Ron Paul: Hope For AmericaFebruary 4, 2008The Events that are: My Life The times they are a-changin’. This post seems to be older than 13 years—a long time on the internet. It might be outdated. Not that my endorsement counts for anything, but… Don’t forget that Super Tuesday is coming up. However, the Washington State caucus won’t be until Saturday, February 9th. 0 Related Tags:caucusRon PaulSuper TuesdayWashington 10 thoughts on “Ron Paul: Hope For America” Sam Owens (devan's brother) February 10, 2008 at 8:25 pm So why are you down with Ron Paul? Sure I have to agree with some of his policies (mainly ending the War on Drugs), but his whole plan to get rid of a ton of government bureaucracies just won’t work. If you think getting rid of the income tax, C.I.A, etc, then can you answer why? I honestly haven’t heard anyone answer this question before.. so I’d be interested to know what you have to say. Btw those pictures of water droplets are sick. I should show you some of the stuff that my friends are doing in my advanced physics class. Andrew Ferguson February 10, 2008 at 10:46 pm You seem very adamant that getting rid of some bureaucracy will not work. Let’s start with the IRS. Why do you think getting rid of the IRS won’t work? Sam Owens (devan's bro) February 11, 2008 at 6:18 pm True there are many bureaucracies don’t have to be still up and running. But lets assume that when you say “IRS” you’re basically just talking about the income tax. So lets say that Ron Paul is going to cut government spending MASSIVELY. I don’t think that it will offset the lack of an income tax. Now that being said, what would happen then? More sales tax? If anything more sales tax would probably be worse overall than no income tax, especially for the poor. If you believe that getting rid of many of the government programs WILL offset the absence of an income tax, then why? Do you have any sources? I haven’t been able to come up with any credible resources to determine that. I’m all for getting rid of worthless government spending. Especially getting rid of this retarded military industrial complex that has been growing since Eisenhower. Plus I believe that Paul is right, especially in terms with the C.I.A. Whats the use in spending so much money on that agency when we can’t effectively use the information that it receives? Again, I’m sure that when I get older I’m going to loathe the IRS. In fact I would love to get rid of it just because of Aaron Russo and his up and coming movie “Freedom to Facism.” But… I’m definitely very conflicted because wasn’t it Ben Franklin who said “there are two things certain in life, and that’s death and taxes.” ? (i hope thats right.) So do you think the government could function without an income tax? Andrew Ferguson February 11, 2008 at 10:22 pm When you say “income tax”, are you talking about individual income tax or all taxes (including corporate taxes, employment taxes, estate taxes, gift taxes and excise taxes) as well? I’ll assume for the sake of this argument that you’re talking about individual income taxes. For 2006 (the most recent year in which figures from the IRS are available), the IRS collected a net amount of $993,628,903,000; almost a billion trillion dollars. The individual income tax also accounts for about 43.5% of the nation income (called ‘receipts’). For 2006, total expenditures were 2.709 Trillion dollars. Getting rid of Social Security cuts out 544.8 billion (about 21% of the total buget). Defense accounts for 512.1 billion and while I would not advocate getting rid of the entire Department of Defense, let’s say that we can get rid of half of it (there’s no rational basis for this, I just picked a number). That’s another 256 billion cut, plus the 544.8 already cut from Social Security for a total of 800 billion dollars. I’ve just found funding to eliminate 80% of the individual income tax in 15 minutes. I bet that you could easily find another 193 billion in various other deptartments. But let’s say that you can’t. While, Ron Paul doesn’t advocate a federal sales tax (or VAT/GST type tax) as far as I know, I’m not completely opposed to it. One of the things I do like about Huckabee (although I won’t vote for him becuase of his ideas on ammending the constitution) is his FairTax plan. I haven’t spent a lot of time reading about or discusing it with people smarter then me, but it does seem like an interesting idea. In short, the FairTax plan would get of the IRS (and all the taxes listed above) and replace it national sales tax. Addtionally, a monthly prebate would be issued to poor familes. The FairTax plan would be 23% of the total sale price, but I think that this could be lowered significantly when accompanied with the aforementioned government budget cuts. Franklin’s commentary about death and taxes was not made in a time where an income tax was collected, so I think it ends up being a moot point. And yes, I do think a government could function without an income tax. For example Washington state has no income tax. Neither does Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas and Wyoming. Sources: http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=171960,00.html http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/tables.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget,_2006 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax http://www.govspot.com/know/incometax.htm Sam Owens (devan's bro) February 12, 2008 at 1:58 am Now about Social Security, although I’m totally for just “getting rid” of social security. That just isn’t going to happen. There are too many people who still want it, even though it’s going to go bankrupt soon and we (the young generation) will probably suffer for it. I don’t think that it would be a “popular” sort of thing if you just straight up got rid of it. “$993,628,903,000; almost a billion dollars.” Don’t you mean almost a trillion lol? But ok 🙂 That pretty much answers my question fair and square. In fact now, I completely agree with you. Only problem is, Ron Paul probably won’t win the nomination because of his views on Social Security (and on other issues). The older generation has an extremely large portion of voters in elections and at caucuses. I also completely agree with him about staying with the constitution. I mean you can’t really go wrong if you strictly follow it. Whereas nowadays we amended the Patriot Act and who knows whats coming next. In short, I hope Ron Paul keeps trying :). I’ve never seen or heard of a president that has been quite like him in his radical views, and I think thats what we need. Well it is pretty late, so I better get to bed.. I’ve very much enjoyed this discussion. Hopefully we’ll have more. P.S. I remember when my sister went to one of your birthday parties where you LAN’d with both computers and halo :P. I think thats awesome haha. Andrew Ferguson February 12, 2008 at 9:49 pm heh, yea I did mean trillion. I’m taking a class this semester called Constitutional Law and Civil Rights. We’re going over older cases right now, but we have a section on the Patriot Act coming up that I’m really looking forward to. And yes, that party must of been six or seven years ago. Wow. sam owens February 14, 2008 at 5:33 pm So I just heard something from a friend of mine, did you know that Ron Paul is against abortion? And that he also is in favor of getting the US out of the United Nations? What is your opinion on those 2 items? And wow I would definitely be interested in taking that class. Especially about the section on the Patriot Act. Andrew Ferguson February 14, 2008 at 6:21 pm I do know that Ron Paul is against abortion. He’s actually a former OB/GYN. However, I think it’s also important to note that he’s against Federal legislation. Instead, he would give States the right to choose how to regulation or ban abortions. This view also falls inline with Paul’s strict Constitutionalist views and pretty much follows the 10th Amendment supporting States’ rights: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Personally, I’m pro-choice and define new life the way the medical community and science typically recognize it (at birth). Having said that, however, I’m not opposed to changing the definition of life to an earlier stage of development as long as such a move is based on scientific grounds. I also have no quarrels with Dr. Paul making the abortion a State issue and would rather have it be determined on a state-by-state basis rather then as a Federal regulation. As for the UN. It’s two fold issue, the way I see it. First and foremost, Ron Paul’s foreign policy can be summed up in one word: isolationalism. And it’s really not a bad idea. We (the USA) are not the world police and getting involved in other nations battles or interfering with other nations conduct is not our place. The problem we’re having now with our Middle East invastion, and other similar to it, is that we were being proactive rather then reactive. Now you might think that being proactive and disarming an issue before it becomes a problem might be good. One might even argue that had the United States been more proactive with events leading up to WWII that it would have happened. I think this is faulty logic and the rest of the world doesn’t care for a proactive super power to intervene. The second issue is that the UN is all talk and no walk. They make resolutions, but then refuse to put any force (read as: military power) behind such resolutions. This effectively makes the resolution (and consequently, the UN) worthless. I’d like to see the League of Nations brought back, if only because it has a better sounding name…League of Nations. It just rings ‘badass.’ sam owens February 27, 2008 at 8:53 pm Now I’ve given this a lot of though, and on the side research and well this is what I came up with… I believe in a balance of state and federal power. It would certainly be nice to simply let each state decide for themselves on issues like these, but I feel like doing so more often would be divisive and make the country feel more like a collection of independent states, rather than a United whole. As for the UN, I agree the United States shouldn’t police the world. However, I think pulling from the UN would be detrimental to diplomatic relations with our allies. And although it may be somewhat ineffective, it’s certainly better than nothing at all… The real problem I have with Ron Paul is his insistence on leaving everything up to private enterprise; I simply don’t trust private corporations enough. It’s far more easy for a private corporation to exploit, oppress, and control than a federal government. I believe in correcting the imbalance of wealth in this country, and the way to do that is certainly not by giving more power to private companies. Your thoughts? Andrew Ferguson March 1, 2008 at 10:12 pm The balance of state and federal power is an interesting one. It’s also an area that I think we’ve vested too much power in the federal government. My views are actually very Federalist on this one (think Nixon and New Federalism) “Before the U.S. Constitution was written, each American state was essentially sovereign. The U.S. Constitution created a federal government with sufficient powers to both represent and unite the states, but did not supplant state governments. This federal arrangement, by which the central federal government exercises delegated power over some issues and the state governments exercise power over other issues, is one of the basic characteristics of the U.S. Constitution that checks governmental power.” [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism#United_States] The 10th Amendment also provides some insight: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Back In The Day&trad;, I think the country did feel like a collection of independent states, and I think that’s what they should remain as. The federal government is helpful in many things, such as providing protection, however there are a vast range of geopolitical issues that need to be taken into account and having the federal government create a uniform law of the land in such varying climate doesn’t make sense. I don’t think everything would be left up to private enterprise. But I think there are definite benefits to privatizing certain things. In many situations, it can make for a better product or services. I think concerns about exploitation, oppression and control and blown waaay out of proportion. Comments are closed.