Finally. A politician who makes sense.

Moses · 12-19-2007, 07:22 AM

Watch the video. Pretty staggering. If we ELIMINATED the federal income tax, the governments income would be what it was in 2000. Does anyone really believe we can't run our federal government on the income we had in 2000?

Ron Paul is absolutely right about Iraq and foreign policy in general. He's right about taxes. He's right about the Patriot Act. He's right about immigration.

Honestly the man is starting to look like a visionary.

Porsche-O-Phile · Porsche-O-Phile's Garage

The more I learn about this guy, the more I'm starting to think the same thing.

However, how realistic are his chances of slashing government with a sitting Democratic congress?

The Gaijin · 12-19-2007, 07:28 AM

His stock is rising and his ideas are being aired. He may never win, but that is not the important thing.

Moses · 12-19-2007, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

The more I learn about this guy, the more I'm starting to think the same thing.

However, how realistic are his chances of slashing government with a sitting Democratic congress?

He would veto every single budget item and forge a compliant congress. Since the IRS is not a constitutionally derived agency, he could simply refuse to sign any budget that allocated money for the IRS. Imagine how THAT would play across America. He would be an instant hero.

Porsche-O-Phile · Porsche-O-Phile's Garage

Wow, could it really happen?

If so, this guy would elevate himself to "god" status literally overnight. No joke. There'd be people marching gold and marble statues of him down the street and throwing rose petals at it.

Seahawk · 12-19-2007, 07:40 AM

Article, with some snippage that did not impact the message...

Members of Congress rarely miss an opportunity to explain that they know better than the “unelected or faceless bureaucrats” in the Pentagon. Yet, Congress’s role is not to supplant the military by choosing winners and losers or awarding sole-source contracts to their own pet projects, political supporters and campaign contributors. Instead, Congress’s role is oversight. Congress is not a helpless victim to the whim of the “faceless bureaucrats.” Congress has the power to withhold funding from projects that aren’t working. One reason bureaucrats remain faceless is because Congress has not done its job of inviting them to testify at oversight hearings.

If Congress truly knows best, they should have no reason to stand in the way of competition or fear an evaluation of their earmarks by the Department of Defense. Earmarks should be taken to the floor and voted on, and Congress should abide by the same competition requirements that everyone else must follow.

Let me explain how the process of defense earmarks works in the halls of power: Very rarely does an experienced weapons-systems engineer, aerospace engineer or naval architect come to work in the Senate. Instead, earmark requests typically start with a constituent meeting or something worse. Those who review earmark requests — unelected congressional staff — often have little in the way of significant military or real world experience. Staff then seeks an endorsement by persons within the defense establishment who are hesitant to offend the institution that provides their funding.

This process rarely produces anything objective, as the arguments made in support of a project often are provided by the same entity that would receive the proposed funding. The process is rigged: The sponsor of the project can claim his or her earmark has been vetted by the Defense Department while the approving entity, such as a Defense Department lab that wasn’t funded in the president’s budget, can benefit from increased funding via the earmark.

The Appropriations Committee then claims to vet every earmark, but with a staff of less than a dozen and tens of thousands of requests, this is doubtful. In point of fact, the Appropriations Committee has fought to ensure that the Defense Department does not evaluate any earmark’s “value to the service” and has actively opposed my efforts to force the Pentagon to provide a “Defense Earmark Report Card” that would allow real military experts in the Pentagon to tell Congress what it thinks of defense earmarks.

If Congress wants to be taken seriously in their claims of supporting the troops they should be focused on funding the priorities of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines and their commanders — not the priorities of lobbyists, campaign donors, and special interests. When politicians argue that they know better than the commanders on the ground we should hold them accountable by demanding that each of those projects is evaluated objectively and subjected to competition like every other contract. Congress should be forced to play by the rules they set for others, particularly when funding the wrong priorities costs American lives.

— U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, M.D. (R.,Okla.) is a practicing physician.

the · 12-19-2007, 07:40 AM

What does he propose to replace the IRS with? i.e., with the IRS gone, how would federal taxes get collected?

Moses · 12-19-2007, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the

What does he propose to replace the IRS with? i.e., with the IRS gone, how would federal taxes get collected?

Watch the video. If we eliminated ALL of the government $$$ that comes from the federal income tax, we would still have more federal income than the 2000 budget.

Less than 1/3 of the federal budget comes from income taxes. Cut the federal budget by 1/3, eliminate the income tax. Pretty simple.

The Gaijin · 12-19-2007, 07:56 AM

As so many people already really dont pay any income tax, (only FICA and sales taxes and local taxes) and a bunch more get "earned income credits", this aint gonna fly as it is looked at as a give-away to the rich. Never discount envy.

the · 12-19-2007, 07:56 AM

I think many people view him as a dreamer.

rammstein · 12-19-2007, 07:58 AM

If only he didn't have the 'immediate withdrawl' policy regarding Iraq... if only...

Unfortunately, for me that stance makes him unelectable. I think immediate withdrawl would cause sweeping chaos in Iraq and the consequences in terms of Iraqi lives lost, as well as world opinion on America, would make the current situation look pretty.

Its fine if he thought we shouldn't have gone in the first place, but we're there NOW. So, lesser of two evils is a more reasonably paced phasing out of our presence there (taking YEARS) than a withdrawl taking a couple of months total.

Damn you Ron Paul- you come SO close to impressing me.

Porsche-O-Phile · Porsche-O-Phile's Garage

It would be a good start, for sure.

If a guy like this ever actually won the W.H. (assuming no skeletons come out of his closet in the coming weeks/months) it would do wonders for restoring my faith in this country. As it stands now, I think we're pretty much lost and the eventual collapse of the U.S. is inevitable. However I don't think we've QUITE reached the tipping point yet. Maybe we have and if not, I suspect we're extremely close to it, but a guy with his views (assuming they're legit) getting into power and being able to act on them would help tremendously.

I'm not quite ready to take up the banner for this guy, but it's certainly heading that direction the more I read and learn about him.

Rick Lee · Rick Lee's Garage

I think Paul would deal very well with a Dem Congress. He'd have the bully pulpit and the Constitution on his side. That still counts with a lot of Americans, while Congress's current approval ratings are well below those of George Bush. How popular would Congress get when Paul vetos everything they send him and goes on tv to explain how/why it's unconstitutional? Can you imagine some of those socialists on the Hill like Boxer, Reid, Pelosi, trying to appeal to the avg. American why this or that gov't. program is more important than complying with the Constitution? My guess is Paul would shame them beyond belief. With Bush and the Dem Congres, it's really just a race to the bottom. Paul would be a national hero. I wonder if he could find a solicitor general and atty. general who know the Const. as well as he does. A Pres. Paul may just end up personally arguing the executive branch's cases before the SCOTUS!

Moses · 12-19-2007, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rammstein

If only he didn't have the 'immediate withdrawl' policy regarding Iraq... if only...

This reminds me of the SWAT team that "invades" the wrong address. They bust down the door, shoot the place up, destroy property, and then... they won't LEAVE!

It's NONE of our business how Iraq mends itself. An argument can be made that we have a moral obligation to finance it's repair, but to maintain a physical occupation of a sovereign nation that we invaded under false pretenses is madness.

The only argument for remaining in Iraq is for "stability". What that really means is that we want the opportunity to establish a calm and sympathetic government that will be easy for us to work with. WE DON'T HAVE THAT RIGHT!!!

Are we an EMPIRE or a REPUBLIC?

frogger · 12-19-2007, 08:10 AM

I cannot envision how Rep./Dr. Paul will eliminate income taxes/IRS before eliminating the national debt (roughly $9.145T and counting). Won't that take a while to pay off, even with a huge reduction in the fed. gov't.?

Moses · 12-19-2007, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frogger

I cannot envision how Rep./Dr. Paul will eliminate income taxes/IRS before eliminating the national debt (roughly $9.145T and counting). Won't that take a while to pay off, even with a huge reduction in the fed. gov't.?

How is any of that changed by shrinking government? Debt is debt. One thing is pretty certain, the debt would be unlikely to grow during a Ron Paul presidency.

BeyGon · 12-19-2007, 08:15 AM

I don't believe any of these people can really have an "immediate withdrawl" from Iraq. The only way they could do it would be to bring----how many???? Iraqies back with them. It can't be immediate. Maybe a year is immediate to them.

Rick Lee · Rick Lee's Garage

Even if Paul wins and orders an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, he couldn't do so for over another year and it would take at least another year to complete the "immediate" withdrawal. If things in Iraq continue to improve at the current pace, two years may not be that unrealistic for any president.

kach22i · kach22i's Garage

No military to speak of

No social security

No department of education

No energy policy

No medical programs of any kind including the for the old and very young

A whole lot of nothing...........................a throwback to different world and era.

rammstein · 12-19-2007, 08:16 AM

Well put argument Moses! I see your point. I guess its my perspective that we went in and turned things upside down, and I feel like we have an obligation to the Iraqis and the world that we don't leave things worse off as a result.

I just imagine in my head how it would feel if we pulled out right away and in the ensuing power struggles many many civilians die.

What I am wondering is this- if we had busted into Iraq under the correct pretenses (violations of UN-backed ceasefire treaties ending the first gulf war), what would the proper thing to have done after taking out the Hussein government be? Do you just pull out as soon as his govt. is out? Not a pointed question at all, but rather an honest one. Just curious.