Paul preaches nonintervention, less government

Sioux City Journal ^ | August 8, 2007 | Bret Hayworth

[CenTexConfederate]

Paul preaches nonintervention, less government By Bret Hayworth Journal staff writer Leave a comment. | Share delicious digg newsvine | Small | Large

LAWTON, Iowa -- Pledging a return to constitutional principles, Republican Party presidential Ron Paul contended Tuesday it is time misguided economic, foreign-policy and education moves are turned around.

So many policies or programs the federal government has enacted in recent decades don't have an origin in the Constitution, so they should be stopped, said Paul, a congressman from Texas. He cited the Federal Reserve System, federal funding for public education, federal income tax and entitlement programs such as Social Security as being outside the bounds of constitutional authority.

Paul said he wants a government with a reduced scope similar to pre-20th century growth fueled by federal income tax revenue.

[ejonesie22]

Thanks, I appreciate it...

[SJackson]

What site? It's hard to regulate what's linked on the internet.

I was referring to promotion of Ron Paul as a columnist in a print publication.

Do the The New York Times, TheHill.com, Catholicnews.com, ABC News, Reuters, Telegraph.co.UK., Yahoo News., The New Yorker advertise in the American Free Press? If so they're using very poor judgement imo.

[TexasAg1996]

That's a great example, samtheman. It's no different for income taxes. The 16th Amendment made it so that income can be taxed without apportionment and without regard to any census or enumeration.

In looking back, I really wish they had added (and not more than 3% of your total income)...

[uxbridge]

He also said on FoxNews just the other day when asked if he believes 9/11 was an "inside job":

The answer is no...if by inside job you mean that the US governmment made that attack happen

How much more of a straight answer can one give?

[TexasAg1996]

The answer is no...if by inside job you mean that the US governmment made that attack happen

Now see, that's a better answer.

But why the heck would he have responded to the question posted earlier with "no evidence of that." That's a pretty vague answer, and it didn't answer the question asked. He was asked whether he agreed or disagreed with the belief that the U.S. government executed 9/11. Saying there's no evidence of that isn't saying whether he believes it or not.

Like I said, I hate politicians. OK, I said I hate politicians who don't answer straight-forward questions. Which happens to be all of them, so I hate them all, or at least dislike them very much!

[samtheman]

I agree. The 3% limit would have been great. As it is, this is what we're stuck with:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Income tax. It's not just a pain in the ass, it's the law.

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

You continue to step into steaming piles of $#!t with this dance of yours.

Not at all. Reagan condemned Duke.

...Only after Duke became a public figure by winning the Republican Nomination for Governor of Louisiana...i remember the radio commercials that Reagan and George H. W. Bush made endoursing his Democratic opponent.

Ron Paul has so far declined to do so.

Since Duke isn't even on the Republican Radar Screen at this time.

Funny how you still ignore the issue: Namely that Duke endoursed Reagan. Reagan didn't say a word about it...back then.

Good spin: it is indeed in Paul's interest to collect the donations to his campaign that Duke's approval generates, and to accept any Duke-sympathizers who might volunteer for his campaign.

Spin is what you're attempting with this drivel.

Incidentally, let's cut to the chase here and stop presenting matters not in evidence as fact.:

Produce one PRIMARY piece of evidence (that's a direct quote from Duke) that endourses Ron Paul's campaign.

That's one statement DIRECTLY from David Duke that is an endoursement of Ron Paul for the Republican Nomination for President.

Get back to me when you've done that.

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

I was referring to promotion of Ron Paul as a columnist in a print publication.

...as you conveniently ignore their citation of Cristopher Ruddy, and Charley Reese as "columnists".

Funny how that works out.

i doubt that those guys even know that their stuff is posted there, and i seriously doubt that Ron Paul knows.

[jpsb]

Yes I would consider that unconstitutional since the original wording specifically states that the VP does not get a vote except to break tie votes. However that would not brother me very much. The (unconstitutional) progressive income tax brother me greatly since in enables a socailist federal government that uses an (unconstutional) progressive income tax to steal most of my moneies. That brothers me a great deal.

Even more brothersome is apparently old school conservatism is dead in the USA. Todays conservatives defend progressive income taxes and attack those in favor of doing away with it. There is no hope, all is lost and darkness is near when conservatives take up Marxist causes like progressive income taxes, entitlement spending and so called "free trade".

[TexasAg1996]

While I have not visited the website in question, I can say that most of these companies that advertise on the Internet pay a service for it. The companies give their ads to the service, and the service sends the ads out to different websites. A lot of websites have banner ads above, below, and to the right and left of the web page contents, and the service is providing those ads to the websites. The companies aren’t paying each website directly. It’s also one of the reasons why you’ll sometimes see ads that seem out of place (John McCain ads on DKos or something not quite as humorous).

[TexasAg1996]

Yes I would consider that unconstitutional

Then there would never be a constitutional amendment that was valid. How about the example I gave? Is the 14th Amendment invalid because it removed the "3/5 of a person" rule for apportioning representatives? After all, the 14th Amendment changed the express wording of the Constitution, just like samtheman's hypothetical amendment.

Even more brothersome is apparently old school conservatism is dead in the USA. Todays conservatives defend progressive income taxes and attack those in favor of doing away with it.

Good grief, you're just as bad as the other posters earlier. There is a difference between saying something is Constitutional and supporting it. I don't think anyone on this thread likes taxes or is opposed to lower/eliminating income taxes. But you won't get there by arguing that the 16th Amendment is unconstitutional.

[wideawake]

Only after Duke became a public figure by winning the Republican Nomination for Governor of Louisiana..

Wrong. Reagan and Bush publicly condemned Duke in 1989 when he was running against John Treen for a seat in the LA House.

He didn't run for governor until 1991.

Reagan and Bush condemned him before he even secured the GOP nomination for a state legislature seat, not after he secured the gubernatorial nomination.

Funny how you still ignore the issue: Namely that Duke endoursed Reagan. Reagan didn't say a word about it...back then.

Now you are lying about Ronald Reagan. In 1980 David Duke, as an officer of the Knights of the KKK, endorsed Ronald Reagan. His campaign spokesman publicly rejected the endorsement as soon as he learned it was made.

That's one statement DIRECTLY from David Duke that is an endoursement of Ron Paul for the Republican Nomination for President.

Now this is excellent spin.

Duke has been very careful not to formally endorse Ron Paul - what he does is write positive evaluation after positive evaluation of Ron Paul's stances and speak highly of Ron Paul's platform. An endorsement in all but name.

What do you think of SJackson's point: that Ron Paul allows racist publications to print his column in their publications.

Why doesn't Ron Paul, like Ronald Reagan, tell David Duke that he wants nothing to with him or his supporters? Why doesn't Ron Paul tell Willis Carto that he doesn't want his column appearing in Carto's publications?

I know why.

[lormand]

"Please get with ejonesie and the rest on your side that are saying the "general welfare" clause makes whatever congress wants to do perfectly ok."

Show me the statements by anyone here which indicate such BS.

[takenoprisoner]

It’s called the Sixteenth Amendment...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxvi.html

Next...
____________________________________________________________

The next is this. Forget the legality or illegality of congress’s ability to tax American individuals doing business only within the US. Set that argument aside.

Consider this. If the federal income tax for American individuals (citizens) earning income soley within the US were eliminated, how would you personally be affected? And do you fear this action could harm you and/or others? If so why?

Just curious to know where you are coming from on this issue
since you seem to be protective of the federal personal income tax.

[lormand]

"More name calling by brainless neocon Bushbots."

Hypocracy Alert!!!

[TexasAg1996]

Just curious to know where you are coming from on this issue since you seem to be protective of the federal personal income tax.

I'm sorry. You're third or fourth in line on this thread for accusing those of us who say the 16th Amendment is valid of being socialists, tax and spenders, and supporters of the income tax. Is there some reason why folks think saying that the income tax is Constitutional equals undying support of it?

[samtheman]

Yes I would consider that unconstitutional since the original wording specifically states that the VP does not get a vote except to break tie votes.

So original wording can not be changed, not even by a 2/3 majority in House/Senate, then ratified by 38 states?

Such changes are not "constitutional"?

You really believe that?

[SJackson]

Charley Reese doesn't surprise me, his columns are a fit. Since he's a syndicated columnist it's hard to believe they print his column and promote him to readers and advertisers without his knowledge. I don't see Christopher Ruddy in their media guide. Paul Craig Roberts is there, he's syndicated too. Hard to believe he doesn't know.

IMO it's a foolish relationship for all of them, but it's their choice, just as it's Ron Pauls choice. And to many people it doesn't mean a thing, I understand that.

[SJackson]

Not a website, it’s a print publication which publishes Ron Paul’s columns and advertise him as a columnist to readers and advertisers. A different enviornment, and a problem easily corrected.

[ejonesie22]

Oh no, do not read that into it, I simply was showing where the Constitutional basis for the income tax resides.

As a former Business owner (sold it a few years ago) and one who lives not rich, but comfortably, I know too well what income tax is all about.

I want a better system, or a simpler one, or something, and I see pros and cons in all the various solutions, be it Fair Tax, Flat Tax or whatever.

I have no issue with paying taxes, and people who do I have issue with. We need roads and a military and all the other goodies to support our economic and personal prosperity. The things the Fed does well, or should do well, I am all for. I am tired of paying too much or a disproportional amount, and for paying for alot of things that are, well, just plain dumb.

But the original point was where does the Constitutional basis for the income tax come from and there it is, the 16th.

I would go as far as to support an amendment to abolish it, if it is replaced by a fair and equatable as well as feasible system to pay for and support our nations infrastructure and defense.