“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 the federal spending at roughly $1.8 trillion – a sum greater than the budget just 6 years ago in 2,000 …Does anyone seriously believe we could not find ways to cut spending back to 2,000 levels?”
Eliminating one-third of the proposed 2007 budget would still leave the federal spending at roughly $1.8 trillion – a sum greater than the budget just 6 years ago in 2,000 …”
“By the way, when I say cut taxes, I don’t mean fiddle with the code. I mean abolish the income tax and the IRS and replace them with nothing.” - Ron Paul
14 comments:
he's got my vote. barak be damned.
-j
It's one thing to state your politically platform. It's quite another to realistically implement. Is it reasonable to assume that he could get any of this to pass when the American people can't even get our troops out of Iraq or universal health care or a balance budget. I am just saying it sounds good though ??
J,
You should slow your role.
I agree with Paul on a lot of things but guys like him usually turn out to be hippocrites. I've read some very ignorant racial shit he wrote that hasn't been debunked as fake yet. In any case, his nostalgic views of no taxes harken back to a time when the American economy and lifestyle was not nearly as complex as it is now. Most people were born in one city and town and never left that place.
I don't buy the Ron Paul tax schtick.
Nor do I buy it when anybody says they're in favor of "small government" or "low taxes" or any such thing.
That's like saying I'm in favor of "small mortgage payments" or "low utility bills" or "cutting back the household food budget by one third."
Less expenditure is always a possibility, but if you pay less, you get less. Lower mortgage payment means a smaller house, lower utility bills means that somebody has to go without heat or A/C or the internet, and lower food budget means that somebody has to do without something they've been eating.
Who is that "somebody," according to Ron Paul? Who is that "somebody," according to anybody who's advocating lower taxation?
Nobody's getting my vote by trying to sell me on lowering tax payments for them by cutting some civil service for me.
Tell me some government service that you and your demographic can do without, how you'll all agree to do away with it, how much money that will save, and how you should reap the benefits in reduced taxes, and then you might get my attention. Otherwise, it's looking like nonsense to me.
J,
Didn't you defend Gandhi against accusations of "racism" when Michael Fisher pointed out things Gandhi had said?
You still read Gandhi, right?
II,
But Ganghi is not running for president. What I said to MF was that I couldn't verify what Gandhi said - just like I just wrote I can't verify what Paul said. In any case, I agree with Paul on certain things, but I think his view of America is more 1807 than 2007, and I think that's over the top.
He's the only one, except perhaps Kucinich, with an ounce of principal and consistency. He says no taxes and means it - and has voted against every spending bill put before him. He's against the war, against the PATRIOT Act, for individual rights.
How is it more 1807 than 2007 to suggest that trading with other nations, instead of bombing them, is the way to create peace?
How is it more 1807 than 2007 to advocate for individual rights instead of collective subjugation to the state?
II
How is it more 1807 than 2007 to suggest that trading with other nations, instead of bombing them, is the way to create peace?
Sounds good but... it is more profitable to bomb another country than to trade with that's the core of the problem. There is more profit in selling weapons and protection like the mob versus selling corn and sprite. In the modern world peace is a derivative of fear.
II,
That Paul and Kucinich are more principled than the other candidates is undisputable. But ideologically principled people don't always make the best leaders because when you ascribe to a particular ideology, you often miss the merit of opposing viewpoints. Presidents often have to govern by building concensus.
When I referred to Paul's 1807 view, I'm referring not to his views on personal liberty (with which I wholeheartedly agree), but to his views on taxes, state's rights and interstate commerce. To me, he's somewhat like Clarence Thomas in that he views the US as a grouping of disjointed and independent states. That may have been the case during the Revolutionary War, but it is not now. He also seems to think that the gov't has almost no role in facilitating trade or improving the lives of citizens. I disagree.
I'm not saying I don't like the dude. I do. I'm not just going to put a bumper sticker on the Cherokee just yet. I'm with Barack.
Ahhh, there we go with the "leading by building concensus" meme. Which is really another way of saying, leading by not leading. Or of saying, leading by listening to those who pay the most? Which is what we have now.
Is concensus built or manufactured?
What concensus is Barack "building"? War with Iran? Whose concensus does that represent?
If principled men don't make great leaders, then by what measure do you choose among the unprincipled, hypocrite candidates?
Amazing that a man who actually practices what he preaches isn't deserving of your support or endorsement. That you would actually feel more comfortable with a liar.
he's somewhat like Clarence Thomas in that he views the US as a grouping of disjointed and independent states. That may have been the case during the Revolutionary War, but it is not now.
So anything that exists now can't be changed? Shouldn't be changed?
There was a time when homosexuality was against the law, but it is not now. Does that mean you support gay marriage since opposition to it is so 1807?
II,
I've led an organization of 500+ people and I can tell you that there is no leader who can ram his or her views down the throats of their constituents. I've read books on great leaders all over the world and all of them have had to build concensus in order to build a movement. That doesn't mean they aren't principled on important issues. It's a balance, and good leaders know when to do hold 'em or fold 'em. Gandhi, King - all of them - had to negotiate with their enemies as well as their own supporters.
Consensus can be both built (Social Security) and manufactured (Iraq).
Everyone is a hypocrite to a certain extent. I'm supporting Obama for various reasons. Is he perfect? No. But neither is Paul or Kucinich. Neiter am I. Neither are you.
Like I've said on my blog, the Constitution has flaws and it was written during a time when the States were not so connected. IMO, there is no need to adhere to arcane constitutional views. I'm not saying the document is worthless, just that SOME things have changed and can't go back (like the fact that America is inter-connected by freeways and airports).
We're not talking about building a movement. We're talking about an election. Since the executive branch does not make the law, it cannot ram anything down anyone's throats.
Where is the line between arcane and legitimate Constitutional views? Your logic is the same as those who think the 4th Amendment is arcane because it doesn't take into account the "unique" situation of the war on terror; that the 5th Amendment is a nuisance rather than a fundamental of justice; that the 10th Amendment is so 1807 instead of a safeguard against an imperial presidency.
If America being interconnected by freeways justifies a federal behemoth, why wouldn't the world being connected by the internet justify world government?
II is shuttng it down!
lets see if i've got this straight:
a. charles says...
I don't buy the Ron Paul tax schtick. Nor do I buy it when anybody says they're in favor of "small government" or "low taxes" or any such thing.
Jasai says....
Maybe you don’t believe them because you can’t believe you. Too many Americans can’t see how a candidate could propose something like less spending because they can’t even mange to do it at the basic family budget level. After all, how will you have all of your “stuff” if you have to spend less money?
a. charles says...
That's like saying I'm in favor of "small mortgage payments" or "low utility bills" or "cutting back the household food budget by one third." Less expenditure is always a possibility, but if you pay less, you get less. Lower mortgage payment means a smaller house, lower utility bills means that somebody has to go without heat or A/C or the internet, and lower food budget means
that somebody has to do without something they've been eating.
jasai says.....
From what I can glean by simply walking around my typical southern California neighborhood, a great many of us could stand to consume less of all these things mentioned. And mostly for the fact that the reason we are consuming at current volumes is because we think it will make us better, smarter, more attractive versions or our empty, undisciplined selves in the eyes of our empty undisciplined neighbors. (good luck with that.)
It make you look better or feel better (which is really the unspoken goal). not ever. Piling on is the problem. Maybe now’s the time to peel back. A LOT. We act as if the “advances” that have been made in the last fifty years are ones we can not stand to re-examine.
-jasai
Jasai says....
Maybe you don’t believe them because you can’t believe you. Too many Americans can’t see how a candidate could propose something like less spending because they can’t even mange to do it at the basic family budget level. After all, how will you have all of your “stuff” if you have to spend less money?
No, my belief in myself is fine. I can live within a budget for me, and I can impose one on my family if necessary. I will decide which of my stuff I can do without to get there.
But spending less at the government level isn't so easy, because I don't get to make the do-without decisions by fiat. Don't think I couldn't -- I can balance the federal budget in a big hurry, if I'm dictator. Problem is, I'm not, and Ron Paul isn't, and isn't gonna be elected one, either.
That means that budgets aren't gonna be drastically reduced with him, me, or you riding around, pointing at other people and deciding that they can do with less. They will say, "I'm not even discussing giving up my X from government unless you and him and him start giving up your A and B and C and your Y and your Z, too."
So the Ron Paul position completely ignores political reality unless it is backed up with "The necessary majority of us will agree that we can do without this.
What's Ron Paul's "this"?
What sacrifice is he willing to make that he can say with conviction that enough folks like him will also be willing to make it?
If you can't start there, then you're left in the same democratic budget/tax reality that the government has been in for generations. That means that you can't start with "We should spend less" as the prime directive -- you have to start with "we will have to come up with some consensus on what things are necessary for government to do."
If he's not starting there, he's not dealing with the reality that I see.
Post a Comment