Ron Paul's Agenda To Include Eliminating 5 Govt. Departments & He Will Take $39k Presidential Salar

Originally posted by Lono1

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

Originally posted by Zanti Misfit
reply to post by KilrathiLG

 

My guess would be....

1. The Department of Agriculture
2. The Department of Education
3. The Enviormental Protection Agency
4. The T.S.A.
5. The D.E.A.


Five of the Worst Offenders of Wasteful Goverment Spending .

edit on 14-10-2011 by Zanti Misfit because: (no reason given)

Get rid of the EPA... then tell your grandchildren you were a brainwashed fool. SERIOUSLY?? Get rid of the EPA?? Do you have any idea the environmental crisis we're in?? The EPA doesn't do NEARLY ENOUGH.

The EPA does NOTHING to prevent or to protect the environment. It is staffed by lobbyists from the very industries that it is to regulate, just like the FDA.

That is NOT to say that the environment is not important, because it is...HUGELY. Its just that special interests have taken over and the only "green" they care about is the color of money.

I AGREE. Which is why I stated the EPA isn't doing NEARLY enough. And what's funny is... a government agency which is STAFFED by industry-friendly (likely right-wing) lobbyists/ideologues is actually being ATTACKED by right-wingers for being to overbearing and radical. The right-wing is really shameless at this... flipping reality, re-writing history, and general doublethink/speak.

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

Originally posted by Zanti Misfit
reply to post by KilrathiLG

 

My guess would be....

1. The Department of Agriculture
2. The Department of Education
3. The Enviormental Protection Agency
4. The T.S.A.
5. The D.E.A.


Five of the Worst Offenders of Wasteful Goverment Spending .

edit on 14-10-2011 by Zanti Misfit because: (no reason given)

Get rid of the EPA... then tell your grandchildren you were a brainwashed fool. SERIOUSLY?? Get rid of the EPA?? Do you have any idea the environmental crisis we're in?? The EPA doesn't do NEARLY ENOUGH.

Why is it always asumed that because someone wants to abolish something at the federal ;evel that they don't want the service(s) to be performed at all????? The EPA is unconstitutional, because it is NOT one of the enumerated powers found in Article 1, Section 8. I want the EPA to be abolished.... AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL. Who can manage the environment better... the individual state or a centralized federal beurocracy? The individual states, as stated in the 10th amendment, have the authority and should regualte their own environmental issues. Just because the EPA is gone, doesn't mean that people will start dumping paint thinner in the nations rivers. Let the states handle it. The same logic can be applied to the Dept. of Education, and pretty much any and all other federal agencies/departments.

The Federal Government is to provide for the welfare/protection of the citizenry. Correct me if I'm wrong... but I think protecting people from poisonous, carcinogenic, corrosive, toxic, hormone-disrupting, ecosystem destroying, and/or disease-causing pollutants and industrial practices is a HUGE PART of protection/welfare.

As for the states providing adequate environmental regulation/cleanup... do you SERIOUSLY think that the STATES can handle some of the Superfund sites out there??? Sheeeeeit, man!! The EPA barely does the job with all their power/funding...

No matter who does it, the states or the federal government, I personally don't care. NOBODY has the right to engage in wholesale destruction of the environment and poisoning of humans/other species. No amount of jobs, GDP, stimulus, or industriousness is worth destroying our land bases, health, and ecosystems. Without a livable biosphere, we don't HAVE an economy... and considering that we're causing massive global warming (no it's not a freaking hoax), and the planet's 6th Great Extinction Event... I think the EPA should stay and become more robust against mass industry.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by NoHierarchy

 

Oh yah I forgot about the Drug enforcement agency. So maybe that instead of one of the others. But the EPA is damaging business in its pursuit of Utopian environmentalism. Maybe 5 is just what he is starting with...

The DEA is FAR MORE OPPRESSIVE than the EPA.

And if the EPA damages business and for the RIGHT reasons, then SO BE IT. No business has the RIGHT to continue if it engages in unsustainable/heinous levels of destruction/pollution/poisoning/killing, PERIOD.

HAHAHAHA, PURSUIT OF UTOPIAN ENVIRONMENTALISM??? THE EPA?!?!?
*facepalm*
Where do you get this stuff, man????

Originally posted by Zanti Misfit
reply to post by NoHierarchy

 

" Get rid of the EPA... then tell your grandchildren you were a brainwashed fool. SERIOUSLY?? Get rid of the EPA?? Do you have any idea the environmental crisis we're in?? The EPA doesn't do NEARLY ENOUGH. "



The E.P.A. does serve a purpose , but in it's Present State it has grown into a Tyrannical Department of the Federal Goverment and has Far Over reached it's authority IMO . If Ron Paul were Elected President , and being a good Judge of Constitutional Law , he might try and Restructure it to Conform to it's Origional Intent of Protecting our Enviorment within certain Limits . Remember , we have been Living under a Progressive Liberal Administration for the Last 3 years and this GREEN MANIA has gotten Way out of Hand . Time for some Common Sense when it comes to Governing , don't you think ?

PROVE that the EPA is a tyrannical department.

And GREEN MANIA has gotten out of hand?!?!?!
TALK TO ANY ENVIRONMENTALIST OR EVEN SCIENTIST AND THEY'LL LAUGH IN YOUR FACE FOR SAYING THAT.
The establishment, government, and market has been TERRIBLE about the environment and is NOWHERE NEAR engaging in "green mania". In fact, it's quite the OPPOSITE of that. Business as usual, environment/ecosystems are sacrificed first in the name of profit, jobs, and the market. It's DISGUSTING. And I can only HOPE that we see a widespread and PERMANENT Green Mania take hold if we want a decent world to live on within the next few decades/centuries.

reply to post by NoHierarchy


EPA gets paid mega bucks to look the other way. Let the free market (the people) have direct access to shady corporate practices.

I love using Monsanto, the FDA and Millions Against Monsanto as my example. Millions Against Monsanto wants to END GMO food growing or at LEAST promote the labeling of GMO production. Americans don't know what they're putting in their bodies. Monsanto has this cornered because they're paying off the FDA, hell they have their people in the board of the FDA. How can advocate groups like Millions Against Monsanto have ANY power or say over what the corporations do if they're being bypassed by the corporations and federal entities like the EPA and FDA?


I totally understand where you're coming from, we SHOULD NOT be poisoning the people and our lands but we've been looking at it the wrong way.

Let the free market handle it.


Then you have the Constitution..which is a whole other story. Don't shoot the messenger (Ron Paul) because you don't like the message (Constitution).

Originally posted by liejunkie01

The Brody File that it includes eliminating five governmental departments

You guys seem to forget that those 5 departments employ tens of thousands of people.

It is all good until you are the one without a job.

What then?

Speaking as one who has been without a job, you survive and you find another job. For those willing to WORK, and not just get a paycheck, there are jobs to be found. I would at least know that I lost my job for a good reason.

Besides, it is not government's place to put people to work, it is government's place to provide the opportunity for people to be put to work. A fine distinction, but one I have always supported.

Originally posted by dogstar23
Department of Education would definitely be one of them. Federal Reserve isn't a government agency.

Exactly, and that is the reason that the Fed should be abolished. It should have never come into existence. The only constitutionally authorized agency that has the power to create money in the United States is Congress. This is a power that, by constitutional law, can not be delegated.

Originally posted by eLPresidente
reply to post by NoHierarchy

 

EPA gets paid mega bucks to look the other way. Let the free market (the people) have direct access to shady corporate practices.

I love using Monsanto, the FDA and Millions Against Monsanto as my example. Millions Against Monsanto wants to END GMO food growing or at LEAST promote the labeling of GMO production. Americans don't know what they're putting in their bodies. Monsanto has this cornered because they're paying off the FDA, hell they have their people in the board of the FDA. How can advocate groups like Millions Against Monsanto have ANY power or say over what the corporations do if they're being bypassed by the corporations and federal entities like the EPA and FDA?


I totally understand where you're coming from, we SHOULD NOT be poisoning the people and our lands but we've been looking at it the wrong way.

Let the free market handle it.


Then you have the Constitution..which is a whole other story. Don't shoot the messenger (Ron Paul) because you don't like the message (Constitution).

WHY do you think this magical free market will some how magically solve all our problems? While I know you conservative Libertarians mean well with free-market ideology... what I see is a lot of naive... almost cultish dedication to an ideology which is overly obsessed with markets without regard to the DEEPER problems of our civilization.

I'm also not quite sure what you're all advocating, and I dont think you are either. Do you advocate eliminating regulations completely?? If so... you're inviting a hellstorm that a de-regulated market will NEVER be able to magically fix. Voting with your dollar is NOT Democracy.

Originally posted by LucidReality
While I like some of what Ron Paul says in his message, I do not fully trust him. There are some positive facts about Dr. Paul, however. His voting record is consistent with his message, and adding that with other attributes, he appears to be one of the most 'honest politicians' I have ever known. 'Honest Politicians..." -- Is that an oxymoron?

Anyway, I look at it like this: If we are to believe based on all the evidence we have seen since the late 80's - that our government has been infiltrated by somethingsomeoneNWOaliensSmurfs with negative intentions. How are we supposed to just assume they are 'allowing' him to have a national spotlight?

I know back before he ran for president the very first time, he used to go on public television, local talk radio shows, etc -- and he would be saying the exact same things he is saying today. In those times, however, the message was of course not as diar or urgent. But, he certainly brought up the federal reserve, government insiders, corrupt politicians, etc No intervention? Noone silenced him?

Ok, flash forward, after working to expose (think Bill Cooper) and bring down the evil empire, he remained in congress, and ran for president. Yet again, during his very first presidential run in 89? -- he was saying these things. After losing, he goes back into his seat in congress, and goes for 20 years in front of the house on live television talking about our liberty being stolen right before our eyes. No intervention? Noone silenced him?

Then, he runs for president again, and things really take off, the Internet is here now, and this message speaks to people, people wake up and it exploded. While he didn't win, he really changed the way many people who were formally asleep thought about our country and government. No intervention? Noone silenced him?

Now, here it is 2011, and he has been 'allowed' to awaken the masses of young people to a new way to think about the 'shadow' in our government.

There's a perception that Ron Paul is shunned by the media. While this is kinda true, he isn't really silenced or 'ruined' -- He is on every major network television station, he is talked about, he is routinely interviewed and praised by some newscasters.

The only REAL perception is based on a falsehood. People that trust him, trust him because they seem to be made to believe that he is not accepted. When clearly, to me at least, that's just not the case. He has been 'accepted' -- if he wasn't accepted, we wouldn't know about Ron Paul.

If he was accepted, he is allowed, if he is allowed, how can you trust him? Put it another way, even if he somehow made it through the cracks, and just never drew their attention. If he was really the man to restore our nation from tyranny, would they let him in office? If in office, would they allow him to do anything? What exactly would be the point?

edit on 14-10-2011 by LucidReality because: (no reason given)

Sad but true. His rhetoric and voting records are GREAT and with few exceptions...and those exceptions are what gave him away to me. I live near him. The first is his stand on 9/11..'it wasn't an inside job'. Of course, if he did say that it was..he would have been out of office and out of the running. So he cant say it. The second is I turned in a massive game of Covet Means in 'OUR' district. His office said I had enough to go to the FBI, and sent me there. THEY told me "I" had to investigate it on my own! Which I did. And I traced it to PERRY AND BUSH. Turned in the info. Not one thing has been done. No one has helped the people, more than 95 thousand homestead have been seized, and that figure is old now. Went back to Paul's office and the people who were talking to me and cheering me on are now dead silent. No one returns my phone calls, and Paul is as conspicuously as absent as the Texas Ranger, Joe Harrelson, I tried to talk to about rendering aid.

So..I looked into Pauls activities further.

Ron Paul is a freemason, of high degree.

Which goes to prove, NO ONE gets into the game unless they are a player!

Originally posted by easynow
Oh what a great idea

just what we needed

MORE people losing their jobs

edit on 15-10-2011 by easynow because: (no reason given)

Exactly this

Are any of you even thinking of the thousands of people that would loose their jobs?
Not to mention what it would do to the economy.
This is his bright idea to cut spending?

How sad

Ron Paul can promise all he wants; its all but impossible to remove an agency. He loses nothing making the promise for that reason. The presidency has some limited say through reorganization, appointments and has some say in the distribution of funding; however, they will not be removed. As for salary, it a drop in the bucket compared to what he will make after he leaves office. The move is the flavor of the month in attempting to appease public sentiment.

$1 trillion in cuts!! That's music to my ears!! We can stop borrowing money, and if the fed is disbanded stop paying interest to those parasites.

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by InformationAccount

 

I propose that NO agencies be cut and instead, we withdraw ALL troops stationed overseas, par down the military budget, improve the education in this country and explore alternative fuels and growing hemp as ways of providing revenue to ordinary citizens.

We do NOT need to cut government agencies.

The Tea Party and RP supporters are missing the bigger point.

You are missing the point, we need to do BOTH, just cutting the military will not balance the budget. Elimination of the Education Department will improve education at the state and local level. Private industry will explore alternative fuels once oil companey tax breaks are ended.

Originally posted by ldyserenity
More welfare babies no thank you..

How can you have more welfare babies if there is no welfare?

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by Imlookingthroughyou

 

Define "smaller government" for me will you please?

Do you mean:

Fewer DMV clerks so I can waste 2 days instead of one?

Fewer building inspectors so I can't trust the building not to collapse on me?

Fewer public works people so the sewage backs up in the street?

Fewer government workers overall so that the response time stretches in months and years for anything?

How about smaller FEDERAL Government, all of the above are state and local functions, and would get better once the feds stop taking money from the states.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


hey, as long as there is still unemployment and food stamps for me when i am in between jobs then i will vote for this man!

reply to post by ModernAcademia


I'm voting for him whether he gets the nomination or not.. I certainly hope he takes the 3rd party route, and hopefully Democrats and Republicans alike will cast a vote. He wouldn't win, but just to see him take at least a double digit piece of the pie would be awesome.

I love Ron Paul with all my heart, but I don't believe he will ever be elected as president. We, as a people, do not elect our presidents. I will still vote, as always, but I truly doubt TPTB will ever allow such a forward thinking man to lead us.