Ron Paul faces $1.1 trillion budget shortfall - Wash Post

http://www.thebudgetgraph.com/site/index.php?main_page=produ...

2008 budget: 2.9Trillion

per heritage foundation 1999/2000 year budget =1.7 to 1.9 trillion depending on adjustment to inflation to determine real numbers

Goal=1.247 Trillion dollar income tax ended for 2008 and beyond
Total request budget 2.9 Trillion for 2008
Current budget able to support 2.6 trillion

12 steps to getting rid of 1.247 Trillion income tax:

1) cut out the 240 billion for iraq
2) cut out 360 billion for oversees bases in germany, japan, south korea, etc. leave strategic launching bases but bring back the money to US and for modernizing the military planes, missile defense, etc. increase soldier pay and get more special forces.
3) Put in mirror tax like VAT to stop 200 billion dollar traid deficit due to other nations not using free trade while we do. savings 260 billion
4) put social security on hard assets std(gold, silver, platinum, oil, land, etc)--creating ability to get people off as value goes up in assets and getting large return on hard assets investments allowing 200 billion a year reduction in Soc Sec. taxes
5) Non-Military/National Security Discretionary currently 358; cut 100 billion to fix the homeland security mess and stream line it.
6) Negotiate and build foreign prisons for criminal illegals and empty 1/3 of the US prison space saving 1B a year and putting strong deterant into the border security infrastructure.

Savings=1.1 Trillion dollars

You can then either cut another 147 billion across all budgets or target waste inside of each budget...sure you can find it:)

OR

Current debt interest 2008=261 Billion of 9 Trillion in debt

Paying down this debt with the surplus would get rid of the debt. Starting with dangerous holders such as China in the first year since they could hurt our economy. As this occurred the dollar would go up in value, jobs would increase, tax roles would increase and the debt interest would drop.

By the end of Ron's 2nd term their would be at least 1.36Trillion of total savings for the following presidents budget. The Tax coffers would be much increased from income, capital gains and corporate rev. As Ron's last act in his 2nd term he could permanently do away with the income tax. This would give him the time to put in all needed processes to make this major achievement stable for next 1000 years.

Anyhow..not hard to do..same as Ron suggested..just cant stick you head in the sand and ask people with no vision to figure this out in washington or the press.

The information about the supposed "shortfall" is factually incorrect as it does not take into account that Dr. Ron Paul wants to withdraw from Iraq - as soon as safely possible - and completely (unlike most of the other candidates - both Democratic and Republican).

In 2006 Joseph Stiglitz, former chief economist of the World Bank and winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, has suggested the total costs of the Iraq War on the US economy will be $1 trillion in a conservative scenario and could top $2 trillion in a moderate one.

Source:
Linda Bilmes; Joseph Stiglitz (2006). The economic costs of the Iraq war: an appraisal three years after the beginning of the conflict. National Bureau of Research. Retrieved on 2006-08-15.

In 2006 the Congressional Research Service estimated weekly spending at almost $2 billion per week, and that total expenditures have now topped half a trillion dollars.

Source:
http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/09...

In 2007 the U.S. Congressional Budget Office estimates $2.4 trillion long-term war costs:
"The U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion by 2017"
"CBO estimated that between 2008 and 2017, the wars could cost slightly more than $1 trillion, assuming overall troop strength is cut to 75,000 by 2013."

Source:
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN24507537200...

Hence, even _completely_ _ignoring_ all the other proposed sources of savings - problem is solved. Furthermore, when we actually include these, it seems that in fact Ron Paul Faces Budget Surplus! :-)

There fact checker has some flaws
About the Obama not puting his hand over his heart in Iowa the link above calls the claim false,however if you go to snopes ,they have abc video of the whole event and you can clearly see its true,
The washington post has no credability

Apparently Ron Paul used a one-third figure last year to describe the ratio of income tax to federal revenue. But he wasn't a candidate then; he is now, and I heard him use a figure of 43% this year. Not sure why that changed, but I'm sure the campaign or Dr. Paul can explain if given the chance. And the fact checker seems to be giving them that chance, at least for now. But the line "it took us about five minutes" reeks of bias.

I don't know whose numbers are right. That is not the point. The fact that it is now being discussed and maybe refuted will reveal how plausible it is to end the income tax. If RP is off by even $200B then that will open the debate as to how to close that gap and get rid of this stupid tax. We have never had this debate it is a good start.

I was just thinking about this hit piece that you posted on Dr Paul. And the thing that the washington post is not taking into account is the size of the federal government now. They are saying, with the size of the government now, we cannot afford it without income tax , even if we cut our spending overseas. Yet, as Dr Paul has said repeatedly, he would like to cut a lot of the spending here as well, that means elminating a lot of federal programs and departments, which would dramatically reduce the cost and size of the federal government, making it possible not to have a federal income tax.

"Its time for a new Revolution! Ron Paul 2008"