Well, if the government took the $16 trillion the Fraudulent Reserve counterfited and gave to the banks and instead gave it to all the American Citizens we could all buy a new house, car, send everyone to college, etc, etc, etc we would all be better off.
Only J O B of our government is to protect our borders. That is it. PERIOD! These people can do what others have done in the past and that is start their own businesses. Shocking I know.
It's not the government's job to employee people. Anyone who's ever studied the Constitution would know the offices he wants to eliminate are not Consitutional to begin with. However, most people never bother and this video is proof.
FOLLOW THESE STEPS 1. COVER YOUR MOUTH WITH YOUR HAND 2. WHISPER A WISH INTO YOUR HAND 3. POST THIS ON TO TEN OTHER COMMENTS 4. NOW LOOK AT YOUR HAND
This video, I suspect inadvertently addresses the conundrum the rank and file are experiencing today. If the government would take their forearm off the throat of the free market and allow small business to grow it would very quickly absorb the displaced Government workers.
The aforementioned conundrum is negated by the increasing amount of indigent and lazy fucks pervasive in America.
Land of the free and home of the slave, that's our country!
this is the problem with the government being so large and entwined in our lives. if the guvment were working properly and how the founding fathers intended all those jobs that are actually necessary would be private sector, the rest wouldn't exist, and this video would never have even been made because the workings of our guvment system would be like the internal components of my laptop, doing what they were made to do but not being seen or heard.
eliminating government jobs would free up money that is taken from taxpayers, much of which would be spent in the private sector creating jobs and wealth.
I can answer that question the reason to get rid of these agencies is to elimanate federal power. The individual states will take over these agencies and the federal jobs will become state jobs. Also if we are going to have a discussion about healtcare lets make sure first that the meds we are getting from are gov't do not have poisons or toxins in them designed to kill 80% of us.
These people have degrees, and foremost, leverage. If one of these people you mention were to go resume vs. resume against a college graduate for a $60000 to $80000 position, who do you think gets consideration? Executive Branch is one branch of thousands of positions from city water and sewage to NORAD. These people would be fine. Also, for such a "cerebral" question, your (typical American) admitted submissiveness to celebrities who don't care about you scares me more than Ron Paul.
If less government means allot of unemployed government workers then it's fine with me. Shit go start a business of your own or find a different line of work to get into. That's how you deal with them.
I'll try to answer your question properly Razela. Many of the jobs would still exist, government would just not be in charge. If social security is privatized it means it's still there, just not with government ownership. If you get rid of the taxes applied to big government, you promote companies to invest in the nation which would bring alot more jobs home.
None of it would happen over night. Systematic transitions and healthy climate would create incentives for new job opportunity.
Large corporations could stop outsourcing and bring some of those jobs home. That could be one solution. The government employs about 3 million people so a combination of efforts could be used to overcome this dilemma. Its better than having the gov control every aspect of our lives. Good question though
They have to get real jobs providing goods or services to people who are paying for them voluntarily instead of being funded at gunpoint (taxation).
In other words: fuck them. They can get a job like anyone else. If they can't, it's just proof that they were parasites sucking the life from our country, and once removed from their host, they should DIE. That's what parasites do.
The cuter side of politics is right! Hi there [insert cool guy smile here]. Well, Razela, I'm sure he wouldn't (even if the Congress let him do it at all) destroy all of that bureacracy right away. But when he did, there would have been many other jobs in his type of economy. With a stronger dollar, a free market (including less corporate restrictions), and free trade, you'd be surprised at how many jobs crop up. Remember, our country worked well without these institutions for a long time.
It will be to your benefit to make your questions as succinct as possible: "The government is the number one employer in the US, if you eliminate its institutions what are your plans to deal with these people?"
Yah, I realized afterwards that many (not all, but a lot) of the Ron Paul supporters have a mentality similar to those of religious extremists. Judging by the comments, I'm pretty sure most of them probably watched only like 15 secs of the video, or possibly just read the title.
@Razela What happened was that your herd mentality brain could not cope with hearing the real reality or truth whenever it was that you finally heard it from Ron Paul, so you immediately shut off your logical thinking and asked some sarcastic, and what you believe to be a rhetorical question.
Yes Razela, your right... and your so smart! The Dept. of Education makes all the kids so much smarter! The more people with suits you put into a building 1500 miles away....
that have no contact with your children, the more educated they will be! Hey Razela, me and a few of my unempoyed friends could work there for 100k a year plus full benefits for life totaling $3 million each and we could make your kids LIKE SO MUCH SMARTER. Just add it on to the $200,000 you already owe as a taxpayer! ITS GONNA BE GREAT! SAY YES TO EDUCATION!
I have a question for Ron Paul, not a sheeple one, but one that has the current American situation at hand.
Is there any way we could back the hundreds of billions of dollars that have been stolen from the real economically productive American workers, the ones that actually form the economy, and put into the hands of gang elected drastically, if not criminally, overpaid people? Or perhaps the $9,000 per American taxpayer that was handed to foreign banks during the bailout?
In political reality, if a preseident caused, say, a planned 5% increase in unemployment, he sure as hell had better have a plan to ease that many people back into the market. Or else he would have even less of Paul's snowball chance in hell of getting votes. Am I right?
They would be producing products to sell to other countries. Basic 'check book' economics. If we sell more than we buy, we get more, people work less, and we can spend more time on youtube. This is instead of slaving away 8-16 hours a day only to have 3/4 of our check given to a wasteful government.
On Tuesday, the U.S. national debt topped $9 trillion for the first time in history, according to the U.S. Treasury Department's daily accounting of the national debt. Nine trillion dollars!
A million seconds is roughly 12 days, whereas a billion seconds is approximately 32 years.
The U.S. debt stands at $9 trillion. If my calculator is working, then at a dollar a second, the U.S. could be debt- free in the year 290007.
Don't think of it all as just jobs. A job has to produce something or create something. But government jobs don't produce anything and don't help anything, this is why they must be made financed by our taxes. So in short, the sole purpose of guberment jobs is to drain your taxes into a bottomless pit.
Think about all those 'useless' jobs in government. Who pays for those jobs? You and I, we pay out of our taxes. So cutting out those jobs will promote the economy by reducing the tax burden.
And if those guberment jobs actually produced anything, then you and I will take up the slack and produce the same thing those jobs were producing. But let's be honest, gubment jobs have never produced anything.
I think his plan is to let them go. It is not the presidents job to find work for people. I think we have all lost a job before and should be able to find another one as needed. Just as others have said there would be new markets for some of these people to find work.
Also don't you think if we are not all sending our earned money to the federal government through tax dollars we could use more money for things like the education of our children?
Truly your State government pays for your public schools as they do now. The Dept of Education is just a huge office with lots of people that make decisions like "no child left behind". Don't you think your state can make better decisions for the public schools that some office in DC? When Dr. Paul has an idea about something it is a well thought out thought by someone whom has lots of experience in the political field. He knows what he is talking about.
Truly your education system is funded by the State governments and the Federal side has just created a department to hand out money here and there as they see fit and start slogans like "no children left behind". The public school system in your area is handled by your state so why must we pay more people to sit in offices and think about how they can best distribute the money. Your state can do that and much better than a big nonfunctional office in a state that is not even close to you.
If a job needs to be done, then someone will pay a worker to do it. If it doesnt need to be done, then we shouldn't use the gov't to pay that worker anyway.
So, gov't workers who don't have useful jobs or skills would have to go out and do something profitable in order to earn money, thus the salaries they earn would be a net benefit to society instead of a net detracter.
Many of these people, whos jobs do have REAL value, would just switch to the private sector.
The Department of Homeland Security didn't create new jobs. It simply moved people around and put them into another bureacracy. Governments don't creat jobs, companies do.
It would be a gradual transition. If we got rid of the all the government program bullsh**, the free market would fill in the gaps. Of course it cant happen overnight, but it HAS to happen. We cant expect the government to control our infrastructure or our economy.
Here's what you've got to realize. It's not the government's responsibility to create employment or stimulate the economy. That it is the job of the free market.
Is it sad that people will lose their jobs? Of course. But there will be new jobs. Better jobs. If Ron Paul eliminates the current government-imposed restrictions and regulations on businesses and entrepreneurs, business will boom and employment will rise.
But it is never the government's job to create jobs.
If we didn't have a GubMent many of us would get anal probed by all them aliens, not mexicans (although the coyotes might get horny) I mean UFO invasions, when the U.AssOfA. has downsized its military force down to ineffective levels.
Except dudes from San FranSicko, do you think people would enjoy getting anal probed by strangers? I think not
dont feel sorry for any of those that lose their "gov" jobs, worry about all those that lost a job with big companies like GM. Remember, john mcain said "less" jobs, what do you think he was talking about? Plus, once we get rid of the illegals, the unemployed "gov" guys can be pickers and cut lawns.
you have a good point. in fact, the best solution to unemployment would be for the government to get even bigger. and raise taxes so they could pay these employees. or just borrow the money. if everyone worked for the government there would be no unemployment yay!
All the unemployed people laid off by Ron Paul's government can get jobs for all the businesses that have to pay less taxes, and they'll get to keep what they make, so even a somewhat lower salary would still bring more home. On top of that, with a hard currency and less government interference, everyone will be free to do their jobs better, then we'll have lower costs and higher quality choices, as well.
People asked similar questions when World War II ended and so many were going to be discharged from the armed forces. It turned out the private sector did a very good job of assimilating them. Part of the reason, I think, was the Fed's easy money policy that made it easier for businesses to expand and hire people. Since RP is critical of the Fed's easy money policy earlier this decade, it would be interesting to hear if he would accept a similar policy to facilitate government downsizing.
Not a big Ron Paul supporter but here we go: The boom the economy would experience would employ those people. It wouldn't simply be the people lose their job, and our unemployed. Billions of dollars would be kept in the hands of citizens, where they belong, and that money would be used to buy yachts, goods, services, anything, and would cause a huge uptick in the economy, which would necessitate jobs. That is, if you believe in capitalist theory, which you should.
you will have efficiency, competition, more productivity. everyone keeps the fruit of their labor. no welfare and easy money. people would go and earn it.
Those agencies are unconstitutional. These agencies regulate things more than they were ever supposed to, creating thousands of jobs. Jobs, which are useless, and do not provide anything. These people will have to find employment elsewhere. I am almost certain that without the substantial number of regulations made by these asinine agencies, we will be able to bring back more industry to this country. The Federal Government has too much power, and eventually, everyone will realize that.
The best solution is to slash the government budget, "downsize the government so they don't downsize us" (catchy slogan, probably needs refining) because if government spending is slashed, the tax bill goes down. Then, the more we can pay off the trillions of national debt, the less we have to pay to service the interest, and the less tax we will eventually have to pay. Then the money can be used for something useful.
I'm tied of seeing my tax dollars spent on goverment employees we do not need. They do not serve the people that pay them. Let them go to work for the corporations they are already working to help.
Iam glad you agree that we need to get rid of this parasitic inefficient burocracies, in other You tube videos he relatively answers the question of how, obviously he cannot go into every single detail about every single agency.
Didn't get picked? For what? Ron Paul did feature it on his favourites. I mean, an answer would be cooler, but at least he noticed it. You should go check out the question I submitted to the Republican debates. It had to do with the issue of freedom of religion vs. the "demonism" bestowed upon atheists in politics.
But generally speaking he will prioritize, get rid or modify the policies and agencies that are affecting the US the most first, also the ones that are easier to do and have less damaging immediate effects,do it GRADUALLY, he also has transition programs. when he talks about getting rid of all these agencies he is saying it from an idealistic point of view, but he is also a realist and I have total trust he will take all factors into account and bring much needed change to this country.
We are having a similar problem locally. Our county is at the maximum millage for property taxes. The county representatives passed a budget that was over the revenue intake. They then petitioned the state court to allow them to tax us at a rate above what was allowed in the state, and were granted permission to do so. They stated that unless they raised the tax, 80 county employees would have to be laid off. Boo Hoo! Lay them off!
That's pretty scary. I wonder if I started a business and over-extended myself, if I could get the legislature to force people to monetarily support my business like that. Well, some businesses have been able to do that (S&Ls, Chrysler Corp., etc.)
Maybe if people understood that gov't has become a "for profit corporation," they would be more selective about whom they elect to run it for us.
The same goes on state and national levels. The govt is not supposed to be a self-imposed babysitter for the public at the unwilling cost of said public. In PA they take our "road tax" on fuel to fund metro mass transit that would otherwise fail. If it can't support itself, we don't need it.
No, he never answered it, which is a bit disappointing because he obviously saw it. It's just that he talks so much about reforming government, but I'd love to hear some more of his details in how he is planning to overcome some of the hurdles involved.
Do you think that all these jobs are going to be done away with his first week or even year in office? Big government is the problem with this country wher nhave you been? How about the tens of thousands of jobs lost because of WAL-MART and our other jobs going over seas?
I am 48 years old and have never voted before this 2008 election.
Dr. Paul has cured my Apathy.
And I am going to VOTE now.
What if PAUL REVERE said oh well my voice does not count I am only one guy?
WE THE PEOPLE the SILENT MAJORITY must speak up and vote.
GOOGLE Ron Paul see what he stands for.
Ron Paul is the only candidate in this race whose integrity can NOT be challenged. He is everything the Republican or Any Party is supposed to represent. Government for the people.
Think about this, about 60% of the available work force is employed by the government. These are good folks for sure, however, these is simple non-productive overhead on our economy. The entire government is not adding to our GDP one iota, it is in total a pure expense. When you collapse the current big government bloat, you in fact add to the supply of productive workers and ADD to the GDP. This would have a dramatically positive effect on our standard of living. Go Dr Paul Go
Economics 101: The government doesn't "create" jobs. Every dollar the government has, it has taken (stolen?) from tax payers. Let the people keep their money, spend their money, and create jobs naturally.
PS.
Every dollar the government collects, the people only receive back less than $0.75. Reason = Overhead costs. Letting ppl keep their money means increased American wealth.
Thanks. Glad someone could answer that for me. I am undecided this election. I know I do not want Hillary or Guiliani and I am swaying to possibly supporting Ron Paul, but his exit plan out of Iraq has me a little concerned. Is Iraq really ready to govern themselves? Alot of us have never been to Iraq to see if thats the case. Has Ron Paul been over there yet? Also, if we do get out of Iraq or say our country is attacked or suffer a disaster like Katrina how will Ron Paul respond to this?
You make a good point Crisgo. Ron Paul believes that we should encourage other countries to become democratic by example, not through the barrel of a gun (by force).
What , you think Ron Paul is just going to walk in to government and say your fired , your fired ,your also fired. No dude, if you hear him, thats what he wants to do during his 4 year run.
The people have had jobs before the departments, the people will have jobs after. Change is frightening, but what we got now seriously sucks. Vote Ron 2008!!!
If government cuts spending the money remains in the economy and is simply shifted to consumption or investment. There will be enormous amount of job creation in the private sector.
Also, the government shouldn't reject progress because there are people who have built careers on the inefficiencies and excesses of government. Should the tax code remain forever complicated because accountants will lose business if a person can file their own taxes quickly and easily?
Paul, a modern-day Know-Nothing, is a douche bag. Everyone knows it except for the wack jobs, truthers, and nuts. Hes only getting 3% in the polls! Keep sending him money so he can keep staying in Embassy Suites while you losers sleep in cars and Motel 6's. Losers!
I think that you have a great question - that would be answered like this - with the reduction of federal government the following job opportunities will be expanded:
1. State/Local Government
2. High-level corporate employment
With the money we save with a conservative foreign policy we can afford to give our government employees plenty of time to get reemployed.
James, Ron Paul is a nerdy douche bag and so are his pods. We hit a bunch of those banner waving pervos with eggs and they started whimpering like Algore on a waterboard.
Ron Paul is not Gandelf. Even if was Gandelf he still would not be able to magically change the government. The fundamental issue is on how we as a country view government. Jury trials, gun rights, liberty (freedom from usury, tyranny, etc), privacy which you and I (had until recently) take for granted are in peril. All the Candidates save Paul, Huck, and the little guy are members of the CFR (look em' up). Dang your cute.
Mike Huckabee supports the fair tax, which is as bad as the 16th Ammend. Once the gov. is sending checks to everyone, you will never get rid of it regardless of how large it becomes. Fair tax is just a trick. SPENDING is the problem. If fair tax reduces revenue, & maintains spending, we have to increase liquidity (print more) which reduces the value(taxes) existing money. Nobel economist Milton Friedman endorsed RON PAUL. This isn't playtime people.
Howsabout this: Legalize "hard" (if you consider marijuana hard, he hasnt said anything about other drugs) narcotics and avoid all the useless spending in that area that effects its use about 0% and use that money for, well just about anything else. Ron Paul is hard to understand because he believes in what is right and not what sounds convienient.
Seems that you imply most government employees have no marketable skills. I would agree with that and continue current policies of buying out the useless GS pay schedule pools of waste. Anyway, you fail to realize Dr. Ron Paul would only be concerned with federal employees...not state level., There would be an obvious transition for some to the state level in some fashion. Also nothing all that brave to ending Dept of Education for instance. Its only been around since Jimmy Carter.
I have been reading Ron Paul's articles and speeches for several years now, and what I have found is that he believes in Free Enterprise. My employer recently made me conduct some required training that listed all the import export laws and it was staggering. The point is, so many small companies cannot compete, that the government has to hire them!
You should look at this the other way, look at all the excellent opportunities for people to work that do not require 67% of our income!
Ron Paul Supporters, Ron is certainly the best of the republicans. Barack Obama is the best of the democrats. (They are both smart, knowledgeable, have good judgment, and honest)
They are not running against each other on primary, so LETS GET THEM BOTH NOMINATED.
I am going to keep donating to both.
National election: Ron Paul vs Obama (a real election)
jamie, i'm not ron paul, but i have seen him answer questions like this. ron paul has said that most governmet spending goes not to employing people and providing services but to large wasteful bureaucracy. (i.e. $8 billion LOST in iraq). he has said we should in-source the jobs to private companies. to make a profit, they would have to cut through the red tape.
but i think here is the key. these companys must bid for the contracts, hiring most displaced worker if possible, and have REAL, BINDING, PUBLIC OVERSIGHT. the oppisite of companys like Blackwater and haliburton. this would cut costs, decrease the size of government, and install real accountability in this public fuctions. which they currently do not have under direct government control.
Will someone please tell me where I can get web based instruction on how to make one of those kookie aluminum pyramid hats all of the Ron Paul supporters don for their meet-ups? When I go to the next one I want to be in style. I felt woefully inadequate at last meet-up I attended.
How about this: eliminate all of the government positions related to the referenced departments immediately and give each of the released employees two years severence pay. That gives them time and money to find other work, and in the long run still eliminates the bureaucracy and saves money.
Well, that's similar to the laws already in place. Hence the question. The problem is that it could easily bankrupt the government just trying to get rid of people.
How do you figure that? If anyone other than Ron Paul is elected, those departments will remain in place and the employees will continue to get paid well beyond just the next two years. In fact, the government will probably expand. How does the government go bankrupt by immediately eliminating the budgets of these departments, while only paying two more years worth of wages to the employees?
Well I haven't read through earlier replies but here's my take and I'm confident RP would agree: Firstly he would remove stuff slowly to help transition, secondly those people could find REAL jobs and boost the economy instead of sucking from it.
Who's selfish are people that support politicians that use the police power of government to seize the property of others for redistribution. The left is always generous, with other people's money.
Penn is a very serious Ayn Randian Objectivist... Much worse than the selfish bastards in charge now...
Sad... even if just because they're funny.
GotIt123: So which 'Nukular" lobbiest you working for?
Cowbot2: So this administration dissects and destroys good federal agencies so that macaroons like you can say stupid things about "their" idiot behavior. I sure hope your kids don't suffer the effect of tainted spinach.
You don't privatize useless and unconstitutional federal agencies - you get rid of them.
FEMA - Useless. DOE - Useless. HUD - Useless. FDA - Useless. DHS - Useless. CIA - 80% Useless (excepting a stub function of intelligence gathering)
Whatever legitimate functions these serve is properly left to the states to implement. In the case of FDA, a private 'Consumer Reports' or 'Underwriters Laboratories' can do a better job.
can you imagine the sudden amazing growth in the economy if suddenly everyone got to keep all of their income!? For most, thats hundreds of dollars a month! That would be fatastic growth! With all this growth would come a lot of jobs.
While I support Ron Paul and even changed parties so that I can vote for him in the primaries, I see your point. If the IRS were abolished, state agencies would have to replace federal ones. He would have to create a Department of Decentralization to preside over turning the Federal Departments over to the States. Then we would replace big bureaucracies with lots of cute little ones.
States and cities already collect taxes/monies in many ways. Property taxes, sales taxes, state income taxes, vehicle registrations, driver's licenses, various fines, usage fees, utility fees/taxes, special assessments,municipal and state bonds, gasoline taxes, alcohol and tobacco taxes, and lotteries. To name a few...
"He would have to create a Department of Decentralization to preside over turning the Federal Departments over to the States. Then we would replace big bureaucracies with lots of cute little ones."
All of these state, county, and city bureaucracies already exist. For example, there are already state, county and city education boards and departments. So what would be lost if you got rid of the Federal Department of Education? Nothing but a very expensive waste of tax payer money.
All the teacher that I know of, hate the federal No Child Left Behind crap from the Bush administration. They would love to have that off of their backs so they can do the jobs they were hired to do without so much federal ninny interference.
so...if I loose my job because of financial cutbacks...are you saying my employer must compensate me or find me a new job? Why should gov't workers be different. Saying that gov't workers are different than non-government workers supports an entitlement process. If it's any consollation, I would suspect that gov't employees would have average or above qualifications. With the IRS gone, net salaries will be higher...might not be as bad as you think.
"What are your plans for dealing with those people?" You implied the gov't would cause the loss of jobs and also asked what the gov't was going to do about it.
Without the IRS, the economy will prosper. People will have more money to spend which = more jobs
The gov't employees would need to find themselves a new job. Again, I'm not following what the responsibility of the gov't is to it's former employees if cutbacks are made, especially in a thriving economy (as it would likely be).
I never implied that. I implied that there are many laws in place currently in firing government employees due to downsizing. These deal with buying out retirement or finding a new job for the employee (usually they are given the next job they apply for as long as they are qualified). All this is expensive. It could bankrupt the goverment just getting rid of so many agencies. I just want to hear a plan to fix this.
I hope i don't get bad comments from youtube readers. I am just trying to understand why he is so low in the polls. I support Ron Paul all the way. He read the 9/11 report. He is the only candidate to have the facts straight. He understands the economy, he is not sold-out, he is bright, he had a full life with many children and the rest ! The only problem is that he may be too honest for
My guess is that he's low in the polls because of the way the polls are conducted (phone). It's illegal to poll a cell phone and the largest majority of Ron Paul's fan's are college students who do not own a land-line and therefore are not being taken into consideration in the polls. Just my theory anyways. It probably deserves a whole video of its own. Hmm...not a bad idea. I'll get on that.
Not many voters have the ability to understand through his message, what the impact will be in their everyday life. It almost has to be explicitely said.
After reading this document,voters may realize that the plan is realistic and that it does not compromise the future of any american even for the workers of the federal government. Second thing to raise in the polls: He needs to answer a basic question: besides more freedom and less government, how is a vote for Ron Paul going to impact my day to day life and to what degree ?
That document should include a detailed timetable for the transition period. Also that document should give the voters answers such as: dates of all departements that will be shut down, a avaibility or not of a financial support for the bureaucrats that lose their job, what he plans to do with the retirement plan of those who lost their job ?...and the list goes on.
In order for Ron Paul to raise in the poll, he needs a plan of implementation. We know what he stands for but we don't know how he will implement the changes he proposes to make.He has done half of his homework. The other half is the plan. Voters have to stop to assume the way they think he would implement his policies. Him and his staff should post an official document that would include his agenda when in power.
Many goverment functions could be privatized if there is value in what they do... Take the FDA for example... UL (Underwriters Laboratories) does the same thing (like the FDA) to ensure the safety of electronic devices, but does it in the private sector and is not vulnerable to special interests, lobbiests, or bribes.
The logic in the video is total bs. It isn't the purpose of government to maintain redundant bureaucratic positions as a kind of de-facto welfare system.
If a government bureaucracy is found to be unnecessary, it is the responsibility of government to eliminate it for the benefit of taxpayers in general. The wellbeing of the bureaucrats in question shouldn't be a consideration in whether the bureaucracies are eliminated.
Imagine what would happen to CONSUMER SPENDING if the income tax was gone and replaced with nothing. It would be like if everyone won the lottery all at once! Companys would need to hire like crazy to keep up with the demand for products!
Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Jim Gilmor, Newt Gingrich, John Edwards, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson, and Fred Thompson.
This is a good question! I'm sure Ron wouldn't want to see those people out of work, but don't you think that they might be happier in jobs where people don't hate them for being federal bureaucrats?
I agree with Ron Paul, you need a small but efficient goverment. If i was a federal bureaucrat, i would like to know my faith before i vote for him. With the information he gives, it is unknown territory and am sure he looses a lot of votes because of that.
Razela, your right there's nothing wrong with asking these questions, But, keeping bureaucracies for no other purpose other than the fact that they supply jobs, makes no sence.
Hey, it's really not that bad being a bureaucrat. I won't be sticking around for the long run, but for a first "real" job I'm really happy with it. I haven't gotten any "hate" from anyone...well, except maybe YouTube comments, but I don't think those actually count.
In order for Ron Paul to gain the votes that count he needs to be really specific on the logistic of the changes he proposes to make. Otherwise people may think he doesn't have a well tuned plan to implement these major changes and they either be scared to vote for him or they won't take him seriously. We know what he stands for, but how he plans to implement these changes is has equally important.
The Government does employ a whole lot of people, but remember around 85% of those employed by the government are employed by state and local governments, not big budget Federal quagmire departments.
The Federal government is the largest employer not counting state/local gov't. State/Local is weird because it is counted as if each city/state/municipality were a separate organization. They aren't included in the numbers of federal employment because they are not federal employees.
Each local and state government is a separate employer because it is a separate organization. That is fundamental to our socio-political system in this country.
the EPA declared the air safe at ground zero. Thousands are dying and several are dead because they breathed in the "safe air." The government controls the EPA. Conflict of interest?
Privatize is the answer, my friend. Any company, organization or corporation the government has a hand in does almost exactly the opposite and makes money off of it. Had the EPA been run privately it would be more concerned with our brave first responders lives and less with getting the steel out of the way.
Ron Paul has a lot of ideas but, he's running for President not Dictator. He can't DO much without Congress and the People. Changing attitudes and expectations about the proper role of Government is what needs to happen first.
Government has monopoly on services. Monopolies always provide worst goods and services at highest cost.....ie least productive. The money collected to run those extremely inefficient agencies would instead divert into private sector, and those unemployed would make more money and be more productive.... how many times have you heard this now?
This country is supposed to have independent states with a central governing body to mediate/ represent the states as a whole and uphold the constitution. Now the federal government intimidates and imprisons people for not paying a "voluntary" tax. Ron Paul is the only guys with the guts to address this issue.
Well, if the government took the $16 trillion the Fraudulent Reserve counterfited and gave to the banks and instead gave it to all the American Citizens we could all buy a new house, car, send everyone to college, etc, etc, etc we would all be better off.
oliverdyer 2 months ago
fantastic tits!!
prosteelheader 4 months ago
Perhaps many of them could go towards auditing the Federal Reserve?
ShadowRSCD 4 months ago
Only J O B of our government is to protect our borders. That is it. PERIOD! These people can do what others have done in the past and that is start their own businesses. Shocking I know.
The300ZXGuru 10 months ago
It's not the government's job to employee people. Anyone who's ever studied the Constitution would know the offices he wants to eliminate are not Consitutional to begin with. However, most people never bother and this video is proof.
da324 1 year ago
I guess if you have great tits it is okay to be stupid.
drahm33 1 year ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
FOLLOW THESE STEPS 1. COVER YOUR MOUTH WITH YOUR HAND 2. WHISPER A WISH INTO YOUR HAND 3. POST THIS ON TO TEN OTHER COMMENTS 4. NOW LOOK AT YOUR HAND
ellet1215 1 year ago
This video, I suspect inadvertently addresses the conundrum the rank and file are experiencing today. If the government would take their forearm off the throat of the free market and allow small business to grow it would very quickly absorb the displaced Government workers.
The aforementioned conundrum is negated by the increasing amount of indigent and lazy fucks pervasive in America.
Land of the free and home of the slave, that's our country!
frackle123 1 year ago 2
this is the problem with the government being so large and entwined in our lives. if the guvment were working properly and how the founding fathers intended all those jobs that are actually necessary would be private sector, the rest wouldn't exist, and this video would never have even been made because the workings of our guvment system would be like the internal components of my laptop, doing what they were made to do but not being seen or heard.
metalhed100100 2 years ago
eliminating government jobs would free up money that is taken from taxpayers, much of which would be spent in the private sector creating jobs and wealth.
clermontflorida 2 years ago 4
eliminating government jobs = anarchy idiot
oddjob29 2 years ago
what is your point?
clermontflorida 2 years ago
I can answer that question the reason to get rid of these agencies is to elimanate federal power. The individual states will take over these agencies and the federal jobs will become state jobs. Also if we are going to have a discussion about healtcare lets make sure first that the meds we are getting from are gov't do not have poisons or toxins in them designed to kill 80% of us.
acestriker413 2 years ago
uh, the first part of ur comment sounded real good but then that thing about meds designed to kill 80% of us was a slight blow to ur credibility
metalhed100100 2 years ago
These people have degrees, and foremost, leverage. If one of these people you mention were to go resume vs. resume against a college graduate for a $60000 to $80000 position, who do you think gets consideration? Executive Branch is one branch of thousands of positions from city water and sewage to NORAD. These people would be fine. Also, for such a "cerebral" question, your (typical American) admitted submissiveness to celebrities who don't care about you scares me more than Ron Paul.
itowedin 3 years ago
If less government means allot of unemployed government workers then it's fine with me. Shit go start a business of your own or find a different line of work to get into. That's how you deal with them.
Problem solved.
BloodTar 3 years ago 2
RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL
vedicardi 3 years ago 3
I'll try to answer your question properly Razela. Many of the jobs would still exist, government would just not be in charge. If social security is privatized it means it's still there, just not with government ownership. If you get rid of the taxes applied to big government, you promote companies to invest in the nation which would bring alot more jobs home.
None of it would happen over night. Systematic transitions and healthy climate would create incentives for new job opportunity.
theoppositescollide 3 years ago
Large corporations could stop outsourcing and bring some of those jobs home. That could be one solution. The government employs about 3 million people so a combination of efforts could be used to overcome this dilemma. Its better than having the gov control every aspect of our lives. Good question though
tighttritenight 3 years ago
Here's MY plan to deal with those people:
They have to get real jobs providing goods or services to people who are paying for them voluntarily instead of being funded at gunpoint (taxation).
In other words: fuck them. They can get a job like anyone else. If they can't, it's just proof that they were parasites sucking the life from our country, and once removed from their host, they should DIE. That's what parasites do.
klaptongroovemaster 3 years ago
The cuter side of politics is right! Hi there [insert cool guy smile here]. Well, Razela, I'm sure he wouldn't (even if the Congress let him do it at all) destroy all of that bureacracy right away. But when he did, there would have been many other jobs in his type of economy. With a stronger dollar, a free market (including less corporate restrictions), and free trade, you'd be surprised at how many jobs crop up. Remember, our country worked well without these institutions for a long time.
Apmhflick 3 years ago
It will be to your benefit to make your questions as succinct as possible: "The government is the number one employer in the US, if you eliminate its institutions what are your plans to deal with these people?"
id1337x 3 years ago
Yah, I realized afterwards that many (not all, but a lot) of the Ron Paul supporters have a mentality similar to those of religious extremists. Judging by the comments, I'm pretty sure most of them probably watched only like 15 secs of the video, or possibly just read the title.
Razela 3 years ago
@Razela What happened was that your herd mentality brain could not cope with hearing the real reality or truth whenever it was that you finally heard it from Ron Paul, so you immediately shut off your logical thinking and asked some sarcastic, and what you believe to be a rhetorical question.
Yes Razela, your right... and your so smart! The Dept. of Education makes all the kids so much smarter! The more people with suits you put into a building 1500 miles away....
999silverrush 6 months ago
that have no contact with your children, the more educated they will be! Hey Razela, me and a few of my unempoyed friends could work there for 100k a year plus full benefits for life totaling $3 million each and we could make your kids LIKE SO MUCH SMARTER. Just add it on to the $200,000 you already owe as a taxpayer! ITS GONNA BE GREAT! SAY YES TO EDUCATION!
999silverrush 6 months ago
I have a question for Ron Paul, not a sheeple one, but one that has the current American situation at hand.
Is there any way we could back the hundreds of billions of dollars that have been stolen from the real economically productive American workers, the ones that actually form the economy, and put into the hands of gang elected drastically, if not criminally, overpaid people? Or perhaps the $9,000 per American taxpayer that was handed to foreign banks during the bailout?
999silverrush 6 months ago
In political reality, if a preseident caused, say, a planned 5% increase in unemployment, he sure as hell had better have a plan to ease that many people back into the market. Or else he would have even less of Paul's snowball chance in hell of getting votes. Am I right?
MeanPokerFace 3 years ago
They would be producing products to sell to other countries. Basic 'check book' economics. If we sell more than we buy, we get more, people work less, and we can spend more time on youtube. This is instead of slaving away 8-16 hours a day only to have 3/4 of our check given to a wasteful government.
DoesNotApply 3 years ago
fail.
onevoss 3 years ago
Let them find work in the open market instead of leeching off of the government. This is a no brainer, i guess much like you.
surprise1982 3 years ago 2
what a fucking duster is he going to listen to this :P? haha
twistaowns 3 years ago
On Tuesday, the U.S. national debt topped $9 trillion for the first time in history, according to the U.S. Treasury Department's daily accounting of the national debt. Nine trillion dollars!
A million seconds is roughly 12 days, whereas a billion seconds is approximately 32 years.
The U.S. debt stands at $9 trillion. If my calculator is working, then at a dollar a second, the U.S. could be debt- free in the year 290007.
Wall Street Bankers are very happy.
Wake up gorgeous.
northpal2 3 years ago
Don't think of it all as just jobs. A job has to produce something or create something. But government jobs don't produce anything and don't help anything, this is why they must be made financed by our taxes. So in short, the sole purpose of guberment jobs is to drain your taxes into a bottomless pit.
pepelapiu2004 4 years ago 5
Think about all those 'useless' jobs in government. Who pays for those jobs? You and I, we pay out of our taxes. So cutting out those jobs will promote the economy by reducing the tax burden.
And if those guberment jobs actually produced anything, then you and I will take up the slack and produce the same thing those jobs were producing. But let's be honest, gubment jobs have never produced anything.
pepelapiu2004 4 years ago 15
it would let other businesses compete in energy development and so forth, it would acctually create jobs
tombob900 4 years ago
I think his plan is to let them go. It is not the presidents job to find work for people. I think we have all lost a job before and should be able to find another one as needed. Just as others have said there would be new markets for some of these people to find work.
Ron Paul 2008
pitbrand 4 years ago 2
Also don't you think if we are not all sending our earned money to the federal government through tax dollars we could use more money for things like the education of our children?
pitbrand 4 years ago
Truly your State government pays for your public schools as they do now. The Dept of Education is just a huge office with lots of people that make decisions like "no child left behind". Don't you think your state can make better decisions for the public schools that some office in DC? When Dr. Paul has an idea about something it is a well thought out thought by someone whom has lots of experience in the political field. He knows what he is talking about.
pitbrand 4 years ago
Truly your education system is funded by the State governments and the Federal side has just created a department to hand out money here and there as they see fit and start slogans like "no children left behind". The public school system in your area is handled by your state so why must we pay more people to sit in offices and think about how they can best distribute the money. Your state can do that and much better than a big nonfunctional office in a state that is not even close to you.
pitbrand 4 years ago
If a job needs to be done, then someone will pay a worker to do it. If it doesnt need to be done, then we shouldn't use the gov't to pay that worker anyway.
So, gov't workers who don't have useful jobs or skills would have to go out and do something profitable in order to earn money, thus the salaries they earn would be a net benefit to society instead of a net detracter.
Many of these people, whos jobs do have REAL value, would just switch to the private sector.
d3th2u 4 years ago
if you keep the government in charge of the sahara desert there will be no sand in 5 years. - milton friedman
government is not efficient. (period)
joshrain1 4 years ago 4
The Department of Homeland Security didn't create new jobs. It simply moved people around and put them into another bureacracy. Governments don't creat jobs, companies do.
theropingeffect 4 years ago 3
Let them become productive and see what money truly means.
michaelargent 4 years ago 3
It would be a gradual transition. If we got rid of the all the government program bullsh**, the free market would fill in the gaps. Of course it cant happen overnight, but it HAS to happen. We cant expect the government to control our infrastructure or our economy.
Thurgor 4 years ago
the GOVT SHOULD NOT BE THE BIGGEST EMPLOYER IF THAT IS THE CASE WERE MOVING TOWARDS COMMUNISM WHICH IS GOVT CONTROLLED EVERYTHING. SHIT WAKE UP
msegreto2 4 years ago
Here's what you've got to realize. It's not the government's responsibility to create employment or stimulate the economy. That it is the job of the free market.
Is it sad that people will lose their jobs? Of course. But there will be new jobs. Better jobs. If Ron Paul eliminates the current government-imposed restrictions and regulations on businesses and entrepreneurs, business will boom and employment will rise.
But it is never the government's job to create jobs.
TheMichiganAustrian 4 years ago
If we didn't have a GubMent many of us would get anal probed by all them aliens, not mexicans (although the coyotes might get horny) I mean UFO invasions, when the U.AssOfA. has downsized its military force down to ineffective levels.
Except dudes from San FranSicko, do you think people would enjoy getting anal probed by strangers? I think not
DancingSpiderman 4 years ago
dont feel sorry for any of those that lose their "gov" jobs, worry about all those that lost a job with big companies like GM. Remember, john mcain said "less" jobs, what do you think he was talking about? Plus, once we get rid of the illegals, the unemployed "gov" guys can be pickers and cut lawns.
hamslam2003 4 years ago
how about fixing everything clinton messed up by sending our jobs over seas and getting rid of open borders? that would help a bit.
COOGLEMASS 4 years ago
you have a good point. in fact, the best solution to unemployment would be for the government to get even bigger. and raise taxes so they could pay these employees. or just borrow the money. if everyone worked for the government there would be no unemployment yay!
xrongor 4 years ago
All the unemployed people laid off by Ron Paul's government can get jobs for all the businesses that have to pay less taxes, and they'll get to keep what they make, so even a somewhat lower salary would still bring more home. On top of that, with a hard currency and less government interference, everyone will be free to do their jobs better, then we'll have lower costs and higher quality choices, as well.
rsimpson69 4 years ago
People asked similar questions when World War II ended and so many were going to be discharged from the armed forces. It turned out the private sector did a very good job of assimilating them. Part of the reason, I think, was the Fed's easy money policy that made it easier for businesses to expand and hire people. Since RP is critical of the Fed's easy money policy earlier this decade, it would be interesting to hear if he would accept a similar policy to facilitate government downsizing.
DClaudeKatz 4 years ago
the jobs simply dont disappear, they get broken down into smaller and more managable levels.
we also did not have any alphabet agencies prior to the start of the 1900's
these smaller levels allow us as citizens to demand and see change alot more readily by appealing our state or local government...
rather than getting bogged down in "big D.C. legislature".
we can more effectively control what's around us, rather than applying a "one size fits all" solution that does not work
suckmy66dickyouwhore 4 years ago
Harrison Ford gets all the best jobs hehehehehehe
1oldgit 4 years ago 2
what about jon stewart or bill marr?
nathannis 4 years ago
If i'm not mistaken, Paul is against Federal Agencies, but in support of state based agencies.
Basically with the demise of those agencies, local states would either work together, or create their own versions.
Also each governmental worker increases tax levies.
If we can transition a governmental worker to non government empolyment, we gain two benifits to the economy
Another source of tax revenue in addition to lower government spending, allowing lesser tax levies.
Bazarnz 4 years ago
Not a big Ron Paul supporter but here we go: The boom the economy would experience would employ those people. It wouldn't simply be the people lose their job, and our unemployed. Billions of dollars would be kept in the hands of citizens, where they belong, and that money would be used to buy yachts, goods, services, anything, and would cause a huge uptick in the economy, which would necessitate jobs. That is, if you believe in capitalist theory, which you should.
r2d2server 4 years ago 2
you will have efficiency, competition, more productivity. everyone keeps the fruit of their labor. no welfare and easy money. people would go and earn it.
joshrain1 4 years ago
This is actually a genius question.
tehmaninblack 4 years ago 2
I have to agree, no offense Razela
enseign 4 years ago
I never even gave an opinion, so I don't really see what I would take offense to.
Razela 4 years ago
Those agencies are unconstitutional. These agencies regulate things more than they were ever supposed to, creating thousands of jobs. Jobs, which are useless, and do not provide anything. These people will have to find employment elsewhere. I am almost certain that without the substantial number of regulations made by these asinine agencies, we will be able to bring back more industry to this country. The Federal Government has too much power, and eventually, everyone will realize that.
Armonis 4 years ago
The best solution is to slash the government budget, "downsize the government so they don't downsize us" (catchy slogan, probably needs refining) because if government spending is slashed, the tax bill goes down. Then, the more we can pay off the trillions of national debt, the less we have to pay to service the interest, and the less tax we will eventually have to pay. Then the money can be used for something useful.
CapitalistKiwi 4 years ago
I'm tied of seeing my tax dollars spent on goverment employees we do not need. They do not serve the people that pay them. Let them go to work for the corporations they are already working to help.
bcoverss 4 years ago 2
Im so sorry dear, but your beauty took all my attention, the world is yours smart rducated sexy lady
DarkTube333 4 years ago
Iam glad you agree that we need to get rid of this parasitic inefficient burocracies, in other You tube videos he relatively answers the question of how, obviously he cannot go into every single detail about every single agency.
dieonyourfeetDEC16 4 years ago
your question didn't get picked because you said IF you believed in god. when it comes to politics atheists don't seem to be welcome.
pokermaster54 4 years ago
Didn't get picked? For what? Ron Paul did feature it on his favourites. I mean, an answer would be cooler, but at least he noticed it. You should go check out the question I submitted to the Republican debates. It had to do with the issue of freedom of religion vs. the "demonism" bestowed upon atheists in politics.
Razela 4 years ago
But generally speaking he will prioritize, get rid or modify the policies and agencies that are affecting the US the most first, also the ones that are easier to do and have less damaging immediate effects,do it GRADUALLY, he also has transition programs. when he talks about getting rid of all these agencies he is saying it from an idealistic point of view, but he is also a realist and I have total trust he will take all factors into account and bring much needed change to this country.
dieonyourfeetDEC16 4 years ago
We are having a similar problem locally. Our county is at the maximum millage for property taxes. The county representatives passed a budget that was over the revenue intake. They then petitioned the state court to allow them to tax us at a rate above what was allowed in the state, and were granted permission to do so. They stated that unless they raised the tax, 80 county employees would have to be laid off. Boo Hoo! Lay them off!
kstompaint 4 years ago
That's pretty scary. I wonder if I started a business and over-extended myself, if I could get the legislature to force people to monetarily support my business like that. Well, some businesses have been able to do that (S&Ls, Chrysler Corp., etc.)
Maybe if people understood that gov't has become a "for profit corporation," they would be more selective about whom they elect to run it for us.
ysgeye 4 years ago
The same goes on state and national levels. The govt is not supposed to be a self-imposed babysitter for the public at the unwilling cost of said public. In PA they take our "road tax" on fuel to fund metro mass transit that would otherwise fail. If it can't support itself, we don't need it.
kstompaint 4 years ago
Ron Paul put this video on his favorites.
Did he answer your question??
Because I think that that was a good question to ask.
So...did he answer?
3153dee 4 years ago
No, he never answered it, which is a bit disappointing because he obviously saw it. It's just that he talks so much about reforming government, but I'd love to hear some more of his details in how he is planning to overcome some of the hurdles involved.
Razela 4 years ago
Do you think that all these jobs are going to be done away with his first week or even year in office? Big government is the problem with this country wher nhave you been? How about the tens of thousands of jobs lost because of WAL-MART and our other jobs going over seas?
bigjon1359 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I am 48 years old and have never voted before this 2008 election.
Dr. Paul has cured my Apathy.
And I am going to VOTE now.
What if PAUL REVERE said oh well my voice does not count I am only one guy?
WE THE PEOPLE the SILENT MAJORITY must speak up and vote.
GOOGLE Ron Paul see what he stands for.
Ron Paul is the only candidate in this race whose integrity can NOT be challenged. He is everything the Republican or Any Party is supposed to represent. Government for the people.
bigjon1359 4 years ago
Think about this, about 60% of the available work force is employed by the government. These are good folks for sure, however, these is simple non-productive overhead on our economy. The entire government is not adding to our GDP one iota, it is in total a pure expense. When you collapse the current big government bloat, you in fact add to the supply of productive workers and ADD to the GDP. This would have a dramatically positive effect on our standard of living. Go Dr Paul Go
guesswhotoo6 4 years ago 2
Economics 101: The government doesn't "create" jobs. Every dollar the government has, it has taken (stolen?) from tax payers. Let the people keep their money, spend their money, and create jobs naturally.
PS.
Every dollar the government collects, the people only receive back less than $0.75. Reason = Overhead costs. Letting ppl keep their money means increased American wealth.
Sepero1 4 years ago 3
Thanks. Glad someone could answer that for me. I am undecided this election. I know I do not want Hillary or Guiliani and I am swaying to possibly supporting Ron Paul, but his exit plan out of Iraq has me a little concerned. Is Iraq really ready to govern themselves? Alot of us have never been to Iraq to see if thats the case. Has Ron Paul been over there yet? Also, if we do get out of Iraq or say our country is attacked or suffer a disaster like Katrina how will Ron Paul respond to this?
Crisgo3d 4 years ago 2
You make a good point Crisgo. Ron Paul believes that we should encourage other countries to become democratic by example, not through the barrel of a gun (by force).
Sepero1 4 years ago
Not only that, but if he does away with Homeland Security, how will the borders be protected? Thats one issue I have with Ron Paul
Crisgo3d 4 years ago
Neccesity is the mother of invention.
sfudman 4 years ago
Very good question. They'll have to do like the rest of us and work for a living.
And by the way:
ALL ARE WELCOME ABOARD THE FREEDOM TRAIN!
RON PAUL 2008
roberteckerson 4 years ago 2
What , you think Ron Paul is just going to walk in to government and say your fired , your fired ,your also fired. No dude, if you hear him, thats what he wants to do during his 4 year run.
The people have had jobs before the departments, the people will have jobs after. Change is frightening, but what we got now seriously sucks. Vote Ron 2008!!!
trec600 4 years ago 2
If government cuts spending the money remains in the economy and is simply shifted to consumption or investment. There will be enormous amount of job creation in the private sector.
Also, the government shouldn't reject progress because there are people who have built careers on the inefficiencies and excesses of government. Should the tax code remain forever complicated because accountants will lose business if a person can file their own taxes quickly and easily?
IFknHateUTube 4 years ago
Im sorry, but thats like saying "You cant close that dope house..all those drug dealers will loose thier jobs"
understandtheNWOplan 4 years ago 3
Google: American Free Press Neo-Nazi
Google: American Free Press Ron Paul
Google: Stormfront Ron Paul
CharlessMartel 4 years ago
gravel 08 is the wise choice. ron paul is the impulsive choice
oldhacks 4 years ago
Why dont you ask Ron Paul why he doesnt renounce his Stormfront supporters?
CharlessMartel 4 years ago
YOU WOULD HAVE ALOT OF FREE MINDS ABLE TO DO AS THEY WISH IN THE WORLD OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WHILE YOU LIVE THIS LIFETIME!
Are you askin for a better answer then that?
AkinoLight 4 years ago
Paul, a modern-day Know-Nothing, is a douche bag. Everyone knows it except for the wack jobs, truthers, and nuts. Hes only getting 3% in the polls! Keep sending him money so he can keep staying in Embassy Suites while you losers sleep in cars and Motel 6's. Losers!
CharlessMartel 4 years ago
I think that you have a great question - that would be answered like this - with the reduction of federal government the following job opportunities will be expanded:
1. State/Local Government
2. High-level corporate employment
With the money we save with a conservative foreign policy we can afford to give our government employees plenty of time to get reemployed.
thx 4 your video
90240sxse 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
James, Ron Paul is a nerdy douche bag and so are his pods. We hit a bunch of those banner waving pervos with eggs and they started whimpering like Algore on a waterboard.
BattleofTours732 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Ron Paul is a cranky douche bag.
BattleofTours732 4 years ago
Ron Paul is the William Tell of America!
ricsen13 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Ron Paul is crankier than a crack piple
CharlessMartel 4 years ago
Watch this and grow up!
watch?v=rxLEwkGJFwM
ricsen13 4 years ago
Jamie,
Ron Paul is not Gandelf. Even if was Gandelf he still would not be able to magically change the government. The fundamental issue is on how we as a country view government. Jury trials, gun rights, liberty (freedom from usury, tyranny, etc), privacy which you and I (had until recently) take for granted are in peril. All the Candidates save Paul, Huck, and the little guy are members of the CFR (look em' up). Dang your cute.
chewbaca1989 4 years ago
Mike Huckabee supports the fair tax, which is as bad as the 16th Ammend. Once the gov. is sending checks to everyone, you will never get rid of it regardless of how large it becomes. Fair tax is just a trick. SPENDING is the problem. If fair tax reduces revenue, & maintains spending, we have to increase liquidity (print more) which reduces the value(taxes) existing money. Nobel economist Milton Friedman endorsed RON PAUL. This isn't playtime people.
VINNYMOR 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
reSearch: American Free Press ron paul
reSearch: American Free Press new nazis
reSearch: American Free Press barnes review
reSearch: Willis Carto
reSearch: American Free Press neo-nazis
BattleofTours732 4 years ago
Bwahahahaa Looooosssssseeeeeerrrrrrr!!!! Typical
BattleofTours732 4 years ago
Let me guess. You want to legalize hard narcotics, right, pod?
BattleofTours732 4 years ago
Howsabout this: Legalize "hard" (if you consider marijuana hard, he hasnt said anything about other drugs) narcotics and avoid all the useless spending in that area that effects its use about 0% and use that money for, well just about anything else. Ron Paul is hard to understand because he believes in what is right and not what sounds convienient.
vanishingofemptiness 4 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Thank goodness Saddam Hussein is gone! Dont you Paul pods agree?
BattleofTours732 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You liberal losers need to find a candiate who really represents you. Say, Hillary Rotten Clinton!
BattleofTours732 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Ron Paul liberals -- Haters of America and winning the war against Americas enemies.
BattleofTours732 4 years ago
Seems that you imply most government employees have no marketable skills. I would agree with that and continue current policies of buying out the useless GS pay schedule pools of waste. Anyway, you fail to realize Dr. Ron Paul would only be concerned with federal employees...not state level., There would be an obvious transition for some to the state level in some fashion. Also nothing all that brave to ending Dept of Education for instance. Its only been around since Jimmy Carter.
tonysshadow 4 years ago
heres a suggestion. we could hire them to pick oranges or clean our pools at illegal immigrant wages.that would partially solve two problems at once.
levont 4 years ago 2
I work in a government agency. So tell me again how I don't know what they do.
Razela 4 years ago
I have been reading Ron Paul's articles and speeches for several years now, and what I have found is that he believes in Free Enterprise. My employer recently made me conduct some required training that listed all the import export laws and it was staggering. The point is, so many small companies cannot compete, that the government has to hire them!
You should look at this the other way, look at all the excellent opportunities for people to work that do not require 67% of our income!
freerifleman 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul Supporters, Ron is certainly the best of the republicans. Barack Obama is the best of the democrats. (They are both smart, knowledgeable, have good judgment, and honest)
They are not running against each other on primary, so LETS GET THEM BOTH NOMINATED.
I am going to keep donating to both.
National election: Ron Paul vs Obama (a real election)
btehrani2 4 years ago
dont think his gonna get rid of all them at once,it will years,
but first his gonna stop the war thats the most important thing,
hthglllkhgjg 4 years ago
jamie, i'm not ron paul, but i have seen him answer questions like this. ron paul has said that most governmet spending goes not to employing people and providing services but to large wasteful bureaucracy. (i.e. $8 billion LOST in iraq). he has said we should in-source the jobs to private companies. to make a profit, they would have to cut through the red tape.
mrmcgee210 4 years ago
but i think here is the key. these companys must bid for the contracts, hiring most displaced worker if possible, and have REAL, BINDING, PUBLIC OVERSIGHT. the oppisite of companys like Blackwater and haliburton. this would cut costs, decrease the size of government, and install real accountability in this public fuctions. which they currently do not have under direct government control.
mrmcgee210 4 years ago
Will someone please tell me where I can get web based instruction on how to make one of those kookie aluminum pyramid hats all of the Ron Paul supporters don for their meet-ups? When I go to the next one I want to be in style. I felt woefully inadequate at last meet-up I attended.
BattleofTours732 4 years ago
How about this: eliminate all of the government positions related to the referenced departments immediately and give each of the released employees two years severence pay. That gives them time and money to find other work, and in the long run still eliminates the bureaucracy and saves money.
zeplinwolf 4 years ago
Well, that's similar to the laws already in place. Hence the question. The problem is that it could easily bankrupt the government just trying to get rid of people.
Razela 4 years ago
How do you figure that? If anyone other than Ron Paul is elected, those departments will remain in place and the employees will continue to get paid well beyond just the next two years. In fact, the government will probably expand. How does the government go bankrupt by immediately eliminating the budgets of these departments, while only paying two more years worth of wages to the employees?
zeplinwolf 4 years ago
Well I haven't read through earlier replies but here's my take and I'm confident RP would agree: Firstly he would remove stuff slowly to help transition, secondly those people could find REAL jobs and boost the economy instead of sucking from it.
Capnwabbit 4 years ago
Exactly. If there is a need, the private sector will take over. If it is chaff, it will just blow away.
apollosacademy 4 years ago
Who's selfish are people that support politicians that use the police power of government to seize the property of others for redistribution. The left is always generous, with other people's money.
patem1 4 years ago
Penn is a very serious Ayn Randian Objectivist... Much worse than the selfish bastards in charge now...
Sad... even if just because they're funny.
GotIt123: So which 'Nukular" lobbiest you working for?
Cowbot2: So this administration dissects and destroys good federal agencies so that macaroons like you can say stupid things about "their" idiot behavior. I sure hope your kids don't suffer the effect of tainted spinach.
leesagrrlgrrl 4 years ago
Walmart is actually the largest employer
conspiracy777 4 years ago
Walmart is the largest private employer in the US. The US Federal government is the largest US employer overall.
Razela 4 years ago
This is retarded. The agencies would be privatized.
UltraTexan 4 years ago
You don't privatize useless and unconstitutional federal agencies - you get rid of them.
FEMA - Useless. DOE - Useless. HUD - Useless. FDA - Useless. DHS - Useless. CIA - 80% Useless (excepting a stub function of intelligence gathering)
Whatever legitimate functions these serve is properly left to the states to implement. In the case of FDA, a private 'Consumer Reports' or 'Underwriters Laboratories' can do a better job.
cowbot2 4 years ago
can you imagine the sudden amazing growth in the economy if suddenly everyone got to keep all of their income!? For most, thats hundreds of dollars a month! That would be fatastic growth! With all this growth would come a lot of jobs.
Captain077 4 years ago
While I support Ron Paul and even changed parties so that I can vote for him in the primaries, I see your point. If the IRS were abolished, state agencies would have to replace federal ones. He would have to create a Department of Decentralization to preside over turning the Federal Departments over to the States. Then we would replace big bureaucracies with lots of cute little ones.
Dreadneck 4 years ago
States and cities already collect taxes/monies in many ways. Property taxes, sales taxes, state income taxes, vehicle registrations, driver's licenses, various fines, usage fees, utility fees/taxes, special assessments,municipal and state bonds, gasoline taxes, alcohol and tobacco taxes, and lotteries. To name a few...
freedomman12 4 years ago
"He would have to create a Department of Decentralization to preside over turning the Federal Departments over to the States. Then we would replace big bureaucracies with lots of cute little ones."
All of these state, county, and city bureaucracies already exist. For example, there are already state, county and city education boards and departments. So what would be lost if you got rid of the Federal Department of Education? Nothing but a very expensive waste of tax payer money.
freedomman12 4 years ago
All the teacher that I know of, hate the federal No Child Left Behind crap from the Bush administration. They would love to have that off of their backs so they can do the jobs they were hired to do without so much federal ninny interference.
freedomman12 4 years ago 2
so...if I loose my job because of financial cutbacks...are you saying my employer must compensate me or find me a new job? Why should gov't workers be different. Saying that gov't workers are different than non-government workers supports an entitlement process. If it's any consollation, I would suspect that gov't employees would have average or above qualifications. With the IRS gone, net salaries will be higher...might not be as bad as you think.
qwickset 4 years ago
I never said anything of the sort. Did you watch the video?
Razela 4 years ago
"What are your plans for dealing with those people?" You implied the gov't would cause the loss of jobs and also asked what the gov't was going to do about it.
Without the IRS, the economy will prosper. People will have more money to spend which = more jobs
The gov't employees would need to find themselves a new job. Again, I'm not following what the responsibility of the gov't is to it's former employees if cutbacks are made, especially in a thriving economy (as it would likely be).
qwickset 4 years ago
I never implied that. I implied that there are many laws in place currently in firing government employees due to downsizing. These deal with buying out retirement or finding a new job for the employee (usually they are given the next job they apply for as long as they are qualified). All this is expensive. It could bankrupt the goverment just getting rid of so many agencies. I just want to hear a plan to fix this.
Razela 4 years ago
I hope i don't get bad comments from youtube readers. I am just trying to understand why he is so low in the polls. I support Ron Paul all the way. He read the 9/11 report. He is the only candidate to have the facts straight. He understands the economy, he is not sold-out, he is bright, he had a full life with many children and the rest ! The only problem is that he may be too honest for
the job.
piermony 4 years ago
My guess is that he's low in the polls because of the way the polls are conducted (phone). It's illegal to poll a cell phone and the largest majority of Ron Paul's fan's are college students who do not own a land-line and therefore are not being taken into consideration in the polls. Just my theory anyways. It probably deserves a whole video of its own. Hmm...not a bad idea. I'll get on that.
Razela 4 years ago
Not many voters have the ability to understand through his message, what the impact will be in their everyday life. It almost has to be explicitely said.
piermony 4 years ago
After reading this document,voters may realize that the plan is realistic and that it does not compromise the future of any american even for the workers of the federal government. Second thing to raise in the polls: He needs to answer a basic question: besides more freedom and less government, how is a vote for Ron Paul going to impact my day to day life and to what degree ?
piermony 4 years ago
That document should include a detailed timetable for the transition period. Also that document should give the voters answers such as: dates of all departements that will be shut down, a avaibility or not of a financial support for the bureaucrats that lose their job, what he plans to do with the retirement plan of those who lost their job ?...and the list goes on.
piermony 4 years ago
In order for Ron Paul to raise in the poll, he needs a plan of implementation. We know what he stands for but we don't know how he will implement the changes he proposes to make.He has done half of his homework. The other half is the plan. Voters have to stop to assume the way they think he would implement his policies. Him and his staff should post an official document that would include his agenda when in power.
piermony 4 years ago
Razela,
Many goverment functions could be privatized if there is value in what they do... Take the FDA for example... UL (Underwriters Laboratories) does the same thing (like the FDA) to ensure the safety of electronic devices, but does it in the private sector and is not vulnerable to special interests, lobbiests, or bribes.
sclanpublishing 4 years ago
The logic in the video is total bs. It isn't the purpose of government to maintain redundant bureaucratic positions as a kind of de-facto welfare system.
If a government bureaucracy is found to be unnecessary, it is the responsibility of government to eliminate it for the benefit of taxpayers in general. The wellbeing of the bureaucrats in question shouldn't be a consideration in whether the bureaucracies are eliminated.
bm4972 4 years ago 2
Imagine what would happen to CONSUMER SPENDING if the income tax was gone and replaced with nothing. It would be like if everyone won the lottery all at once! Companys would need to hire like crazy to keep up with the demand for products!
newmarkCraig 4 years ago
remember when clinton shut down the gov for one day? he balanced the budget! It can be done! Vote for the champion of the constitution!
leo9woman 4 years ago
Who is for a one world goverment?
Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Jim Gilmor, Newt Gingrich, John Edwards, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson, and Fred Thompson.
They all are members of the CFR
mydozer 4 years ago
This is a good question! I'm sure Ron wouldn't want to see those people out of work, but don't you think that they might be happier in jobs where people don't hate them for being federal bureaucrats?
Roger1776 4 years ago
I agree with Ron Paul, you need a small but efficient goverment. If i was a federal bureaucrat, i would like to know my faith before i vote for him. With the information he gives, it is unknown territory and am sure he looses a lot of votes because of that.
piermony 4 years ago
Exactly. He's got great ideas, but what I'd really like to hear is a plan for implementation.
Razela 4 years ago
Razela, your right there's nothing wrong with asking these questions, But, keeping bureaucracies for no other purpose other than the fact that they supply jobs, makes no sence.
tylerdurden246 4 years ago
I never said we should keep them. I even said I liked his ideas.
Razela 4 years ago
Gotcha :)
tylerdurden246 4 years ago
Hey, it's really not that bad being a bureaucrat. I won't be sticking around for the long run, but for a first "real" job I'm really happy with it. I haven't gotten any "hate" from anyone...well, except maybe YouTube comments, but I don't think those actually count.
Razela 4 years ago
In order for Ron Paul to gain the votes that count he needs to be really specific on the logistic of the changes he proposes to make. Otherwise people may think he doesn't have a well tuned plan to implement these major changes and they either be scared to vote for him or they won't take him seriously. We know what he stands for, but how he plans to implement these changes is has equally important.
piermony 4 years ago
The Government does employ a whole lot of people, but remember around 85% of those employed by the government are employed by state and local governments, not big budget Federal quagmire departments.
mavtek 4 years ago
The Federal government is the largest employer not counting state/local gov't. State/Local is weird because it is counted as if each city/state/municipality were a separate organization. They aren't included in the numbers of federal employment because they are not federal employees.
Razela 4 years ago
Each local and state government is a separate employer because it is a separate organization. That is fundamental to our socio-political system in this country.
paulfor08 4 years ago
Exactly.
Razela 4 years ago
the EPA declared the air safe at ground zero. Thousands are dying and several are dead because they breathed in the "safe air." The government controls the EPA. Conflict of interest?
Privatize is the answer, my friend. Any company, organization or corporation the government has a hand in does almost exactly the opposite and makes money off of it. Had the EPA been run privately it would be more concerned with our brave first responders lives and less with getting the steel out of the way.
augustw3st 4 years ago 2
Ron Paul has a lot of ideas but, he's running for President not Dictator. He can't DO much without Congress and the People. Changing attitudes and expectations about the proper role of Government is what needs to happen first.
AntiFed1791 4 years ago 3
Well said.
Razela 4 years ago
Government has monopoly on services. Monopolies always provide worst goods and services at highest cost.....ie least productive. The money collected to run those extremely inefficient agencies would instead divert into private sector, and those unemployed would make more money and be more productive.... how many times have you heard this now?
UnderseaCaveman 4 years ago
Jamie.. youre really pretty. ;)
sidrosteel 4 years ago
Here's a solution: Stop sending jobs overseas!
This country is supposed to have independent states with a central governing body to mediate/ represent the states as a whole and uphold the constitution. Now the federal government intimidates and imprisons people for not paying a "voluntary" tax. Ron Paul is the only guys with the guts to address this issue.
djangoph1le 4 years ago 3
1) He wouldn't do away with all of them, and it would certainly be a gradual process for the ones that would be eliminated.
2) He wants states to create their own programs instead of the government ones. Dep