Convince me not to Vote for Ron Paul

I just wanted to note, and i found this out just now, that Ron Paul is against abortion. I don't know what that would mean for America if a woman does not want to keep her baby. But i am assuming abortion would become abolished if Ron Paul was elected to office.

www.ronpaul2008.com...

reply to post by hikix


Women can easily drop off a child at a police state, fire station, hospital, anywhere like that if they do not wish to be a mother, no questions asked, as long as it's within the first two days or something like that.

Also, I'd have to read the legislation, but I don't think if it was an extreme situation that the mother's life was truly at risk, he would be against it.

Also, his main goal is to undo the power the Supreme Court has over abortion. He wants to give this oversight back to the states.

Would he like to eliminate abortion? I'm sure he would. I personally would as well, unless in extreme circumstances.

But at the very least, I think he wants to get rid of the Supreme Court power over abortions.

Still, I think the issue of abortion is hardly a reason to not vote for the guy given the situation our nation is in.

A common argument I've seen against the abolition of the income tax (and not replacing it with that FairTax crap) is that since the income tax is currently progressive, we would not have a progressive tax if we abolished it, and that the progressive tax is a good thing.

1) The progressive tax is inherently unfair and amounts to an attempt at a wage control. If someone makes $100 and another makes $400, with a flat tax, if the tax was 10% (example), the first would pay $10 and the second would pay $40. The person making more pays more in a way proportional to his wealth.
Now if the person making $100 paid 10% and the person making $400 paid 50%, the former would pay $10 but the latter would pay a whopping $200, half his entire salary. It's hardly fair.

2) We can make it "progressive" without that. For example, removing sales tax on things such as food or at least certain foods. Such a necessity isn't taxed, so it amounts to a tax break for the poor who inevitably pay a larger portion of the salary for food.

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
As they should be. But we shouldn't.

Companies are taxed for the pollution from the making of the car, we are taxed for the pollution of driving the car. That sounds fair to me.

We've been held in economic slavery the last century. So the only thing that's done pretty well are our leaders' bank accounts.

We’ve been held in economic slavery for more then the last century, that would go back to the days when we were still hunter gatherers

The Federal Reserve prints money, that printed money has interest/debt placed on it, so we need more money printed to pay off that debt, but that new money also has debt on it. Endless cycle.

As I’ve said, I couldn’t agree more with you on this.
But well we are on the topic, isn’t the problem here that the fed is a privet company? And this would be a point again Ron, he’s for privatizing as much as possible.

If I find something on the street and sell it, that's profit. If I'm at a baseball game and catch some historic home run ball and sell it, that's profit. I didn't have to work for those things.

Say your job paid $10 an hour and then you got an other job making $11 doing the exact same thing, would you not want that new job because greater profit?

The governing bodies would be the individual nations. [/quote]
But wouldn’t it be better if the indivigual nation had some formal meeting place where they can gather and work out the details about minor disputes, trade regulation, environment concerns (protection of endangered species),, ecetera.

You don't see what happening for a long time? World government?

If that's the case, then you should look up just how close we are.

We are still a long way from that happening, still far too many countries hate each other.

They can work that out. I'm for bettering our relations with other nations, not bettering other nations relations with other nations.

We need to think to help ourselves in this country rather than trying to police the world.

You misunderstand my request, if you want to get along with every one and trade with every who would you talk too China or Taiwan, because if you start talking to Taiwan then China will be most displeased.

The Federal Government deals with foreign policy and is the international representation of we the people.

The states handle the rest.

That's how it should be done. That's how the Constitution sets it up to be. So what ever power falls under the category of federal government, currently, that doesn't involve foreign affairs, then that's the power(s) I'd give to the states.

Yes that was how the constitution was set up, but since then many things have changed, the growth of interstate trade, economies failing so the government transferred funds from richer too poorer states so the people could have schools and police, world wars, the cold war, holding the people together during the social revolution of the 50’s and sixties and much more.
The federal government has had to evolve to what it is or at many points the Union would have faild.

Despite our obvious disagreements, and despite my argumentative tone at times, it has been an overall interesting debate.

Yes it has been a rather spirited debate but that is what makes for a good one.

And I apologize for my argumentative tone earlier - didn't feel too great at the time.

No prob, I’m pretty sure I was the first to “cross the line” so to speak.

Originally posted by Johnmike
2) We can make it "progressive" without that. For example, removing sales tax on things such as food or at least certain foods. Such a necessity isn't taxed, so it amounts to a tax break for the poor who inevitably pay a larger portion of the salary for food.

With this scheme you’d be doing severe harm to the middle class, the taxes on cars and homes etcetera would be formidable to say the least.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
With this scheme you’d be doing severe harm to the middle class, the taxes on cars and homes etcetera would be formidable to say the least.

I fail to see how it would amount to more than is paid in income, though. Maybe I'm missing something?

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
As I’ve said, I couldn’t agree more with you on this.
But well we are on the topic, isn’t the problem here that the fed is a privet company? And this would be a point again Ron, he’s for privatizing as much as possible.

However, he wants the complete opposite for the Federal Reserve. I think that it's less dogmatic privatization and more following the Constitution; he's always said that he wants the ability to print money to remain with Congress.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
That sounds fair to me.

Not to me.

So we'll agree to disagree.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
But well we are on the topic, isn’t the problem here that the fed is a privet company? And this would be a point again Ron, he’s for privatizing as much as possible.

I'm not completely educated on his privatizing stance, but I really have a problem with a private bank having control over our money. That is a big problem, as you said, because that's a major aspect of our nation.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
Say your job paid $10 an hour and then you got an other job making $11 doing the exact same thing, would you not want that new job because greater profit?

Yes I would, but the point is, it's up to the person paying me to decide what they think the value of that job is.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
But wouldn’t it be better if the indivigual nation had some formal meeting place where they can gather and work out the details about minor disputes, trade regulation, environment concerns (protection of endangered species),, ecetera.

Sure, I wouldn't have a problem with a meeting place. But does that meeting place have to have supreme powers?

As long as there isn't some international power that violates national sovereignty, then I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
You misunderstand my request, if you want to get along with every one and trade with every who would you talk too China or Taiwan, because if you start talking to Taiwan then China will be most displeased.

If I had to choose, I'd choose China and eventually try to persuade them to allow Taiwan to be independent.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
The federal government has had to evolve to what it is or at many points the Union would have faild.

The Federal Government doesn't need supreme powers though. That's just asking to be taken advantage of. If we give them supreme powers, we're only one step away from a tyrannical government.

Originally posted by Johnmike
For example, removing sales tax on things such as food or at least certain foods.

Food can't be taxed right now, can it? Here in Michigan, there's no sales tax on food, only non-food items.

I'm not sure if it's different in other states.

I think it depends on the state, I'm pretty sure it's exempt here in New York.

reply to post by Johnmike


I guess there are some states that do have it. I looked it up:

Illinois, Missouri, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, and Virginia. Georgia, Louisiana, and North Carolina have some local sales taxes on food.

Sales Tax Rates

That needs to be changed. Taxing people for food is wrong.