Posted on 06/28/2010 7:49:04 PM PDT by citizenredstater9271
Please don’t misunderstand, I am all fro smaller, less intrusive government. But the topic is “are taxes legal” and necessary.
All I am saying is taxes are absolutely necessary but there should be severe restrictions on how big the bureaucracy can expand its reach.
Please don’t misunderstand, I am all fro smaller, less intrusive government. But the topic is “are taxes legal” and necessary.
All I am saying is taxes are absolutely necessary but there should be severe restrictions on how big the bureaucracy can expand its reach.
I’m not going to argue w/ you but listen to Dr. Paul’s message in the video and then make a decision.
>This is what America has turned into. Dr. Paul wants to bring it back to as it was originally intended.<
Your right, and that is exactly why they have continually kept him down in support from the GOP.
They should do their utmost to support him and they would find that they get a lot more support from Americans in general.
If they wise up, he could easily take the White House in 2012, but he would need their support and they need to REALLY stand behind him, unlike what they did in the last election.
Just wait until NObama officially declares America a socialist republic. Then Americans will wake up and realize Dr. Paul is correct on the economy.
>Just wait until NObama officially declares America a socialist republic. Then Americans will wake up and realize Dr. Paul is correct on the economy.<
At the rate we are going with Zero .. that should be about next week then.
I can’t wait till November.
THEN you post you follow the founding fathers who are the ones that made the National Military a Federal government enterprise...
Yup, you're a Paul supporter...
What about competition, will there now be multiple I-10s from Mobile to Houston to choose from and I pick the smoothest or cheapest?
Or do we end taxation but keep the roads in government hands, but since we were “forced” to pay for that and don't have to anymore just hope I don't want to drive from Mobile to Houston in a few years since I-10 will have fallen into great disrepair.
What about the police we are “forced” to pay for. Privatize them and pay a fee for their services? Hope we can afford their protection. No chance of corruption there.
Conservatism, not crackpotism, will save this nation.
Listen, I’m not saying we should abolish the gov. all together. The gov. protects our private property and prevents jihadis from taking over the country. I’m not against privatizing the military. But I didn’t ask to pay for schools for parents who don’t want to homeschool or Obamacare or other socialist-style programs. Privatize the schools and let private companies build the roads. Get rid of the unconstituional central bank and illegal income tax. Figure out a non-coercive way to pay for everything b/c the american people are sick of paying unconstitutional taxes to the corrupt gov.
Federal Prisons, why? The state and local level can take care of the undesirables.
Don't buy chinese dry wall. Don't run with scissors. Don't stick a knife in an electric outlet. Don't pee on a spark plug if the engine is running.
Man up, I am sick of people who cannot take care of themselves and their families.
What is up with the caps?
Private companies already BUILD the roads under contract and guidance from the federal or state governments. Then the government makes sure they are maintained and such.
You must have missed the point of privatizing the military when the founders you say you follow did the exact opposite.
What do you suggest to replace these coercive taxes? A voluntary system? Yeah, that’ll work, let people opt out of taxes but still enjoy the protections and advantages the remaining government services provide as long as they last. Nothing like something for nothing.
We form governments for a reason, we agree to pay for certain services through the government for a reason. We all pay for schools for a reason for roads for a reason, for the military for a reason.
Is the system bloated and in massive need of reform, of course, that is the basis of the Conservative position. But the solution is not wholesale elimination of almost everything
Both liberals and conservatives claim the gov. needs to tell people how to run their lives in some respect. Completely uncalled for.
After all that you send me back to Mises?
Tell ya what, let me help you out. Take some FR time out from posting and read the posting here of us straights. When applicable read any links to broaden your knowledge base beyond Ron Paul and Mises. Come to grips with the realities of the world and responsibilities of a Conservative in the modern age.
BTW, another hint, Walter Block is a big time contributor to Lew Rockwell...
That just digs your hole deeper here...
What do you suggest to replace these coercive taxes? A voluntary system? Yeah, that’ll work, let people opt out of taxes but still enjoy the protections and advantages the remaining government services provide as long as they last. Nothing like something for nothing.
I didn't ask for those roads so why should I BE FORCED to pay for them? And the gov. is the one that's really getting "something for nothing" as you say. They jail us if we don't hand them our money every April 15th. Let private companies maintain the roads and set up schools. I'm sick of being taxed as are most hard-working Americans.
I have guns and friends and family. I have 4 wheel drive. I have flown without ATC. I do not need you. Don’t tread on me.
But in post 159 you say:
“I’m not against privatizing the military.”
You didn't ask for those roads?
So your food, clothing and such is just dropped from heaven?You walk on the grass to work or the store? You have magic dust that lets you fly above the trees?
Like I said, take a break and study the straights...
I meant I’m against privatizing the military. Typo there.
A candidate running on your platform has no chance of ever getting elected.
Any candidate, no matter how good, is totally useless if is not elected to office.
To be successful, you have to be practical and also have to be popular with majority of voters. Otherwise you are totally useless with no power to pass any laws.
Only God should have the authority on how to run our lives. No man should have any sway on your God given rights.
What I’m against is the gov. making me pay for things I didn’t ask for. How much money to people in Washington have in their pockets they can pay for roads with? Why should *I* and many other hard-working Americans be the ones who primarily pay? I’m not against roads I’m just against being forced to pay for them.
Have a nice walk to work tomorrow. I don't want you to uses those roads you did not want but were forced to pay for...
Because it is easier to drive to work on a road? Because eating is nice and the closest cattle is 100 miles or more away and it is easier to get when a truck brings it the grocery store? You found that your car is less likely to get stuck in asphalt than mud?
Really, please, stop while your behind...
To hell with your candidate. I want men to agree with me and take back our rights. We have far too many laws.
For the last time, I’m NOT against roads. I’m against the gov. MAKING ME PAY for everything. I have no problem with paying private companies for services. I’m against the gov. FORCING me to pay MY money TO THE GOV.
The reason the gov. is allowed to run amok is because not enough candidates are willing to do what Dr. Paul does and stand up for the Constitution and the truth. All they care about is appealing to people so they can keep getting elected and keep making money off taxing.
At this point a face palm pic would be redundant...
I figure they have a hovercraft...
A pipe dream!
Even the founders relied on each other, Washington did not win the revolution on his own, Jefferson did not create the entirety of the law by himself. The US has been a group effort from day one.
Okay, I’ve made my points on taxation clear. Now can we get back to discussing the original post and video?
Let us place the taxation arguments aside, and agree that currently taxes are excessive,that there is fraud and abuse, something I doubt you will find much disagreement with here.
On the subject of the 13th amendment Paul is wrong, on a couple of key points:
One, love it or hate it, after the hyperbole and rhetoric is stripped away, taxation is not any form of servitude by any sane legal or technical definition unless the rate is 100%. You are not taxed 100% of your income at any point during a working hour. If you are taxed say 35% of your income that is 35 cents per dollar earned, therefore at any given working second only 35% of what you make goes to the government. So you are not working for free, you are being paid for your efforts and part of what you are earning goes to provide for defense so you have palace to work, roads to get there and for the goods and services you produce to be deliverer etc. etc. Even you have acknowledged that there are certain roles the government should play and those have to be paid for, preferably in an fair manner, though that is not always the case.
Argue to reduce taxes, argue to reduce waste, argue to reduce government largesse but making crazy statements about coercion or not asking for the very roads we all, including you, make use of negates anything you could say about the more responsible ideas and goals I mentioned.
Two, another point that has been brought to your attention is that the 16th Amendment, which WAS ratified, superseded the 13th any ways, so even if the 13th had any bearing on the matter, the point is moot. Get rid of the 16th and you still have no argument based on the 13th as I mentioned, but it could be a start in other directions.
Like I have said, crackpot schemes and spurious arguments over unsubstantiated technicalities get us no where and indeed make the conservative movement look like a bunch of nutjobs to the very folks we need to be bringing into the fold to actually win races. The winners make the rules.
So there you go, there is a discussion on the original post and video
Okay. I see. But would you be for repealing the income tax and ending the Fed?
For example getting rid of the income tax is a noble goal and I would not find issue with it, but it begs the question, what do we replace it with? Even if we reduce the government down in a reasonable fashion, there are still a minimum amount of services it must provide, services delineated by the founders plus a few that have come along due to the changes in technology or society such as the FAA, the CDC and the transportation department.
So how do we pay for it, if we do away the income tax? It will have to be fair and equitable, for "I didn't ask for the roads" is not an answer because none of us live in a vacuum, so unless you are talented, have a massive manufacturing and agricultural capacity and large deposits of a full away of natural resources in your back yard, that car, those appliances and other items you use got to you somehow, so we are all in that together. The Military and other services are the same.
Personally I don't see any way to proportion the tax burden fairly on anything but income so I am for a flat tax as either an interim plan or permanent solution. Other ideas such as the fair tax, VAT and such have too may societal issues that have not been taken into account.
The Fed can go, but again reckless non planning will create a far worse problem. We have to wean ourselves and the world off of central banking for it to truly work. There are some minor things the fed does that could be passed off to another department or new organiztion.
So again, it is solutions that are important. Otherwise it is all a theoretical exercise that will produce disastrous results, if the people even back it. Remember we are not a conservative dictatorship, we cannot wholesale do whatever we want, nor should we.
So would you be in support of Dr. Paul’s plan of going back to the Gold Standard?
why did you quit so easily?
He also says the gov. needs to leave private business alone. Something the Founders also wanted.
Something else though: if you truly believe Dr. Paul is wrong on taxes and the Fed, could you watch some of his videos explaining how the Fed is a privately-owned bank and unconstitutional? I for one would love to at least see the Fed abolished as well as income tax. This nation didn’t have an income tax until 1913 when the free market was thrown out the window and replaced with gov. control and we prospered the most before that.
Going back to the gold standard is totally impossible. There is a finite amount of gold in the world, I think the figure I saw was something along the lines of 4-5 trillion dollars worth. That is less than the value of our cash on hand in this country, much less the rest of the world.
Things other than gold hold value. Land does, production does, other resources such as timber, oil, steel all hold value. Tie money to a limited resource and you limit the ability to grow markets and purchase goods an services.
As it is you are left with a simple problem, hyper inflate the value of gold or hyper deflate the value of the dollar. And you will have to do this world wide all at the same time. This does not even address what you do with the current excess US dollars. We go back to a gold standard there is going to be more currency out there than there is gold. How do address that, pull money out of the economy? Who do you take it from?
It is just completely beyond the realm of reality and a very bad concept.
What sounded good in 1800 is bubpkis in the 21st century, the ability to produce and the value of that production has far exceeded the value of the worlds gold reserve.
It makes a quaint slogan that plays to our current frustrations, but little else.
One thing you just said did catch my eye, did we really prosper the most “before that?”
Have you looked around today and looked back at say, 1850 or even 1912? Have you seen the difference in lifestyles, available technology, lifespans and health? All of those things have improved dramatically, most on the inventions and research of this nation, all done since the FED and the income tax. Does that mean we keep them, no not at all, but using the “we prospered more” argument is ludicrous.
Understand this simple equation, it will help you a lot.
(possibly)good idea + Crackpot reasoning/statement/solutions = CRACKPOT.
Words have meaning. 95% of the folks out there regardless of their political leanings don't do crackpot. And guess who are the arbiters of these ideas, who decides of they have merit and will be enacted upon. You got it, those who don't do crackpot.
Like Ron Paul, he can start off with good thesis r premise, then he starts talking.
This 13th Amendment crap is a prime example.
Do away with the income tax is a valid argument, but then come along with some sort of lame conspiracy no merit at all legal argument and you not only make yourself sound nuts, but it then causes everyone to dismiss the whole concept.
The only issue I have, and it is a common theme in these discussions, is the over simplification of what went on with the founding of this nation. There is a reason that the founders allowed for amending the Constitution and made allowances for change in the role of government. These brilliant men knew their limitations and knew they could not see the future. So they trusted future generations to do the right thing and make use of these tools to modify the federal government with the times.
The issue is that trust and the assumption that the future generations would make good use and do it right. In some ways we have, in many we have not.
We need federal entities like the Military, the FBI, the FAA, the CDC etc. especially in the modern world. For example providing nation spanning highways for military, commercial and public transport is very much in line with the founders intent.
The sole purpose of the Constitution is to ensure our rights, and in those is the life, liberty, pursuit of happiness concept. We pursue happiness by work, our work requires venues for of operation, customers and the deliver of our efforts. Our liberty to travel as we see fit in made easier and protected by the things the government is GOOD at.
A large amount of things need to go back to the states, the federal government needs a serious diet. The problem is when it is framed in all or nothing rhetoric that ignores the realities of 2010 verses 1798 then the best ideas become part of a string of crackpot verbal flotsam. There were and are some things that have come under the realm of the federal government since its founding that have been good and necessary, those have to be acknowledged and allowed to continue and worked into arguments about “reducing the fed”.
If the ideas of conservatism cannot be heard by voters because all they hear is crazy talk and rhetoric, then none of these arguments really matter for spit.
I will agree with you on most of your points. I think the thing that is lost on almost everyone is the idea of self reliance. From my readings of the Founders, I saw them trying to keep what has occurred from actually occurring. The government is insatiable and gobbling up power as quickly as it can find another morsel to gobble. Government is mostly bad, I think the Founders were counting on individuals to do most of the governing themselves. I think where we have failed is allowing individuals more and more latitude in not accepting that responsibility.
I saw a movie called Kite Runner, which was really good in my opinion. One of the things that stuck with me from this movie was what the main character’s father considered the worst possible sins, which are our natural laws (this is while he was denouncing the mullahs) it was theft. I will copy it here, I hope that is ok.
“There is only one sin, only one. And that is theft. Every other sin is a variation of theft... When you kill a man, you steal a life. You steal his wife’s right to a husband, rob his children of a father. When you tell a lie, you steal someone’s right to the truth. When you cheat, you steal the right to fairness.”
I was amazed at its simplicity. Anyway, the more complex laws become, the more complex the way around them, to the point that regular people on the street have no idea what they are reading or hearing. I guess a start to turning this around would be to make the congress a part time job again. Make them look after their local constituents. Call lobyists what they are, bribers.
I am probably better off imagining what I would do if I won the lottery.
Next time I'll be sure and check in with "the group" to make sure I'm conservative enough to contribute. But that's the idea, isn't it? To divide conservatives. To separate them from each other by making a "group-think" requirement that they "be approved" first by the all-powerful elite.
Tsk, tsk. I guess Free Republic is just as overrun as any other site..
Yes FR is overrun but the boss and his team is doing a good job of weeding you guys out.
The only thing you got to with me is my funny bone.
Why would Freepers hate Ron Paul? He is one of the few true conservatives left out there. He has NEVER voted to raise taxes or increase gov. control. He understands the constitution unlike most others in Washington who only care about their paychecks. What’s up with all the hate towards this man? God bless him and let’s put him in office in 2012 before the FED destroys the dollar entirely.
So obvious in fact, that rinos losing their minds and frothing at the mouth if anyone tries to post anything even remotely logical or rational regarding him, outs them as what they really are.
The dogs bark, but the caravan goes on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.