An honest question

This is also something to consider, the very value of money will be restored under a competitive currency system. Currently, a worker making $15.00 per hour has the effective purchasing power of $5.96 per hour in 1980 dollars, $2.81 per hour in 1970 dollars, $1.74 per hour in 1950 dollars and a grand total of $0.74 per hour in the REAL DOLLAR of 1913. So, the purchasing power or value of our current dollar has been so drastically reduced that if sound money is reintroduced into the economy there will be a massive, and almost instant boom. Jobs will be created, investment in the country will explode once again.

In fact, a couple of months ago there was an article in the Canadian Financial that stated the Canadians were worried that if Ron Paul was elected that it would make the United States so competitive that every nation, including Canada, would have to totally change the way they operated to keep up.

Eliminating the IRS would not happen overnight, neither would eliminating the CIA, Department of Education etc.

It would be a gradual process, with decent severance packages, retraining programs etc.

The CIA would be rolled into the military, not eliminated completely. So its uses would become more focused on intelligence gathering, not sabotage. It is ridiculous to believe that we would fire millions of people over night. That is a delusion, and is not only impossible for practical reasons but for obvious logical ones.

The real issue is; if we gave people retraining and decent severance packages what would happen to the economy? Instead of being a burden on the economy, these government employees would become part of the private sector.

Instead of costing the private sector (the economy) their wages and overhead costs in taxes, these employees would produce for the economy. How much of our workforce is stolen for the sake of bureaucracy?

Thus the tax burden on the private sector is reduced, and the production is increased in a gradual manner. Most definitely making us more competitive and wealthier.

The argument of sustaining useless government bureaucracies for the sake of "preserving government jobs" is ludicrous. Remember every job reduced, also reduces the tax burden on the people. If the government lets an employee costing $50,000/year go, then the tax burden is lightened on the economy by about $100,000/year (with equipment, supervisors, infrastructure, benefits, etc). This puts more money in the economy, and creates additional workforce for the economy.

You can't just fire everyone...that's retarded however people must realize every government dollar spent is a dollar taken from the economy, every government employee is one less worker producing in the economy.

By adding trained people to the workforce, and billions (if not hundreds of billions) of tax cuts we can actually afford would cause the economy to skyrocket.

Don't imagine for a second, that anyone who loses their cozy Gov job is going to just sit around on Welfare, they will reintegrate into society and the economy...as long as they are not all released at once.

...plans that is so detailed you must know each aspect to truly appreciate it. Follow the steps:

Return value to money by backing it with gold and other hard assets. Some critics say returning to gold standard will isolate the US from the world market, but the IMF and World Bank are there to prevent that. As soon as money is worth something...

Take the burdens of too much regulation off companies and small businesses. Cut taxes drastically, which will instantly spur tremendous growth and produce hundreds of thousands of jobs.

With the help of Congress, end the INCOME tax (not ALL taxes). I just don't see how this will result in loss of jobs, because do you know how many types of taxes there are in this country? I'm sure some would have to do a lateral move into another field of tax collecting, enforcement, etc. I really doubt jobs will be lost, and if there are lost jobs, there won't be that many. The words "ending the IRS" is just a term that most middle- and poor-class people associate with income taxes.

And if anyone is laid off, because of the growth and the new jobs it won't be hard to find another one very quickly.

There are rumors that Paul wants to end the CIA, but he actually said he wants to reign them in and hold them accountable. So...no lost jobs there, either. Just under new management, so to speak.

Transition is key, and Paul has said this over and over. He doesn't want anyone to go without a job or their Social Security during this transition. He has said that, too. I think he pretty much has a plan to deal with everything.

at the Department of Education can become teachers.

Read this essay: http://www.waynedaniel.ne...

It's pretty amazing. While New Zealand's reforms don't match exactly with Ron Paul's plan, it's all pretty much in the same spirit. In other words, the sorts of changes Dr. Paul wants to make are not untried experiments--major government downsizing has been accomplished in another country, and it works!

Thanks for the insight. I guessed as much (slowly absorbed by private industry) but wanted to hear other opinions as well. As for some of the more sarcastic comments, well... most IRS employees are sheeple, too, hehe. And "skilled" referred to those in all the agencies, not just IRS. If you don't think NSA has some of the smartest brains around, then that's your business. I'm not saying all of them, but I see no reason to make an idiot or enemy out of everyone just because they haven't yet seen the light.

The main economic reason that that we should limit the size of government departments is because the bureacracies do not behave as efficiently as companies in the market because there are no prices. Prices give us in the free market information about whether we are doing a good job or not.

Government employees provide 'free' services which distort price information and they do it inefficiently not because the people themselves are bad as much as the system is a bad system.

If these people were talented, skilled, workers they would be immediately needed in the market if for nothing else but to replace the functions of the government run entities with free market alternatives. Also in the mid-term you will see an increase in jobs because with smaller government there will be less taxes. With more money companies invest and expand. Expansion means more jobs.

The people that lose their tax-funded jobs will now get positions in profit funded jobs. This means their salaries will be determined by how productive they are in the market. Some will get lower paying jobs because they are unproductive. Others will get higher paying jobs because they were not utilized to their potential in the government.

Ron Paul has studied Austrian economics.
Read a book that Ron Paul has read (its only 120 pages):

Bureaucracy - by Ludwig von Mises

God forbid, they would actually have to get a real job.

You lost me at "skilled."

One thing they they could do is find jobs with up to 1/3 lower salaries and still come out ahead because they wouldn't have to pay income taxes anymore.

I'm more interested in letting the American people keep their hard earned money than I am in the job security of the ones who participate in taking it.

See this? Do you know what this is? This is the world's smallest violin playing for all the IRS agents of the country.

I do hear this argument frequently as well when talking about phasing out the IRS, the Federal Reserve System, the war-profiterring of the Military Industrial Complex, etc... These things are not just unConstitutional; they are immoral. The absurdity of their argument is tantamount to sympathizing with all the wealthy drug lords who would likely "lose their jobs" or at least their wealth if the War on Drugs was ended.

But most would not lose their job at the local level. It's funny that people are worried about the jobs of federal employees, yet they don't question the millions of jobs that have left to go oversees. In Germany in the 30's and 40's it was well known that the only secure job, and best job, was for the government. Is this the image we want to present? Most government agencies require so much of local government taxes, that the people would have more money, and lower taxes if the federal agency was not involved. Example: Department of Education. Property taxes are given to the federal government who pays the DoED employees, and system, and than trickles leftovers to the local schools. Take the DoED out, and you have more money for schools, lower taxes, more local control of teaching standards, and local employees get higher salaries. This example could be used for pretty much every needless department. Plus, get rid of the IRS, and you create more wealth, more incentive to start and promote business, which creates more jobs.

Is the easiest answer... giving everyone in the US a 30% or so immediate raise by getting out of the Income tax deal will generate small and big business (jobs)... just as having the troops back will generate jobs and increase consumer spending.