PlainOl wrote: "*Paul is the only presidential candidate proposing policies that address the country’s fundamental economic problems*"
====== Not exactly true. Paul's "de-stimulus" is pretty much a carbon copy of Newt Gingrich's "American Solutions"; formulated years before Paul's 2011 campaign announcement. In general, I agree with both Mr. Gingrich, and if Paul wasn't so far out and naive on foreign policy, and would remove his cuts in defense, I could go along with Dr. Paul's plan. 2011/11/4 plainolamerican <[email protected]> > Paul is the only presidential candidate proposing policies that > address the country’s fundamental economic problems > --- > a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for America and our citizens > > On Nov 4, 11:14 am, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > "Now, readers can be forgiven for not being familiar with the depression > of 1946, because there actually wasn’t one. But many Keynesian economists > were predicting in 1945 the onset of economic depression as a consequence > of peacetime demobilization. However, the exact opposite occurred, because > the end of the war brought an enormous peace dividend in the form of a > two-thirds reduction in government spending as well as the removal of most > of the wartime economic regulations."Ron Paul’s De-Stimulus Planby Tim > Kelly, November 4, 2011 > > Congressman Ron Paul has put forth an economic plan that calls for > serious cuts in the size, budget, and power of the federal government. He > has also proposed policies that would end the Fed-driven inflation > responsible for the global economic meltdown. This is truly a de-stimulus > plan. > > Paul’s plan would immediately cut $1 trillion from the federal budget by > closing down five cabinet departments, slashing regulations, and > withdrawing troops from overseas. During a Paul presidency, the U.S. > government would cease being the world’s policeman, and the empire would be > liquidated in the interests of the both the economy and the Constitution. > > Such a radical and necessary shift in foreign policy would be difficult > for those Americans dependent on the war economy and accustomed to seeing > their government as a colossus bestriding the world. But now is the time > for Americans to face reality and admit that our country’s exalted global > position has been a corrupting experience, and it is simply no longer > affordable. > > Such a sharp reduction in the federal budget, coupled with much tighter > monetary policy would stop the flow of so-called stimulus spending from the > economy. This would be the beginning of a painful readjustment period, as > people necessarily reduced their consumption, and the economy liquidated > years of inflation and debt-financed malinvestment. Unemployment would > likely go up in the short term as zombie firms deprived of their periodic > fix of easy money went bankrupt, and government payrolls were thinned. > > But it would also be the beginning of genuine economic recovery, because > the private sector, relieved of the burdens of a metastasized state, would > begin to accumulate real capital and invest in viable enterprises. Real > jobs, not government jobs, would be created, and Americans would soon find > themselves earning more, because their currency, no longer devalued by the > Fed’s printing presses, would actually gain purchasing power. > > No doubt Keynesians would still be out there preaching the necessity of > countercyclical fiscal and monetary policies and warning of the dire > consequences of deflation. There would also be no shortage of hack > politicians and rent-seeking special-interest groups willing to spread the > Keynesian message of more government spending. And it would be naïve to > expect the financial elite to sit quietly as their privileges were taken > away. A few select firms on Wall Street reap enormous profits from the bond > market, and under the current system they are free to engage in essentially > risk-free speculation due to their “too-big-to-fail” status. > > Paul has defended his de-stimulus program to inquisitors by correctly > pointing out that similar “austerity measures” have been very successful in > the past in spurring economic recovery and therefore should be used as > roadmaps for recovery today. During a recent appearance on NBC’sMeet the > Press, Paul tutored host David Gregory on “the depression of 1946.” > > Now, readers can be forgiven for not being familiar with the depression > of 1946, because there actually wasn’t one. But many Keynesian economists > were predicting in 1945 the onset of economic depression as a consequence > of peacetime demobilization. However, the exact opposite occurred, because > the end of the war brought an enormous peace dividend in the form of a > two-thirds reduction in government spending as well as the removal of most > of the wartime economic regulations. > > Jason E. Taylor and Richard K. Vedder explain in greater detail in their > article“Stimulus by Spending Cuts: Lessons from 1946”:Historically minded > readers may be saying, &147;There was a Depression in 1946? I never heard > about that.” You never heard of it because it never happened. However, the > &147;Depression of 1946” may be one of the most widely predicted events > that never happened in American history. As the war was winding down, > leading Keynesian economists of the day argued, as Alvin Hansen did, that > &147;the government cannot just disband the Army, close down munitions > factories, stop building ships, and remove all economic controls.” After > all, the belief was that the only thing that finally ended the Great > Depression of the 1930s was the dramatic increase in government involvement > in the economy. In fact, Hansen's advice went unheeded. Government canceled > war contracts, and its spending fell from $84 billion in 1945 to under $30 > billion in 1946. By 1947, the government was paying back its massive > wartime debts by running a budget surplus of close to 6 percent of GDP. The > military released around 10 million Americans back into civilian life. Most > economic controls were lifted, and all were gone less than a year after V-J > Day. In short, the economy underwent what the historian Jack Stokes Ballard > refers to as the &147;shock of peace.” From the economy's perspective, it > was the &147;shock of de-stimulus.”Another historical precedent Paul can > point to is the depression of 1920. Very few people have heard of this > “economic crisis.” This is most likely due to its short duration and the > fact that Warren G. Harding, a president not held in high esteem by > mainstream historians, was able to reverse it with laissez-faire policies > that are anathema to Keynesian orthodoxy. > > Historian Thomas E. Woods Jr. provides this synopsis of Harding’s > successful de-stimulus program:The economic situation in 1920 was grim. By > that year unemployment had jumped from 4 percent to nearly 12 percent, and > GNP declined 17 percent. No wonder, then, that Secretary of Commerce > Herbert Hoover falsely characterized as a supporter of laissez-faire > economics urged President Harding to consider an array of interventions to > turn the economy around. Hoover was ignored.Instead of “fiscal stimulus,” > Harding cut the government's budget nearly in half between 1920 and 1922. > The rest of Harding's approach was equally laissez-faire. Tax rates were > slashed for all income groups. The national debt was reduced by one-third. > The Federal Reserve's activity, moreover, was hardly noticeable. As one > economic historian puts it, “Despite the severity of the contraction, the > Fed did not move to use its powers to turn the money supply around and > fight the contraction.” By the late summer of 1921, signs of recovery were > already visible. The following year, unemployment was back down to 6.7 > percent and it was only 2.4 percent by 1923.Paul’s de-stimulus plan has > been given the cold shoulder in Washington, DC, but that’s to be expected. > After all, politicians are in the business of dividing plunder, and > proposing to take an axe to the federal budget is no way to win friends and > influence people inside the Beltway. But most Americans are now skeptical > of stimulus programs, because the plans have clearly failed to reverse the > country’s economic downturn. Indeed, more people are coming to realize that > the orgy in government spending since 2008 has only accelerated the > decline. Moreover, there is serious concern regarding the federal > government’s unprecedented budget deficits and their potential for sparking > hyperinflation. > > Perhaps enough voters will come to realize that Paul is the only > presidential candidate proposing policies that address the country’s > fundamental economic problems, and perhaps they will reward him > appropriately for his insight and statesmanship. > http://www.fff.org/comment/com1111c.asp > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
