Ron Paul 2012!!! Your thoughts on who we should pick for our "Cause"?

[gaiusmarius]

Just out of curiosity. To those of you that think there should be no taxes, how do you plan to run the Country? The infrastructure in our Country is in terrible condition. Where are we getting the trillions of dollars to start working on that?

And here's another funny one from some of you. No welfare or help for people that actually need it. No Social Security, fuck the old people. Legalize the importation of any and all drugs into our Country. Make what you want and keep it all. No education, because there will be no money to pay for it. Have I missed anything, lol?

It's no wonder.......

good points, these are things feared by many.

income tax isnt all taxes. the US was built without income tax. sales tax, import tax, trade tarifs all that will be enough for a shrunken gov. that's what RP explains when people make the point about taxes.

the ss, is also some thing that he's explained that in this day and age you can not take it away without a replacement. his planned cutting of 1 trillion in the first year will not include cutting SS, in fact last i heard, he said he had a plan to shore SS up.

as for the drugs, the idea is that the federal gov has no place regulating what people put in their bodies. that doesnt mean that state gov can't step in to prohibit imports and distribution of really dangerous substances. the idea being that the local people will have a say, ie respect the med laws of the states. you stop the war on drugs the value of drugs will plummet which means cartel profits will plummet. i don't see the problem with the federal gov stepping out of the drug war. if a few idiots end up killing themselves, so be it. let the other 2 billion be free of the war on drugs and all the harm it does.

education, did you look at the statistics recently? the US is rated to be some thing like the 40th in terms of general education level of people leaving high school. but at the same time the largest amount is spent per pupil. so yes, education would benefit greatly from getting the federal gov out of there and turning it over to the states how they want to run their schools.

his ideas can't be simplified to sound bytes without one missing out on how he wants to implement his ideas.

 

[JJScorpio]

A lot of good points. Here's the problem with education. Without federal aid the States will have to raise taxes to pay for these things..... It's the way it is. We live in a Country that people need to be paid a high salary to survive and thrive. As it is now in NY, if you can't afford a private school for your children then they are cutting everything at the public level. So only the rich will be properly educated and get the good jobs. Sound familiar?

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

... the US was built without income tax.

Until 1913. By far, our biggest accomplishments are interstate transit, river damn systems, tele and electrical grid, and defense. We still have railroad tracks that were privately financed and most modern buildings are built with private money. That said, the infrastructures that make these 20th-through-21st century luxuries possible for anybody other than the rich are due to income taxes.

 

[JJScorpio]

And there's another thing most people fail to grasp regarding the good Doctors cuts in all these programs. Unemployment. Mass unemployment.

Everytime a single program is cut, not only are those people now unemployed, but there is a trickle down effect on other jobs. In all the cuts in programs he suggests you could be looking at a million skilled workers now without a job. And we all know who this benefits. Corporations. You'll now have thousands of people fighting for a handful of jobs. Because of this employers will know they can pay less because people are frantic for a job to pay their mortgage and feed their kids. Now you'll have hundreds of thousands of people defaulting on their mortgages with no place to live. And remember, under the good docs brainstorm there's no longer public help for these people. I think people can see where this is going.

The bottom line is there's a fine line in cuts you can make and the effects of these cuts. It's not an easy answer........

 

[dagnabit]

Until 1913. By far, our biggest accomplishments are interstate transit, river damn systems, tele and electrical grid, and defense. We still have railroad tracks that were privately financed and most modern buildings are built with private money. That said, the infrastructures that make these 20th-through-21st century luxuries possible for anybody other than the rich are due to income taxes.

taxing income is not required to fund those programs..

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Churches will fill the void.

sarcasm off

 

[dagnabit]

And there's another thing most people fail to grasp regarding the good Doctors cuts in all these programs. Unemployment. Mass unemployment.

Everytime a single program is cut, not only are those people now unemployed, but there is a trickle down effect on other jobs. In all the cuts in programs he suggests you could be looking at a million skilled workers now without a job. And we all know who this benefits. Corporations. You'll now have thousands of people fighting for a handful of jobs. Because of this employers will know they can pay less because people are frantic for a job to pay their mortgage and feed their kids. Now you'll have hundreds of thousands of people defaulting on their mortgages with no place to live. And remember, under the good docs brainstorm there's no longer public help for these people. I think people can see where this is going.

The bottom line is there's a fine line in cuts you can make and the effects of these cuts. It's not an easy answer........

maybe we can hire more cops?
a big 'ol federal police force. ohhh wait we are the world police so just hire all the unemployed we have now to o spread "freedom" at the barrel of a gun.
every candidate except the good Dr supports more war. who do you think that benefits? the "corporations"

 

[dagnabit]

Churches will fill the void.

don't forget families

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

taxing income is not required to fund those programs..

Then you'd have to generate revenue somewhere else.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

don't forget families

Yeah, like The Grapes of Wrath.

 

[BrnCow]

RP may very well have ideas but to get them approved, he must pass congress and the house to get them into law. So all of the scared of RP's ideas is of no merit. Unless, of course, he does like Obama and goes around the established system to get things done. That's one of the main complaints I have against Obama...cheating the system...

 

[zymos]

Hopefully you aren't referring to the recess appointments that have been done by presidents since George Washington...

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Reform might depend on how respective laws were created. Some folks think the reference to "executive order" in regard to the Controlled Substances Act means president Ron could unilaterally legalize drugs.

I'm not sure how many executive orders are passed through both houses of Congress but I won't even waste time there. Nine agencies were folded into the DEA (just like national security agencies were folded into the Dept of Homeland Security.)

One would have to argue that establishing umbrella agencies make entire departments within subject to executive order. That's a reach.

 

[dagnabit]

Then you'd have to generate revenue somewhere else.

yes in a non punitive fashion without loopholes that benefit only those who can afford to exploit them.

 

[BrnCow]

Paul talks hemp, federal regulation in ND visit

Posted on February 20, 2012 at 9:34 PM

Updated Tuesday, Feb 21 at 1:07 AM

BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul praised hemp as an alternative crop and said a free-market approach would protect the nation's environment Monday during North Dakota campaign stops that drew hundreds of cheering supporters.

North Dakota, which is holding Republican presidential caucuses March 6, is one of 13 states with a caucus or primary from Feb. 28 to March 6. North Dakota has 28 delegates to the Republican National Convention in August, although the caucus results will not dictate how any of them vote.

Paul campaigned in Williston, Dickinson, Jamestown and Bismarck on Sunday and Monday, following rival Rick Santorum's swing through Fargo, on the Minnesota border, and the northwestern oil-country town of Tioga last week.

In Jamestown, about 100 miles east of Bismarck, Paul was critical of the federal government's ban on the cultivation of industrial hemp, a crop that is related to marijuana but does not have its mind-affecting properties.

Industrial hemp is grown in neighboring Canada and other countries, where it is used to make paper, lotions, clothing and biofuels.

North Dakota's Legislature and Agriculture Department have pushed allowing hemp to be grown in the state. A state lawmaker who wanted to cultivate the crop filed an unsuccessful lawsuit against the Drug Enforcement Administration, seeking a declaration that doing so would be legal.

"There is no reason, in a free society, that farmers shouldn't be allowed to raise hemp," Paul said during a Jamestown appearance that drew about 300 people. "Hemp is a good product."

In Bismarck, where the Republican congressman spoke to about 1,200 people Monday night in the gymnasium of a private Christian school, Paul said enforcement of private property rights would be sufficient to protect citizens against pollution, rather than relying on the federal Environmental Protection Agency.

"The more socialized a system is, the worse the property is, and the worse the environment is," Paul said. "We should never be bashful about saying we believe in property rights ... and we don't have to give one inch and say that we're careless with the environment, because you don't have a right to pollute your neighbor's property."

In North Dakota's Republican presidential caucuses in 2008, Paul finished third behind Mitt Romney and John McCain, getting 21 percent of the almost 9,800 votes case.

Duane Sattler, of Richardton, was one of the sign-carrying Paul supporters who attended his Bismarck speech. His son, 13-year-old Shawn Sattler, sat nearby, waving an American flag.

"He's been standing alone a lot of times," Sattler said of Paul. "He votes for our personal freedoms, for sound money, and for less government and less taxes."

He became a Paul supporter during his presidential run in 2008, Sattler said. "I really went and did some research, and the deeper I dug, the more I liked the man," he said. "With the other candidates, the deeper I dug, the less I liked them."

http://www.kvue.com/news/national/139772473.html

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

yes in a non punitive fashion without loopholes that benefit only those who can afford to exploit them.

They need to move the approve button. Punitive is a state of mind. I look at progress and smile, I helped make it happen.

I'm not sure anybody likes the tax loopholes purchased for the top, of the top and by the top - except the top.

The problem with a consumption tax is it mimics a flat tax where the burden is disproportionately placed on the middle class and working poor. Bad thing about a consumption tax is the additional 68 cents of every dollar generated when spent in the private sector won't materialize. Basically, our money grows when we use it. It doesn't grow when we pay off deficits and debt. That said, we have to pay off debt so taking advantage of the additonal commerce is a plus for the economy.

Steve Forbes touted Rick Perry's flat tax. No surprise, it was estimated to save Forbes a billion in 30 years. Forbes' savings would be added to our tab.

 

[dagnabit]

They need to move the approve button. Punitive is a state of mind. I look at progress and smile, I helped make it happen.

I'm not sure anybody likes the tax loopholes purchased for the top, of the top and by the top - except the top.

The problem with a consumption tax is it mimics a flat tax where the burden is disproportionately placed on the middle class and working poor. Bad thing about a consumption tax is the additional 68 cents of every dollar generated when spent in the private sector won't materialize. Basically, our money grows when we use it. It doesn't grow when we pay off deficits and debt. That said, we have to pay off debt so taking advantage of the additonal commerce is a plus for the economy.

Steve Forbes touted Rick Perry's flat tax. No surprise, it was estimated to save Forbes a billion in 30 years. Forbes' savings would be added to our tab.

that's why you address those issues with a prebate structure correlated to family size and income to cover necessities.
it is the only way to make sure everyone pays "their fair share" and no one has any loopholes.
not to mention reduces the size of the IRS's law enforcement division substantially.
just because i label something "progressive" don't mean progress.
you know better than to label the progressive income tax progress.
it's a poor pun.

 

[whodare]

Until 1913. By far, our biggest accomplishments are interstate transit, river damn systems, tele and electrical grid, and defense. We still have railroad tracks that were privately financed and most modern buildings are built with private money. That said, the infrastructures that make these 20th-through-21st century luxuries possible for anybody other than the rich are due to income taxes.

Lol if you think income tax funded those things you are seriously misinformed...

They were funded by the "federal" reserve

That debt is being paid back through user fees like gasoline tax

 

[gaiusmarius]

i do love how even those not in full agreement with Ron Pauls ideas, call him the good doctor......that should say more then all the rest put together. he is a good man. when was the last time a good man had a chance at the white house?

but lets go further to education, if you really look at what's going on in education, you will see that the US education system provides the least bang for your buck. further more the quality of education being provided is at a terrible level globally speaking. outcome based education seems to be a total disaster and it's already the case that only the rich can afford a good education. the fed gov has actually made the level of education gradually worse ever since they got involved. so despite the worries it seems time to change the system of education back to providing a well rounded general education with specialization only starting in university. what is being produced now in schools are consumer debt slaves of the lowest possible education level. it's like there is a agenda of keeping the general public from being too well educated, how else can the terrible statistics and the downward trend be explained? when you have the costs spiraling out of control and the quality of service heading in the dumps, while the actual teachers are not even making good living wages, but their bureaucrats bosses in the upper echelons of the dept of education make 6 figures, it could but benefit from a restructuring, imo.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

... just because i label something "progressive" don't mean progress.
you know better than to label the progressive income tax progress.
it's a poor pun.

IMO, driving over a new road surface that used to bounce out my tooth fillings is progress.

I know better than to politicize bean counting. It's a poor excuse. I can handle the idea you'd prefer less revenues generated, thus less spending and irrevocably less progress. Can't overlook that flat taxes would make our happy rich class even happier.