Into The Dragon's Mouth: Trying To Understand Ron Paul And His Supporters

I see so many people around town and online who still have an emotional attachment to Ron Paul.

I have an idea why, because he seemed very attractive to me in many regards, as in trying to disassemble the fed, and getting us out of iraq, and so on.

But before the Democrat Primary had even really got started, I had to decide I'd go Dem this time.

One reason is that Ron Paul and his supporters want to get rid of the Income Tax.

now, I am a relatively poor guy, maybe not a bum or a burger flipper or whathaveyou, but I'm certainly not a player on the Markets, I currently own zero stock, and I have a sneaking suspicion that the entire market system is very close to resembling a back-alley craps game.

However, I am aware that income tax pays for a lot of stuff.
Like Police, Firemen, Roads, Education, the minimum healthcare provided by Medicaid for poor kids, National Defense, much much more.

How would making these services private industries help anyone or lower costs?

the Healthcare system is 99% private right now, and we face the highest prices for healthcare in the world, while a major part of the Healthcare consumer base is denied access due to being priced out.

I suppose what I wonder is how do we gain from allowing industries to control prices and police themselves, because every system that is already privatized is extremely corrupt.

besides that, how is it that more money ends up in your pocket with a privatized system, than with an Income Tax?

what I am trying to say is that we aren't getting to 'spend our money how we want' if Ma Bell/Microsoft runs everything, and charges whatever they want, what money you saved in taxes would go directly into corporate coffers.

I think the best visual aid to the Privatized World is the 1985 movie 'Brazil'.

especially the part where they bill people for interrogations, including the widows if those who die in 'enhanced interrogation' sessions.

everything goes through Central Services, at a price, and at first it would seem to be an allegory for Socialist States, until you spend a few hours talking to Microsoft or Big Oil, or even your local utilities companies.

Here's a fun fact: in most rural regions, and those rural regions encompass a vast swath of the american landscape, the Utility Companies are de facto monopolies, and they charge whatever they want and feel no responsibility to provide reasonable tech support for their clients.

for instance, I'm sure some of you have used Comcast's lovely services, which have already forced people into insane attacks on local offices.

a final point:

if we do not a basic all-around tax everyone pays something towards, even if it isn't much, we can't fund the basic functions of government, and everything becomes privatized, taking the power out of the hands of the citizens and into the hands of corporate entities, like walmart, which does a lovely trick: pay their employees enough to get by, then force them to get medicaid for healthcare.

'we aren't anti-union, we're pro-employee'

please, though, try not to be too insulting when responding to this thread. I haven't called you names, have I?

I am actually very interested to learn how a Ron Paul government would pay for basic services or national defense, and the answer I've heard so far about trimming the pork in the government is nice, and makes sense, but I don't see how privatization is a good idea.

Thank You For Reading,

~S

I think you should look into the claims most of the Ron Paul people, and even some libertarians make about the Income Tax, they claim a couple things that I remember

1) The Income Tax only makes up a very small amount of Taxation the government receives.

2) The Income Tax does not go to services, it is purely used to repay interest on debts of the Federal Reserve, ie it's some kind of cash dripper to private bankers.

Because of these two things, they say you could cull the Tax quite easily, especially if you follow their other ideas of small government, and less spending.

I'm not a Ron Paul guy, but tried/try to follow that whole thing closely, and it seems to me you missed some of their arguments, which if you believe them, make their rationale for culling the income tax seem more rational.

[edit on 3/8/2008 by bobafett]

reply to post by bobafett


thanks for replying and not calling me a 'doodoo-head'

here's something else I thought of:

if we don't have income tax, will the slack be taken by sales taxes?

that would be bad because the poorest would have to pay more tax that way, and be able to buy less, making their lives even worse.

I live in a Plains State, and we don't have to pay taxes on food, but when I lived in Kansas for awhile, I remember it being surprisingly hard to get by because of the food taxes.

I thought I'd just expand a little, as just those two points alone don't really do justice to the Paulian position.

One of the other aspects they see as important is the legality of the Income Tax, some claim the 16th amendment was never correctly ratified, or that the whole idea of a direct tax is unconstitutional.

Also usually mentioned in their argument is the fact the USA didn't have an income tax at all for a large portion of it's history, and survived quite well.

One thing that Paul talked about if there was a shortfall, was tariffs, i believe trade tariffs, as he felt these were a constitutional tax.

They have a lot of arguments on it, it gets pretty in depth, I would recommend reading the Paul statements again, and also read about the topic of "Tax Protesters" in general, they are quite a closely linked idea in my opinion.

The income tax is a federal tax, for one. I don't get how you equate that with local and county-level services like police and fire. My state has an income tax, though. Isn't education property tax, and roads either gas tax or municipal?

Health care is not 99% private. The government, through Medicare, directly funds the training of the nation's medical residents. You know, doctors who have graduated med school and need to complete a residency before practicing. Medicare actually froze funding for it, so it hasn't increased, directly contributing to, if not further causing, the shortage of doctors.

Now, Paul's very libertarian. I'd still technically call him a sort of classical conservative, but I can't speak for him on all issues. But the single biggest federal expenditure in the United States is social security. And we spend a ton on subsidies, including corporate, which interfere with markets and, like ethanol, artificially inflate some prices (food in this case). If we can stop bringing needless, socialistic pork-barrel programs, corporate entitlements, and silly forced lifetime investment programs (SS), we'll cut a whole lot from the budget. I'm pretty sure that if we did that and paid off our debt, we'd have a balanced budget without the income tax. Keep in mind that most money the federal government gets is not in the form of the income tax, and that there are more levels of government than the federal.

Originally posted by MegaTherion
However, I am aware that income tax pays for a lot of stuff.
Like Police, Firemen, Roads, Education, the minimum healthcare provided by Medicaid for poor kids, National Defense, much much more.

Sorry but this is both the common and wrong understanding of income taxes.

• Police, Firemen, schools and park maintenance are all local to each state and are paid for by property taxes and state sales taxes.
  
• Road construction and repair is primarily payed for by taxes on fuel and by tolls on certain highways.
  
• Defense spending is traditionally paid for by corporate taxes and tariffs on international trade.
  

Originally posted by MegaTherion
if we don't have income tax, will the slack be taken by sales taxes?

that would be bad because the poorest would have to pay more tax that way, and be able to buy less, making their lives even worse.

Right now a person making $30k a year is paying nearly 30% of his wages in various taxes while a person making $100 million is paying about 10%. What a blanket sales tax on non-essential items (everything other than food, clothing, toilet paper, or books) would mean is that you pay a portion of what you spend on luxuries as taxes instead of a portion of your wages.

If you are barely making ends meet and don't buy anything unnecessary then the $30k a year guy would be able to keep almost everything he makes. The $100million a year guy might find himself paying more than 10% after buying one single yacht.

A proper taxation system is one where you tax people for luxuries that they buy instead of essentially charging them for the luxury of working.

Jon

reply to post by Johnmike

Right on Johnmike!!

Also for those that worry about their Grandparents being kicked out of Medicare or Social Security and who have been dependent on this system to get them by shouldn't really be to afraid.

You see the next biggest expenditure of the Federal budget is military spending; the maintenance of our empire across the globe. I don't know if people are aware that most of the South Koreans think we've wore out our welcome decades ago, the same goes for our bases in Japan. We also have troops stationed in Germany, Spain, England, Italy, etc, in total we have TROOPS IN 135 NATIONS ACROSS THE GLOBE!!! What the hell are all of these American troops protecting out there? Don't you think it's about time for some of these countries to pick-up their own slack, and protect their own citizens? Now with the money saved in closing down all of these bases we would have the extra cash to maintain those that have been dependent on these entitlement programs, without having to raise any taxes.

Not only that, NO MORE FREE HANDOUTS....this so-called aid, or what I like to really call it mafia-pay-outs. Every year tens of Nations all flock to D.C. with hat in hand for their piece of the pie....No more of that!! If Ron was elected these countries, like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel, Colombia...etc would have to go panhandling somewhere else, or issue debt if they indeed are strapped for cash.




[edit on 3-8-2008 by Gateway]

reply to post by Johnmike


so what happens to the people who need social security, and who paid towards it like everyone else?

don't take this as a personal attack, because you also seem to be level headed, but I was in a very depressed mood last night, and here's why:

There seem to be a lot of Sociopaths in America Today.

these people have no compassion to the point of mild psychosis.

for example, I was reading this article about the 'troll culture':
The Trolls Among Us

it made me physically ill to read about attacks on Epileptics and the survivors of suicide.

Fortuny disagreed. In his mind, subjecting epileptic users to flashing lights was justified. “Hacks like this tell you to watch out by hitting you with a baseball bat,” he told me. “Demonstrating these kinds of exploits is usually the only way to get them fixed.”

“So the message is ‘buy a helmet,’ and the medium is a bat to the head?” I asked.

“No, it’s like a pitcher telling a batter to put on his helmet by beaning him from the mound. If you have this disease and you’re on the Internet, you need to take precautions.” A few days later, he wrote and posted a guide to safe Web surfing for epileptics.

As we discussed the epilepsy hack, I asked Fortuny whether a person is obliged to give food to a starving stranger. No, Fortuny argued; no one is entitled to our sympathy or empathy. We can choose to give or withhold them as we see fit. “I can’t push you into the fire,” he explained, “but I can look at you while you’re burning in the fire and not be required to help.”

what has this to do with social security?

I think it's a matter of values. The christian ethos says to help people, the weak, the unfortunate. Social Security is the safety net of this country.

there are abusers, and because of them it took my mom, who was seriously injured during her 30 odd years in the workforce, 6 years to get approved.

She Can't Work. her body won't let her.

and many others face the same thing.

I just suppose I don't understand why it hurts to take a little chunk of my check to help these people, even if some are abusing it.

and this goes to 'charities' as well. in my experience, there is more corruption at the local Salvation Army than anywhere else.

I would rather pay for a system that actually helps support people, rather than just paying the way for bums and winos.

one great thing people tend to forget: in most circumstances, the SSA only pays you according to what you paid in, or in the case of widows and survivors, what your spouse or parent paid in.

I think that's more fair than arbitrary agencies like Salvation Army.

but anyway. thank you for your post, as well, especially helping me figure out the mess that is our tax system. much googling for me today.

reply to post by Gateway


thank you for helping me.

I think we should reform Civics Classes in public schools, because I really did pay attention, and I don't have any imprint of this information left.

yes, it is absolutely bizarre we are in 100+ countries for the effect of 'making police presence known', like when they have a squad car circle public schools at lunch and so on.

I'm sick of the 'world police' thing. I think that is possibly the biggest mess-up of the US government in it's recent history.

we should bring back the national guard AT LEAST.

I support the hell out of those troops, I even tear up (like the liberal p**** I am ) when I see the death toll rise and rise.

well, I am beginning to understand Ron Paul better, but I won't be messing up the chance for Obama to be president by writing him in.

that's what got Bush in charge in the first place, people voting Nader to 'make a statement'.

reply to post by MegaTherion


Please see above where the money will come to pay for those that have been dependent on the system.

Also, Ron was a realist, he knew that its almost impossible to get rid of the FED, get rid of the Bases, get rid of the Income tax, and needless federal government departments in one swoop. He mentioned that these would be the goal, but steps are still needed to implement his plan.

Although he did mention that as commander and chief he has the immediate power of bringing home our troops, which would be one quick way to cut spending!! And I'm not just talking about the troops in Iraq...I'm talking about the ones in Germany, Italy, Spain, England...these would be first because these are modern western democracies more than capable to defend themselves. The remaining 135 would be of course gradual.

[edit on 3-8-2008 by Gateway]

Ron Paul more than anything else was a chance to restore the constitution
and a patriots dream.

What is coming now is the complete loss of the constitution and the American way of like.

that was the choice.

No matter now, that choice has been made and you will find that the NAU
is locked in now.
America today is in it's last throws of existence it is about to be changed for ever.Once this happens there is no going back .
It was also the one and only way to avert the economic doom thats coming for Americans.


cheers

reply to post by MegaTherion


The funny thing about these Neocons republicans/conservative is that they talk a big game, but never back it up with real cuts. They say we must decrease spending, but not willing to back up their claims with deeds.

Has McSame come out and said that he's going to get rid of this or get rid of that? NOPE...all we hear is that we need to increase this, or expand oversight of that.

reply to post by Gateway Hot Damn , Finally Another Person That Thinks Like Myself . It Just Goes To Show Ya That Not All Of Us Are Stuck In STUPID Mode And Can See Through The BullS&@#For What It Really Is ! Star For You Friend !

Originally posted by MegaTherion
so what happens to the people who need social security, and who paid towards it like everyone else?

don't take this as a personal attack, because you also seem to be level headed, but I was in a very depressed mood last night, and here's why:

There seem to be a lot of Sociopaths in America Today.

these people have no compassion to the point of mild psychosis.

That is because the politically correct crowd (modern socialists) tend to paint anyone who doesn't agree with their myriad of entitlement programs as an evil, greedy, anti-social person.

I simply ask less of my government than most people. I can see that they do very little well and so I ask them to do as little as possible.

Why would I want a corrupt and wasteful bureaucracy managing my money? Let me keep that 25% and make 10x as much in the market as SS will ever pay out and retain the right to decide when and to what degree I use my money. Social Security should be called Lazy Investing or Convenient Saving or maybe a Mutual Defund.

Originally posted by MegaTherion
what has this to do with social security?

I think it's a matter of values. The christian ethos says to help people, the weak, the unfortunate. Social Security is the safety net of this country.

there are abusers, and because of them it took my mom, who was seriously injured during her 30 odd years in the workforce, 6 years to get approved.

She Can't Work. her body won't let her.
and many others face the same thing.

Consider this:
If everyone in your family made 30% more a year because you were not being robbed by the government, would your mother be able to live with you or a relative and still have a normal life because you could (and hopefully would) give her a part of your paycheck? Isn't that ultimately far more Christian than expecting Caesar to take care of you?

We don't need Social Security; We need to educate people about social responsibility.

Jon

reply to post by solo1

I'm afraid you are right, Ron said.."One way or another our empire will come to an end." What he meant by this is that we've had the opportunity to voluntarily start our decline by decreasing our spending, or that we can choose to spend our way through it. In other words, keep borrowing, or taxing. But the American people will not tolerate more and more direct taxes, so the politicians will do it through borrowing. Borrowing is the act of printing the money supply to create this new money that's needed. When you print the money supply it is the exact same thing a counterfeiter does. A counterfeiter has new money, and thus runs out and purchases tons of goodies that he normally would not afford, this money, then as it circulates the system slowly raises the prices of goods and services, yes this money will eventually reach your pocket, but what happens in between the time you have not received it? Well, you have the same amount of money yet prices are going up. This is exactly what happens when the fed prints new money. It is a hidden tax. Thus, it is one way for the fed to finance its government programs, without increasing your taxes.


The people who get it first are the ones that enjoy the added income, thus like the counterfeiter that I spoke about, i.e., the banks, the military, and other politically connected industries enjoy this new money first while you and I are left holding the bag, with higher prices.


So, the U.S. may go the way of Spain...In that Spain spent and spent (all that gold it accumulated in the new world) until the inflation finally crippled its economy and had to just pretty much abandon its Empire. This sent Spain to its decline, of which only recently the past 25 years it has emerged out of...I'm talking economic, social, and political. This is the other option that we face, and more and more it's looking like the one that we have chosen.


[edit on 3-8-2008 by Gateway]

Originally posted by MegaTherion
so what happens to the people who need social security, and who paid towards it like everyone else?

Well Social Security isn't really free money - you pay into it your whole life, and then maybe get it back after you beg for it. It's a forced retirement system where you don't get interest on investment...savings in reverse.

There's a lot of ways to do this, but the easiest way would be to keep benefits at their current level for people who retire for the next five or ten years. Then gradually decrease benefits for new reitrees in a way proportional to a FICA tax decrease (or decrease the tax with a slight delay, they'll have to work on budgeting it properly). This way you see it coming, people who are reliant on it or will be reliant on it are unaffected, and the change from someone who retires one year to the next is very small, and is made up for with the lower tax, freeing it up to invest on your own.

An alternative would be a sort of "payout now" option to people who want to get out, but I think that's impossible because you have to fund retirees. So sadly, people still are stuck paying into FDR and the WWII Democrats' little mandatory system of forced investment in the federal government no matter what you do in the short term, but we can make it work better in the long term.

Once we get retirement benefits down to a manageable level, after a long enough period of time that people could invest the money they would normally give to the government in FICA (which is why I'd want it to be delayed, phased, and long-term), we may be able to create a voluntary opt-out system, and truly make it an individual retirement system, instead of a pseudo-investment system where you're actually getting paid with other people's forced tax money.


As for defense...that's at least an industry the federal government does better than private corporations (obviously), though I am a proponent of militias. I believe that a strong military is necessary, and the strike potential given to us by an overseas base may be worth maintaining. The world's tough, and while I hate foreign intervention, it's good to have teeth. So you're never going to eliminate a bunch of our military expenditures, and doing so can get us caught with our pants down. This makes it a somewhat difficult part of the budget to expect money from - we'd have to take it one piece at a time, and that's not so easy with the entire U.S. military. But you can estimate exactly how much you'd get from useless subsidy program X or entitlement system Y.

reply to post by Johnmike


Perhaps you are right, but I'd hardly equate being "caught with our pants down" with that of closing down needless bases in Western Europe as unnecessary for the American people. These countries are more than capable of protecting themselves and their own people, they also have decent tax bases, if need be to purchase military hardware from the U.S.
I say no more free-riding...

The current dust-up with Russia is being fueled by the neocon aggressive unilateral agenda, had another approach been taken with Russia we wouldn't be talking about maintaining old cold war bases. So all of this militaristic grandstanding by U.S. has only contributed and justified these war-hawks feeding at the government trough.


[edit on 3-8-2008 by Gateway]

reply to post by Gateway


Well the current problem, if it's what you're talking about, is that missile defense system that may be to protect us from Russia rather than Iran. In terms of that, if we can shoot down nuclear missiles coming from a nation that wanted to kill us with nukes 20 years ago, then great. But in terms of invading other nations, yeah, that can make other nations feel threatened. I think Russia's just trying to get some credibility back, though, and strengthen alliances with nations that don't love the United States.

But either way, yeah, I'm just saying that it may be worth saving some bases if it means that defending against or attacking certain regions is easier. I'm mainly a proponent of military R&D and training, and I'd rather not downsize in terms of manpower or equipment if not necessary. Just a sort of bias I have from looking at history and how quickly a nation would eat another if its military is weak. We're pretty safe today, though, but mainly because of the U.S's location and powerful military.

reply to post by Gateway


it occurred to me that we may need at least Skeleton Bases around the world to help protect traveling businessmen and also for the very noble purpose of having a place real close so if a soldier gets hurt they don't have to be flown to america for treatment.

people could die in foreign hospitals because they also take bribes and have zero security or technology.

I think we should at least have Medical Bases around the world for our troops, as a matter of national interest.

reply to post by Johnmike


I think we are generally safe because our economic engine has been the key ingredient for Government, to be able to extract and funnel some of this wealth through taxes into R&D and military expenditures. I think if we continue down this path of printing of money to pay for this current Military and R&D expenditures at present levels, we would be killing the goose that laid the golden egg. If our currency continues to depreciate, hence inflation, the U.S. entrepreneur/Businesses will no longer have the ability to forecast accurate interest rates, cost of capital, demand and supply, amount of labor needed, and would ultimately kills savings; since people watch the amount of money they have sitting in their bank depreciate why save when your loosing what you could buy today, rather than save for tomorrow if your money is going to be worth less the longer it sits in banks. No savings= no investment = no economic growth = no more strong military to protect ourselves. Also the current spending and printing of money is eroding the confidence in our dollar, hence the Gov. debt papers being issued to nations that purchase them now, may come to their sense and soon come to an end. Who wants to own worthless paper. Does anyone here want to buy Argentine T-Bills?


If we don't cut government spending and it cannot be denied that these two are the biggest expenditures of government, then we won't have to worry about having the best Military in the world, when one day we all wake-up to find out that we can't afford it anyway.

So if we want to protect this country and keep our military with "teeth"so-to-speak, then we must do it "PRIMARILY" by not hurting business's ability to forecast. No businesses, no tax base to create said military, i.e. stop printing money to pay for something that we can't afford, and that means our global empire, and our welfare nation. Having a strong Military that continues to soak up our tax dollars, and or continue to depreciate the currency will ultimately wipe both out.



[edit on 3-8-2008 by Gateway]