A question for Ron Paul supporters

[phatlip]

I'm currently reading "The Revolution: A Manifesto" by Ron Paul, and I'm a little baffled by one of his positions.

I knew Ron Paul opposed the income tax, but I was always under the assumption that he supported some sort of national sales tax instead. I now know that isn't even remotely true after reading:

"What we should work toward, however, is abolishing the income tax and replacing it not with a national sales tax, but with nothing."

I understand Ron Paul would put forth ENORMOUS cuts in spending to lower taxes and to tackle the deficit. This is something he went on to explain after this quote. But proposing the federal government take in NO tax revenue whatsoever baffles me. It leaves me wondering:

A. How the federal government would lower the deficit without SOME form of taxation

B. How the federal government would pay for anything at all for the matter. Even if he wants to limit spending as drastically as he wants, surly the federal government would still need to spend money. Otherwise how would we maintain a military, maintain the interstate highways etc.

Can anyone clarify?

[hellhound]

I'm sure he's thinking that all the other taxes people pay (property, gas, sales, "sin' taxes on cigs and beer, etc) would cover almost all govt duties. The payroll taxes for Soc.Sec and Medicare would still be taken out. Many of the services that add to the large Federal beaurocracy would become duties of each state (to cut the overhead administrative costs) where the state would determine what fees/tax would be needed.
Since Military (which he'll limit) and SocSec/Medicare take up the majority of Federal spending... I guess thats what he's thinking. I dont know enuff about all the crap the fed govt spends $ on to know if it could work or not.

[tokenuser]

<sarcasm>
... but its a market driven economy. People will pay for those services themselves at the going market rate ...
</sarcasm>

It appears you've spotted the flaw in Ron Paul's plan.

Of course, instead of "taxes" he has "tariffs".

[mikec]

If one reads the Constitution, there are few things the Federal government really needs money for. Yes, the military is one of them.

Why do we have so many various Federal agencies? Let the states run peoples lives. Every state has a department of education. We do not need a Federal education department.

[hellhound]

I see merit to farming out services to lowest bidding private companies instead of paying for the "you cant fire me because I'm a govt or union employee" type thing...

I also see the benefit of giving more power to individual states in determining what's most needed w/ tax dollars.. EG: the Fed Govt gives states highway funds which can only be used on highways... some states might say "Our highways are pretty good and not as much of a priority as fixing our dam, fixing our levees (as mighta helped New Orleans), etc". States like mine (Maryland) or a state on the Gulf, Mississippi, or Great Lakes (where waterways and fishing/maritime industry is much of their economy) might prefer to use those funds to clean up their bay/river/lake first... but are restricted from doing so.

That said, there is also the downside of the "watchdog" groups like "Citizens Against Government Waste" (cagw.org) and others, needing to split their attention more to each individual state to monitor waste, abuse, and corruption which might make things more difficult.

IMO the problem is that we need a hybrid of Fed control and State control... and seems the 2 party system which seem to be 100% in opposite "camps" refuses to compromise (especially the last 18 years, going back to Gingrich and the '94 balanced budget/welfare reform which decimated services for the disabled and the poor.. I know because I'm both disabled and poor and was getting job training at the time which was cut).

The way the USA's election system is set up...funding, electoral college, redistricting, ballot access rules, etc.. I dont see a 3rd party getting a fighting chance to make a difference (other than hopefully getting into afew debates and putting out afew ads which might bring up alternative ideas that could mess with the money base of the Dems and Repubs.

[loug002]

I think Ron Paul forgets Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution. It's understandable. He's too busy being a doctor that doesn't 'accept' the theory of evolution, and also deciding it shouldn't be states' rights but church rights.

But for those of us here, here is Article 1, Section 8:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

I'm not going to debate the other parts, because it's easy to see and know where I fall.

Is the IRS legal? I don't know. It doesn't say HOW Congress shall collect taxes. It doesn't even say WHAT taxes they can collect, but Ron Paul's idea of doing away with tax is unconstitutional.

And considering his stances on other things, it just doesn't shock me.

[ellery14]

I watched the debate and he clearly won. I was a Romney guy, but the more I listen to Ron Paul, the more sense he makes to me. This guy is the only free thinker in the race, the other candidates are just talking heads. They tell you what you want to hear, then they take care of themselves and their wall street buddies once they get in office.

[tokenuser]

Originally Posted by ellery14

I watched the debate and he clearly won. I was a Romney guy, but the more I listen to Ron Paul, the more sense he makes to me. This guy is the only free thinker in the race, the other candidates are just talking heads. They tell you what you want to hear, then they take care of themselves and their wall street buddies once they get in office.

Hmmm ...

Indian IP address (New Delhi) and the exact same text found elsewhere on the web ...

(See "Recent Covert post at http://www.topix.com/forum/city/logan-wv/T7DQ2HNPFU10ANC1P" from December 12th).

I normally just ban spammers, but in a political forum, I just want to make it clear that this is not politically motivated.

On the surface, there is no spam in here at present, but past experience has shown that certain IP address ranges create number of legit, on topic, posts (generally copy/pasted from other forums) in forum threads, then come back later and add in a signature or change their location with the URL of a website they are spamming.

Yes, they are getting more devious. I guess its what they teach in the "How to get rich quick on the internet" MLM spam guides online now.

[loug002]

Well, that

This guy is the only free thinker in the race, the other candidates are just talking heads. They tell you what you want to hear, then they take care of themselves and their wall street buddies once they get in office.

Is all you really hear from Ron Paul supporters anyway. It's like a cult.