Comments on: Fred Thompson Releases Substantial Plan to Reduce Federal Spending http://www.muditajournal.com/archives/490.php Mindfulness and Individualism Thu, 02 Feb 2012 16:37:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: kraorh http://www.muditajournal.com/archives/490.php#comment-60165 kraorh Thu, 10 Jan 2008 07:37:53 +0000 http://www.muditajournal.com/archives/490.php#comment-60165 Fair enough. Maybe I haven't spent enough time at his website, but I think you may be right that he doesn't have as detailed a plan as Thompson. I'm thinking that it may simply be because he's a lot more "slash and burn" than Thompson. Whereas Thompson would carefully go, program by program, cutting here, eliminating here, scaling back there, etc., Paul would just tear entire departments down altogether, like the Department of Education, Health and Human Services, and so forth. I think there are virtues to both approaches. The latter is more ambitious, but Thompson's would probably have a better chance of being passed, and even our goal was essentially the same as Paul's, there's wisdom in the old cliche that Rome wasn't built in a day. I also seem to remember Paul saying that we could essentially eliminate the Income Tax, and replace it with nothing, if we only scaled back government spending to the levels it was at 10 or 15 years ago. Not as detailed, but we could make it as detailed as we'd like by just picking up the 1997-98 fiscal year budget. Fair enough. Maybe I haven’t spent enough time at his website, but I think you may be right that he doesn’t have as detailed a plan as Thompson. I’m thinking that it may simply be because he’s a lot more “slash and burn” than Thompson. Whereas Thompson would carefully go, program by program, cutting here, eliminating here, scaling back there, etc., Paul would just tear entire departments down altogether, like the Department of Education, Health and Human Services, and so forth. I think there are virtues to both approaches. The latter is more ambitious, but Thompson’s would probably have a better chance of being passed, and even our goal was essentially the same as Paul’s, there’s wisdom in the old cliche that Rome wasn’t built in a day.

I also seem to remember Paul saying that we could essentially eliminate the Income Tax, and replace it with nothing, if we only scaled back government spending to the levels it was at 10 or 15 years ago. Not as detailed, but we could make it as detailed as we’d like by just picking up the 1997-98 fiscal year budget.

]]> By: Joshua Zader http://www.muditajournal.com/archives/490.php#comment-60164 Joshua Zader Thu, 10 Jan 2008 07:21:52 +0000 http://www.muditajournal.com/archives/490.php#comment-60164 Kraorh, Point taken. Paul's heart is in the right place when it comes to cutting government spending, but the only "plan" I see from him (in the Issues section of his site) that directly addresses this subject is this relatively <a href="http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/debt-and-taxes/" rel="nofollow">brief statement</a> that he would reduce taxes. Laudable as that is, it's far from a detailed or substantial plan that identifies the specific areas where government spending can and should be trimmed. I find Fred's approach to be much more savvy, more indicative of someone who understands and is willing to work within the system. In other words, it has some chance of actually being enacted. So -- no, I don't think Paul's plan to cut government spending qualifies as both "detailed and substantial" like Fred's does. Joshua Kraorh,

Point taken.

Paul’s heart is in the right place when it comes to cutting government spending, but the only “plan” I see from him (in the Issues section of his site) that directly addresses this subject is this relatively brief statement that he would reduce taxes.

Laudable as that is, it’s far from a detailed or substantial plan that identifies the specific areas where government spending can and should be trimmed.

I find Fred’s approach to be much more savvy, more indicative of someone who understands and is willing to work within the system. In other words, it has some chance of actually being enacted.

So — no, I don’t think Paul’s plan to cut government spending qualifies as both “detailed and substantial” like Fred’s does.

Joshua

]]> By: kraorh http://www.muditajournal.com/archives/490.php#comment-60163 kraorh Thu, 10 Jan 2008 07:08:03 +0000 http://www.muditajournal.com/archives/490.php#comment-60163 The "only" Republican? *cough* Ron Paul *cough* *cough* Still, he has a hell of a better chance than Paul, and this is encouraging. Of course, then we'd have a President Thompson, making <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_qQt9IrUc0" rel="nofollow">this YouTube adaptation of Galt's Speech</a> even more prophetic. The “only” Republican? *cough* Ron Paul *cough* *cough*

Still, he has a hell of a better chance than Paul, and this is encouraging. Of course, then we’d have a President Thompson, making this YouTube adaptation of Galt’s Speech even more prophetic.

]]>