The Ron Paul Thread

[Velokid1]

Sorry ... more...

by Ron Paul, Dr.

April 10, 2006

April 15th, our national tax day, comes this year just as Congress prepares to pass the 2007 federal budget. If you think paying taxes was painful this year, I’ve got some bad news: the new budget is a grotesque illustration of everything wrong with the federal government. At $2.7 trillion, it’s the largest budget in U.S. history by a long shot. Like it or not, the pressure to raise your taxes will be enormous in coming years no matter who controls Congress. The amount of money government spends, borrows, and prints simply cannot be sustained.

For most people, their income tax return represents their most meaningful interaction with the federal government. It requires them to confess their actions over the past year to the IRS in excruciating detail. It's an annual ritual guaranteed to elicit strong feelings of disgust. Thanks to the deception of income tax withholding, however, some people actually look forward to tax time and a much-anticipated refund. Imagine how quickly Americans would demand lower taxes and spending if they had to write the federal government a check each month.

Most people understandably want a simpler income tax system, but it’s useless to discuss tax reform without spending reform. Who wants a 40% flat tax? Who wants a national sales tax if it adds 50% to the retail price of everything we buy? In other words, why change the tax structure if spending stays the same? Once we accept that Congress needs $2.7 trillion from us, the only question is how it will be collected. The current answer is the labyrinthine tax code, which pits taxpayers against each other in a political scramble to make sure the other guy pays. The truth is that Congress does not need $2.7 trillion, or anything close to it, to fund the proper constitutional functions of the federal government.

The only tax reform needed is to lower or abolish existing taxes. When reform proposals seem complicated, the reason is simple: they obscure their true nature as schemes to shift the tax burden around. It’s not who pays or how we pay; it’s how much we pay.

The real enemy of tax reform is the spending culture in Washington. Let me repeat: we will never have tax reform in this country until Congress changes its spending habits. The reform rhetoric, regardless of which party it comes from, never changes the reality that federal spending grows every year. Congress spent $2.4 trillion in the last Bush budget; the new budget proposes to spend $2.7 trillion. The same unconstitutional agencies are funded, the same unwise programs are perpetuated, but at higher levels than last year. The previous budget serves merely as a baseline; the only question in any given year is how much spending will increase. Once created, no spending program is ever eliminated. The cycle goes on and on, with different administrations and different people in Congress.

But could America exist without an income tax? The idea seems radical, yet in truth America did just fine without a federal income tax for the first 126 years of her history. Prior to 1913, the government operated with revenues raised through tariffs, excise taxes, and property taxes, without ever touching a worker's paycheck. Even today, individual income taxes account for only approximately one-third of federal revenue. Eliminating one-third of the proposed 2007 budget would still leave federal spending at roughly $1.8 trillion-- a sum greater than the budget just 6 years ago in 2000! Does anyone seriously believe we could not find ways to cut spending back to 2000 levels? Perhaps the idea of an America without an income tax is not so radical after all. It’s something to think about this week as we approach April 15th.

[Velokid1]

November 08, 2007
CNN's The Situtation Room Today

Dr. Paul will be interviewed by Wolf Blitzer on CNN's The Situation Room today at 4:10 pm ET. The interview will also be replayed later today during the 6:00 pm ET broadcast.

[Velokid1]

RP speaking in NH:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoE5ExuOw4o

[chitwnvw]

Is he for legalizing the herb?

[Velokid1]

Is he for legalizing the herb?

Not exactly. He's for ending the federal Drug War and allowing individual states to govern themselves. Given that a number of states would decriminalize right away if not for the federal government's interference, I guess RP is indirectly for decriminalization, i.e. not prosecuting/incarcerating people for marijuana offenses.

[covelo]

If you REALLY want to get pissed about executive branch spending check out the PART assesment tool. And query the number of programs that are considered by the GAO and OMB to be absolutley worhtless...I think it is something like 22% of government programs IIRC.

I evaluate some of these programs and PART is actually pretty lenient. On the other hand, it is very difficult to develop and operate effective social service programs. The problem with PART is that it identifies "effective" programs, but does not offer many suggestions for improving "ineffective" ones. Following PART recommendations is a little like junking your bus because it uses too much gas.

[covelo]

I haven't read the entire thread but I am wondering if Dr. Paul opposes government spending altogether or only opposes unnecessary government spending? I would argue that the complexity of our present society and the enormous increase in economic externalities stemming from our much increased population (both in the U.S. and in the world as a whole) make references to 1776 tax regimes rather naive.

Having said that, I would love to see someone propose dramatic cuts in corporate welfare spending and defense spending. To the extent that Dr. Paul recommends such cuts, I strongly support him in that despite his being a Republican.

[Amskeptic]

I would love to see someone propose dramatic cuts in corporate welfare spending and defense spending. To the extent that Dr. Paul recommends such cuts, I strongly support him in that despite his being a Republican.

Of all the people I know. . . . . how did I get roped into editing/proof-reading a manuscript by a dyed-in-the-wool arch Republican?? The good LOOOOORRRRRRDDDDDD must have a plaaaaaaaaaaan for me.
Colin

[covelo]

I would love to see someone propose dramatic cuts in corporate welfare spending and defense spending. To the extent that Dr. Paul recommends such cuts, I strongly support him in that despite his being a Republican.

Of all the people I know. . . . . how did I get roped into editing/proof-reading a manuscript by a dyed-in-the-wool arch Republican?? The good LOOOOORRRRRRDDDDDD must have a plaaaaaaaaaaan for me.
Colin

I know; it's ironic, isn't it?

[Velokid1]

Really great insights, covelo. Thanks.

Yes, RP is for cutting unnecessary spending. You will hear he is for "getting rid of Federal government", but you'll hear that on FOX News and from other like-minded individuals, if you know what I'm getting at.

I'd love to hear your views/opinions once you have the time to dig a little deeper in to Dr. Paul's views and plans.

[Velokid1]

Looks like I need to post some Hillary stories in here to revive this thread! ;)

Nice Rollingstone article on this wacky Ron Paul guy:

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/ ... st_the_war

Ron Paul: A Republican Takes the Lead Against the War
Tim Dickinson

Posted Nov 14, 2007 7:06 AM


Ron Paul may be an old-school Republican, but no other candidate running for president — in either party — has spoken out against the war in Iraq as bluntly as he has. Sure, the former obstetrician has a goofy nostalgia for the gold standard, not to mention medieval views on abortion and immigration. But his anti-war stance has not only helped him bank more campaign cash than Iraq-backer John McCain, it has garnered him more contributions from military families than any candidate in the race. On November 5th, Paul raised $4.2 million online — a record single-day haul for a GOP presidential candidate. Rolling Stone caught up with the seventy-two-year-old Texan in between votes at his day job in the House of ­Representatives.


What do you make of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and current U.S. posturing toward Iran?

He's a loudmouth, and he hurts their cause. But we help his cause when we gang up against him. When we pass sanctions against him, the dissidents in Iran who would like to get rid of him rally around him for nationalistic reasons.

We get hysterical over a guy who doesn't have a single weapon, and nobody's proven that he's ever violated the arms-nonproliferation treaty. Matter of fact, the International Atomic Energy Agency is going to have an agreement with him by the end of the year. That's why you have all of this warmongering going on: It is to try to find an excuse to start bombing him before they prove that he doesn't have a chance of having a weapon. That's exactly what we did with Iraq. I'm scared to death they're getting ready to do that with Iran.



The Bush administration says Iran is supporting the Iraqi insurgency. How much can we trust that assessment?

About as much as what we heard about Iraq before the war. What was true about that? Very, very little, if anything. They're capable of telling us anything if they want to go to war. And that's what they want.

Whether the Iranians have helped the insurgency or not is almost irrelevant from my viewpoint. Why wouldn't they have an interest? It's like saying that if the Russians were in Mexico, we wouldn't have an interest in who wins that war. We'd have every right. They're the next-door neighbor.



But the administration alleges that the Iranians aren't just backing the Shia against the Sunni — they are complicit in the slaughter of our soldiers.

I haven't seen any proof of that. They're assuming that it's true, but that's part of the war hysteria that's going on.



Giuliani seems to be the warmonger in chief — leading the drumbeat for war with Iran. What would a Giuliani presidency mean for our national security?

If someone is unhappy with the Bush policy, they would find Giuliani's [policy] would be even more extreme. But since Giuliani is so anxious to go to war, somebody ought to ask him why he didn't go when he was called up instead of ducking it like some of those other chicken hawks — he took, what, four deferrals?

The kids today are expected to go because Giuliani likes this stuff. But whether it's Cheney or Giuliani, these guys think it's quite proper to go to war when they feel like it. But they never had to expose themselves.



In a recent debate, you blasted Mike Huckabee for supporting the war, saying we're only staying in Iraq "to save face." But wouldn't leaving Iraq be a propaganda victory for bin Laden?

Everything is much worse if we stay. Right now they're very content to bleed us in Iraq. Bleed us financially and by killing Americans. We lose lives, we spend money we don't have, it furthers our financial crisis. The longer we're there, the stronger Al Qaeda gets. Our being there is the greatest incentive ­conceivable to help Osama bin Laden. The evidence is very clear. There's more Al Qaeda now than before. Which means we're in greater danger of being hit by terrorists than before.

Besides, who are the people telling us there'll be problems if we leave? The same ones who said it would be a ­cakewalk. What kind of credibility do they have?


You talk about limiting the size of government. How much of the Pentagon's budget would you ax?

We are now spending close to a trillion dollars a year, when you add up every single thing we do overseas. You could start off easily cutting $100 billion. Bring the troops home, you could save $200 billion the next year. And maybe $250 billion the year after that.

Quit paying to blow up bridges in Iraq and then paying to rebuild them. Bring that money home. Our bridges are falling down. Our levees are falling down. The only way we can get enough money is by stopping this insane foreign policy of running this empire that we can't afford. Policing the world? It's impossible.

I say, just quit it. Let's come home. Bring the troops home. Quit spending the money. Get rid of selective service. Don't have the draft. And no more wars like this. It's a real tragedy and a real black mark on our record.

[Velokid1]

Just me in here. I'm used to that.

Ron Paul Wins Republican Party Straw Poll in Fresno
[Email this] [Print this] November 16, 2007 10:42 am EST

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA--- Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul won yesterday’s straw poll at the Salute to Republican Leaders fundraiser hosted by the Fresno County Republican Party. Congressman Paul won with 35 percent, beating Rudy Giuliani, who garnered 33 percent of the vote. This win attests to the strength of the Paul campaign in California.


There are over 140 registered Ron Paul volunteers in Fresno among thousands of registered volunteers throughout the Golden State. "Across California, the Paul campaign is energizing new voters to register Republican and is re-registering disaffected Republicans who are excited about Ron Paul’s candidacy and his support of traditional Republican principles," said Jeff Greenspan, Ron Paul’s regional coordinator.


In his address to the Fresno County Republican Party, Greenspan said, "We are pleased to support Republican party ideals in California, the Republican party of Fresno County, and the party of Ronald Reagan." The Ron Paul campaign was one of two major sponsors of the event.


Of 41 recent straw polls across the U.S., Ron Paul has won 21, with numerous second and third place finishes.

Not bad for someone getting no help from anyone. No help from anyone other than The People, that is!!

[bretski]

Ron is definitely starting to be picked up on the public radar. I saw a "Ron Paul Graffiti" pickup truck drive through the neighborhood yesterday...

[Velokid1]

A friend of mine is allowing me to use my RP graffiti stencil to completely cover his little Toyota pick-up.

He's actually the friend who started telling me about RP about 6 weeks ago. I thought he was nuts for a few weeks, then I finally set aside my Hatred-for-Neo-Cons and opened my mind to a true republican.

[Velokid1]

Ron Paul Endorsed by Barry Goldwater, Jr.

November 16, 2007 10:16 am EST

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA—Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul today gained a public endorsement from Barry M. Goldwater, Jr.


“America is at a crossroads,” said Mr. Goldwater. “We have begun to stray from our traditions and must get back to what has made us the greatest nation on earth or we will lose much of the freedom we hold dear. Ron Paul stands above all of the other candidates in his commitment to liberty and to America.”


“Leading America is difficult, and I know Ron Paul is the man for the job,” he added.


Mr. Goldwater is the son of the late former Republican presidential candidate and Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater. Barry Goldwater, Jr. served in the House of Representatives for six terms with Texas Congressman Paul, and is currently on the Board of Directors of the Goldwater Institute. After representing northern Los Angeles County in Washington, D.C. for 14 years, Mr. Goldwater retired from politics in 1983 to pursue a successful career in business and humanitarian ventures.


“The Ron Paul campaign is exceptionally honored by Mr. Goldwater’s endorsement,” said Paul campaign manager Lew Moore. “Dr. Paul and Congressman Goldwater fought together in the Congress for the ideals of limited constitutional government that Mr. Goldwater’s father so tirelessly advocated. The Goldwaters have left an indelible mark on the Republican Party, and theirs is a legacy which Congressman Paul will certainly inherit as President.”


The late Barry M. Goldwater, Sr. sparked the modern conservative movement and was the Republican Party presidential nominee in 1964.