if there is a will to do it. Romney on the other hand seems reluctant to even mention any real down sizing of government, other than vague references to balance the budget in 8 years. When Romney stated that cutting that much would hurt the economy, that's all you need to know to understand that Romney is not a fiscal conservative.

See the thing is, we are not

See the thing is, we are not only spending more than ever in a long time, we are also taxing less than we have in a long time.

Ron Paul forgets that even in the time of the founders, they collected tax revenue of between 4-8% of GDP, with no income tax. Now, omitting social insurance taxes, we pay about 9% in taxes, even though government is necessarily bigger than it was during the times of the founders (for example, our military spending has grown because this country DOES have a lot more than it needs to be defended from. Does it need to be 1 trillion? No. But it has to be more than the 150 billion it would be if we followed the budgets of the 1800s...

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a