Troubling Ron Paul Votes

it should be noted that much (i've heard from some sources that it's closer to all) of your federal income tax money just goes to paying off debt.

* With two-thirds of everyone's personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Government contributions to transfer payments.

* In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their government."

www.devvy.com...


i've heard this from other places. just do some research. abolishing the irs and the federal reserve is in the nation's best interests. the country is already overextended on debt and has little hope of paying it off.

i also have enjoyed the discussion. it has opposing viewpoints but it has been civil and pleasant. i'd like to thank everyone for that. i do think that Mulder-avatar-guy's arguments are based on an inaccurate perception of Paul's character. attempts by a few in here to explain the reasoning behind some of his questionable votes have been great even though there still be some resistance to accept those explanations. whatever you think of ron paul's stances, you have to give the man some respect for being so solid. he has made a lot of people take interest that normally would be completely apathetic to government affairs. i am one of those people. i feel lucky that i was inadvertently registered to vote against my will when i renewed my license. they asked if i was a rep or dem. i said neither (meaning i didn't care to register) so they registered me as independent. but that just means i'm all set to vote for Ron Paul.

reply to post by an0maly33


As my parents were registered democrats, so I have been... and until the recent coming of Ron Paul, I had little reason to change or even care about my official political affiliation. Since it is my personal beliefs that a return to Constitutional law is in the best interests of this country and the world at large, I am proud to say that I am changing my political affiliation to that of republican - solely because I believe and KNOW he is the best man for the job.

Originally posted by an0maly33
it should be noted that much (i've heard from some sources that it's closer to all) of your federal income tax money just goes to paying off debt.
...
i've heard this from other places. just do some research. abolishing the irs and the federal reserve is in the nation's best interests. the country is already overextended on debt and has little hope of paying it off.
...

I find it rather funny how the debt is created as well.
Just by the federal reserve loaning money to our government, debt is created. That means it is impossible to be debt-free as a nation while we are in the employs of the federal reserve and its associates (i.e. cronies).

Having faith in something better can be scary at first, but it is the only way to truly live IMHO.

Originally posted by Sestias

Originally posted by SteveR
reply to post by spacedoubt

 

Ron Paul is a social darwinist. There will be no compassionate conversatism

I agree, and have said the same thing in another thread. Most Libertarians are social Darwinists. That means no government programs for the disabled, the mentally challenged or the mentally ill; no safety net for the most vulnerable people in society. No medicare or medicaid. No social security. Instead, everyone must struggle for existence, and the fittest survive. This is an understandable position if you are young, strong, healthy, above average in intelligence; in short if you believe you will end up at the top of the heap. If you believe you are, and will always be, invincible.

Many Christians don't believe in Darwin's theory of evolution. It puzzles me why they would support social Darwinism.

Isn't what you said above a part of nature, actually that's the laws of nature?

i think this thread is intresting but actually a bit of a mute point

i think an appropriate metaphor to who should be president in 2008 would be who should take wheel at the titanic when it was 10 feet away from the iceberg?

The country is too dependant on corrupt ideas and relationships now to have a dramatic 180% turn around. Paul doesn't like the federal reserve (you know the criminal orgainization that is unconstitutional) the irs or the CIA and wants them terminated, well that may not be such a good thing IMO as it would be like taking a junkie off of heroin, valium, and oxycotin all at once ( if he would ever have the ability to do these things and /or live by the way).

i see the infrastructure for global gov't being built and marketed to the public thru U.N , global warming, global finance and the like. PAUL might have made a GREAT president in 1913 when the banksters tried to put in the FED but now i'm at odds with what his election could or would even do for america.

last thing , back to the first metaphor would it benefit globalists to let a publically elected (by the people w/ enthusism) president so he could be the one ASSOCIATED with the U.S economy hitting an ICEBERG and crumbling?

someone who's policy's for small gov't and state power and especially someone seen as a representative of the constitution would be associated w/ failure

reply to post by cpdaman


Oh definetly. I see them using his ideas as a scapegoat. There are so many ways the global elite could use this. They could start financing terror attacks on the U.S., they could crash the dollar and collapse the U.S. economy, and so on.

We will just have to do our best to protect ourselves from this as a country, if it comes to it.

I have faith in the good doctor, and I believe most people should. If one has faith in anything at all; God, men, Yhwh, whatever, then they would feel that people can take care of themselves, and we are not all savage cannibals who will let our fellow men and women suffer if the Federal Government doesn't take care of them.

That is why Ron Paul puts his faith in the states and local governing bodies. They will do what is best for their people and region, whereas those in power in the Federal government will do what is best to increase or at least keep their own power.

If we are "10 feet from the iceberg," which I do agree that we are, I would not want any other person at the helm. Ron Paul will react cooly and correctly to any pressure put on him, as that is what doctors do; they react in situations of extreme pressure.

Ron Paul is the only hope for America, at the very least out of the other candidates running. To all of you who do not want to vote for him, who will you vote for? Full of $@#% Guiliani? Puppet Romney? HILLARY CLINTON!?!?!

"The Libertarian Party is a front for corporate anarchists and
it uses social anarchy as the bait". ~ Quemielle DuChesne ~

So you think Ron Paul is a libertarian? Or were you just adding food for thought? Many have come to the conclusion that Ron Paul transcends these extraneous labels and this party system that leads to less democracy.

reply to post by xpert11



How would they violate the Constitution when they enforce it?

Originally posted by Novise
Churches, charities, and people took care of all of this up until the 30's when welfare was introduced, so I don't really buy what you've said. The government has failed to do a good job of providing for the needy, and only made the problem much worse in the long run.

Churches and charities are local, and depend on the population in the immediate locale to provide. Let's apply the "church and charity" paradigm to, say, New Orleans after Katrina. The charity offices are inoperable. The churches are empty. Outside agencies nearby - Mississippi, northern Louisiana - are busy with their own populations, and cannot get to New Orleans anyway due to damage to the transit system. And yet there are people in New Orleans with no food, no clean water, and no medical care.

"Let them grow gills!" cries Ron Paul, and Novise with him.

Even this day and age, you do not have to look very far to find a person who has grown up in a society when there was no government welfare, or very little government welfare. I bet some would even bother to tell us how it's done.

Sure, just as soon as they cash their social security checks, pick up their medicaid prescriptions, and come home to a home warmed by government-subsidized heating oil, I'm sure they would just love to tell you all about it. And then we can go find all the immigrants who are in favor of closed borders, and the black men who are in favor of gay segregation. It'll be like a hypocrite field trip.

In terms of rights, the government has no right to rob us in order to help others. Our help should come willingly.

Article 1, section 8, plus the 16th amendment. Congress can levy any tax it wants and spend it on whatever they judge to be in the best welfare of the nation.

Also, these programs will eventually be bankrupt if you keep things at the status quo. Social Security is going to go first. People on welfare only talk about it getting worse, their welfare money is buying less and less for them month after month.

Clearly the answer is more gigantic tax cuts, right? Better yet, let's just take the Ron Paul solution - scrap it. I'm sure all those people who's SS checks are getting smaller would much rather not have them at all, right? Ron Paul thinks so. Sure, you're eating dog food and in danger of hypothermia, grandma, but you're so darned FREE!

Also to add: If your state wants to have it's own welfare program, nothing stopping it under Ron Paul's vision for America. Just like there is nothing stopping your state from having it's own department of education type deal.

Let's say you're a poor person in North Dakota receiving federal aid. Suddenly Ron Paul's VISION FOR AMERICA™ takes place. All states, no feds, all the time! Well, North Dakota doesn't exactly have what we would call a robust economy, and so the state legislature votes to not institute any sort of welfare.

Well, according to Ron Paul, that's your own fault for living in North Dakota. What the hell's wrong with you? But never fear, Oregon, just a few states away, has a thriving economy and a successful welfare program.

But wait! Under the VISION FOR AMERICA™, none of the states you would cross through have quite the same laws. Particularly outstanding is that the Department of Transportation no longer exists under hte VISION FOR AMERICA™ and regulation of hte roads is subject to the states. heading straight west to Oregon, you discover that the Road Barons of Montana have instituted tolls every fifty miles along the interstate, and along many back roads as well. Since if you had the spare change to pay for road use every fifty miles, you wouldn't be crossing Montana in the first place. So you have a hell of a time picking your way through what toll-free roads are left..

Finally, you reach Idaho... and the Idaho State Troopers open fire on you because Idaho has enacted state legislation preventing "illegal interlopers" from crossing its borders. Without the interstate regulations guaranteed by all those unconstitutional programs that Ron Paul did away with in his VISION FOR AMERICA™ the Idaho Legislature has seen fit to declare itself a semisovereign, whites-only state with VERY strict border patrols and rigorous standards of entry. You, being poor, don't qualify.

But you're so free without the feds providing you welfare!

Originally posted by C0le
How would they violate the Constitution when they enforce it?

I'm assuming that you are referring to Executive Orders. It is my understanding that Executive Orders can only be used to govern within existing laws rather then to create new policy such as removal of federal income tax. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Cheers xpert11.

Churches and charities are local, and depend on the population in the immediate locale to provide. Let's apply the "church and charity" paradigm to, say, New Orleans after Katrina. The charity offices are inoperable. The churches are empty. Outside agencies nearby - Mississippi, northern Louisiana - are busy with their own populations, and cannot get to New Orleans anyway due to damage to the transit system. And yet there are people in New Orleans with no food, no clean water, and no medical care.

"Let them grow gills!" cries Ron Paul, and Novise with him.

The government also depends on the population to provide for it. It does not produce anything, the population does. Disaster relief is a different issue from welfare, and I don't know his stance on it. You and I both should read into it, or we are just putting words into his mouth.

Sure, just as soon as they cash their social security checks, pick up their medicaid prescriptions, and come home to a home warmed by government-subsidized heating oil, I'm sure they would just love to tell you all about it. And then we can go find all the immigrants who are in favor of closed borders, and the black men who are in favor of gay segregation. It'll be like a hypocrite field trip.

If it came down to it, yes, some of those people would give anything to make their great grandchildren's and grandchildren's lives better (and they have one vote, so let the voters decide). Ron Paul doesn't want to get rid of it all in one day, he wants to take care of those who have become dependent on the system, but wants to stop making the problem bigger. And besides, they don't have to sacrifice any of that if you get rid of our foreign policy of nation building policing the world, and if you get rid of wasteful bureaucracy.

Article 1, section 8, plus the 16th amendment. Congress can levy any tax it wants and spend it on whatever they judge to be in the best welfare of the nation.

Fair enough, they have a right to do it by law.

Clearly the answer is more gigantic tax cuts, right? Better yet, let's just take the Ron Paul solution - scrap it. I'm sure all those people who's SS checks are getting smaller would much rather not have them at all, right? Ron Paul thinks so. Sure, you're eating dog food and in danger of hypothermia, grandma, but you're so darned FREE!

The difference is that you don't send the money to a federal social security fund for it to be robbed blind and bankrupted by irresponsible politicians. You don't produce a welfare program that contributes to the problem. The money stays locally, with the people, for them to take care of others by mutual consent - which usually involves a hand up, not a perpetual hand out.

Let's say you're a poor person in North Dakota receiving federal aid. Suddenly Ron Paul's VISION FOR AMERICA™ takes place. All states, no feds, all the time! Well, North Dakota doesn't exactly have what we would call a robust economy, and so the state legislature votes to not institute any sort of welfare.

Well, according to Ron Paul, that's your own fault for living in North Dakota. What the hell's wrong with you? But never fear, Oregon, just a few states away, has a thriving economy and a successful welfare program.

But wait! Under the VISION FOR AMERICA™, none of the states you would cross through have quite the same laws. Particularly outstanding is that the Department of Transportation no longer exists under hte VISION FOR AMERICA™ and regulation of hte roads is subject to the states. heading straight west to Oregon, you discover that the Road Barons of Montana have instituted tolls every fifty miles along the interstate, and along many back roads as well. Since if you had the spare change to pay for road use every fifty miles, you wouldn't be crossing Montana in the first place. So you have a hell of a time picking your way through what toll-free roads are left..

Finally, you reach Idaho... and the Idaho State Troopers open fire on you because Idaho has enacted state legislation preventing "illegal interlopers" from crossing its borders. Without the interstate regulations guaranteed by all those unconstitutional programs that Ron Paul did away with in his VISION FOR AMERICA™ the Idaho Legislature has seen fit to declare itself a semisovereign, whites-only state with VERY strict border patrols and rigorous standards of entry. You, being poor, don't qualify.

But you're so free without the feds providing you welfare!

I thought the federal government had the constitutional right to ensure domestic tranquility, and to regulate commerce between the states?

[edit on 16-12-2007 by Novise]

[edit on 16-12-2007 by Novise]

[edit on 16-12-2007 by Novise]

reply to post by Novise

The government also depends on the population to provide for it. It does not produce anything, the population does. Disaster relief is a different issue from welfare, and I don't know his stance on it. You and I both should read into it, or we are just putting words into his mouth.

He was utterly against spending squat to aid victims of Katrina, unless some other federal program were cut at the same time to do so. And no, disaster relief and welfare are intimately connected. People who need disaster relief are, essentially, people who have found themselves thrust into the same position as many people who need welfare.

Now yes, the federal government relies on its populace to provide as well. Unlike a private charity however, it has hundreds of millions of people to fall back on, and has networks across the nation as well as abroad. Further, it has access to means of transit and regulation that no private charity can come close to matching. And lastly, the federal government will never turn you away because you worship Jesus in a different way.

If it came down to it, yes, some of those people would give anything to make their great grandchildren's and grandchildren's lives better (and they have one vote, so let the voters decide). Ron Paul doesn't want to get rid of it all in one day, he wants to take care of those who have become dependent on the system, but wants to stop making the problem bigger. And besides, they don't have to sacrifice any of that if you get rid of our foreign policy of nation building policing the world, and if you get rid of wasteful bureaucracy.

Buuuut he does wish to get rid of it, along with such similarly despicable things as public education, drug standards, rural electrification, etc. If a grandparent wants to vote to aid their descendants, Ron Paul is not the choice to do so. Unless I suppose said grandparent is of the sort that thing abject poverty, lack of education, and the possibility of death from common illness "builds character."

Fair enough, they have a right to do it by law.

By a law that would not exist were it not for the will of the people voting it into place, and subsequently defeating the measures introduced to repeal this right of the government. What is it with Paulistas being populist until they're not?

The difference is that you don't send the money to a federal social security fund for it to be robbed blind and bankrupted by irresponsible politicians. You don't produce a welfare program that contributes to the problem. The money stays locally, with the people, for them to take care of others by mutual consent - which usually involves a hand up, not a perpetual hand out.

Please save the rote talking points for people who may actually be inclined to buy them.

First off, if politicians are plundering and pillaging a program for pork - and we can both agree that it happens - then the answer is not as you and your candidate suggest, dismantling the program - the solution is to hold those politicians responsible, throw them out on their asses, and vote in protections to make such plunder more easily traced and punished.

Ah yes, let the people take care of each other by mutual consent. You realize that, while it's a very warm, fuzzy, Norman Rockwell-esque picture, that doesn't actually happen, right? Mangling welfare does not create a matching rise in charity. It's kind of odd to expect people who bitch about their money going to the needy... putting their money towards the needy.

I thought the federal government had the constitutional right to ensure domestic tranquility, and to regulate commerce between the states?

If you go the full Ron Paul, the federal government will be an incredibly different beast than we see today. He's in the "drown it in a bathtub" camp of paleoconservative. That is, he wants the federal government to be weak, powerless, teetering eternally on bankruptcy, and lacking in manpower, with the gaps filled by the states. In other words, federal law and regulation will only be followed if the individual states volunteer to go along with it, if only because the feds wouldn't have the power to have any say otherwise.

Strangely the supporters of a starving federal government still imagine we'd have enough money to pay them for their congressional "service" along with maintaining a strong military, a court system, and all these other chunks of expense. I have yet to hear of a libertarian willing to do pro bono work in politics.

He was utterly against spending squat to aid victims of Katrina, unless some other federal program were cut at the same time to do so. And no, disaster relief and welfare are intimately connected. People who need disaster relief are, essentially, people who have found themselves thrust into the same position as many people who need welfare.

Now yes, the federal government relies on its populace to provide as well. Unlike a private charity however, it has hundreds of millions of people to fall back on, and has networks across the nation as well as abroad. Further, it has access to means of transit and regulation that no private charity can come close to matching. And lastly, the federal government will never turn you away because you worship Jesus in a different way.

So just vote for big government and you'll be taken care of. No need to work any your whole life, the government has millions of hard working Americans to fall back on. No need to pull your weight. Welfare was a good idea until this is what it became.

Buuuut he does wish to get rid of it, along with such similarly despicable things as public education, drug standards, rural electrification, etc. If a grandparent wants to vote to aid their descendants, Ron Paul is not the choice to do so. Unless I suppose said grandparent is of the sort that thing abject poverty, lack of education, and the possibility of death from common illness "builds character."

All things that are currently funded at city/county/state level, and if not they easily could be. There is no point in sending all your money to Washington, and then paying people to go argue on your behalf to have it sent back to you. Just keep it local in the first place and you end up losing less to bureauracracy.

By a law that would not exist were it not for the will of the people voting it into place, and subsequently defeating the measures introduced to repeal this right of the government. What is it with Paulistas being populist until they're not?

That law is necessary to me because without it they can't get anything done. I think it is left to their ethics to not abuse that power, unfortunately it is predictable that 99% of human beings put into that situation with too much power will in fact abuse their power.

Please save the rote talking points for people who may actually be inclined to buy them.

First off, if politicians are plundering and pillaging a program for pork - and we can both agree that it happens - then the answer is not as you and your candidate suggest, dismantling the program - the solution is to hold those politicians responsible, throw them out on their asses, and vote in protections to make such plunder more easily traced and punished.

Ah yes, let the people take care of each other by mutual consent. You realize that, while it's a very warm, fuzzy, Norman Rockwell-esque picture, that doesn't actually happen, right? Mangling welfare does not create a matching rise in charity. It's kind of odd to expect people who bitch about their money going to the needy... putting their money towards the needy.

99% of the politicians you put there will always be selfish, You put too much power in their hands with the very idea of it all. No matter how close you watch, it is human nature for them to be selfish. Let them do their job and only their job, their job is not to spend all our money and/or run our lives by proxy and hijack our productive efforts for other's gain (Which isn't always helpless people, sometimes it can be the agenda of elitists or super wealthy even).

Welfare is not just a safety net, it's a way of life, and that at the very least should change. But people get on it and they are afraid to get off it and go back to work, because they are afraid they will not be able to take care of themselves. And the problem gets bigger inevitably.

If you go the full Ron Paul, the federal government will be an incredibly different beast than we see today. He's in the "drown it in a bathtub" camp of paleoconservative. That is, he wants the federal government to be weak, powerless, teetering eternally on bankruptcy, and lacking in manpower, with the gaps filled by the states. In other words, federal law and regulation will only be followed if the individual states volunteer to go along with it, if only because the feds wouldn't have the power to have any say otherwise.

Strangely the supporters of a starving federal government still imagine we'd have enough money to pay them for their congressional "service" along with maintaining a strong military, a court system, and all these other chunks of expense. I have yet to hear of a libertarian willing to do pro bono work in politics.

There is certainly enough money to pay all the necessary branches of government and to have a very strong military. The pie does not shrink because the government shrinks. What matters is the economy. The productive efforts of a society are what matters and what lead to it having the capacity to have a military etc. In this situation, a limited government can easily accomplish whatever is within it's authority.

I really wish the federal government did or was capable of doing the things you talk about. It would really be a great world. At the end of the day, I think you have to limit it to the very bare necessities because once you surrender that power and authority, they abuse it and waste so much every time. Nothing happens overnight, we have a lot of people to take care of, but a shift in the right direction is needed, things have gotten out of hand.

Also I think you have been involved in politics longer than I have, I'm probably not arguing at your level so sorry if I'm boring, but I've only known about these ideas for 2 months, so I don't know how much you are getting out of it, but I know I am learning alot from you - at the very least what a big government of today SHOULD accomplish.

[edit on 17-12-2007 by Novise]

reply to post by Novise

So just vote for big government and you'll be taken care of. No need to work any your whole life, the government has millions of hard working Americans to fall back on. No need to pull your weight. Welfare was a good idea until this is what it became.

When did it become that? I mean, you know, outside of the pap that The Heritage Foundation barks out. That's not how it works. And it's never been the case that it would work like that. Welfare has time limits, first off. That is, it will only float you so long. Second, a job - ANY job - provides you with a better standard of living than welfare. There has never been a "Welfare queen" as described by Ronald Reagan, unless perhaps there's serious fraud involved, which is a separate problem. And personally, I'd rather vote for smart government than "big government" or "small government."

All things that are currently funded at city/county/state level, and if not they easily could be. There is no point in sending all your money to Washington, and then paying people to go argue on your behalf to have it sent back to you. Just keep it local in the first place and you end up losing less to bureauracracy.

Food and drug standards are federal. The Rural Utilities Service is a branch of the federal government under the Department of Agriculture. Public schools receive a fair chunk of federal funding - to be honest, it's using local property taxes to fund schools that screws so many of them over and creates the basis for America's class divisions in the first place.

To reference my earlier example of North Dakota, "keeping it local" creates the unfortunate side effect of absolutely screwing over anyone who happens to live in the northern / midwestern states. For some reason those poor people keep voting for the party that wants to punish them for not living in a wealthy state...

Welfare is not just a safety net, it's a way of life, and that at the very least should change. But people get on it and they are afraid to get off it and go back to work, because they are afraid they will not be able to take care of themselves. And the problem gets bigger inevitably.

Do you know many welfare recipients? I mean, close-up and personal, like a close relative or a best friend, someone who's "Story" you know? I come from a lower middle-class background, I went to your "typical" inner-city school, and for a long stretch of time I lived in a town that had a purely seasonal economy. I guarantee you that if there are people who completely live off of welfare, it is for one of two reasons.

1) They have no real choice in the matter
or
2) they're committing fraud.

My mother is in the #1 situation. Due to a number of things against her favor - bad genetics, being the victim of crime, and unfortunately the method in which her parents brought her up (she's from the era where girls were meant to be vapid housewives) she is now nearing her 60's and though she's worked her ass off as long as I've known her, would still fail to make ends meet were it not for a handful of government programs

I've known people in the #2 situation as well - and I've called the proper authorities on them. It's people like that who politicians use to convince people like you that all people on welfare are lazy freeloaders.

There is certainly enough money to pay all the necessary branches of government and to have a very strong military. The pie does not shrink because the government shrinks. What matters is the economy. The productive efforts of a society are what matters and what lead to it having the capacity to have a military etc. In this situation, a limited government can easily accomplish whatever is within it's authority.

Indeed, our economic system is backed by labor and production. Unfortunately both of these factors are being hacked at by politicians who support your ideas that such things are "socialist" or "big government."

What you seem to be saying here is that you would shrink the government... yet keep the same amount of money flowing into it. That seems a very odd position, perhaps you could clarify?

I really wish the federal government did or was capable of doing the things you talk about. It would really be a great world. At the end of the day, I think you have to limit it to the very bare necessities because once you surrender that power and authority, they abuse it and waste so much every time. Nothing happens overnight, we have a lot of people to take care of, but a shift in the right direction is needed, things have gotten out of hand.

Know why it doesn't work? Because it;s the policy of people such as Ron Paul to ensure that they don't work. Take FEMA, for an example, since we've already touched on it. FEMA is a pretty good idea. Trouble is, Republicans - including Ron Paul, refused to fund it adequately. Republicans - not including Ron Paul this time - staffed it with incompetent cronies. When FEMA was needed, it failed because of bad staffing and lack of funding, and Republicans, including Ron Paul, pointed at it and went "this is why relying on the federal government doesn't work"

Do you see the disconnect there? Setting up something to fail, then using its failure as proof that it should have never been attempted is more oe less the conservative / libertarian MO.

Worried about government waste? Look into cutting our military budget down to a third of what it currently is. This is, for some reason, both the fastest and most sure way to reduce government waste, and the only position that no Libertarian or conservative will ever take.

Also I think you have been involved in politics longer than I have, I'm probably not arguing at your level so sorry if I'm boring, but I've only known about these ideas for 2 months, so I don't know how much you are getting out of it, but I know I am learning alot from you - at the very least what a big government of today SHOULD accomplish.

Been going at it for about six years now. And a lot of that time has been spent beating my head against conservative dribble and Libertarian utopian fantasy. Sorry if I come off a little harsh, but i'm a grouchy jaded bastard.

Originally posted by The Walking Fox
Churches and charities are local, and depend on the population in the immediate locale to provide. Let's apply the "church and charity" paradigm to, say, New Orleans after Katrina. The charity offices are inoperable. The churches are empty. Outside agencies nearby - Mississippi, northern Louisiana - are busy with their own populations, and cannot get to New Orleans anyway due to damage to the transit system. And yet there are people in New Orleans with no food, no clean water, and no medical care.

"Let them grow gills!" cries Ron Paul, and Novise with him.

I would assume that Louisiana would be taking care of New Orleans in a Ron Paul America where the states are able to collect more taxes without the federal government gouging the citizens year after year. It would be Louisiana's responsibility to plan for a disaster, just like it would be the responsibility of all the states to come to the aid of their people. This isn't to say Louisiana is all alone, of course. While neighboring states may have their hands full dealing with their own problems in a multiple-state disaster, other states would surely come to their aid. We are a generous and giving people when disaster strikes, aren't we?

Originally posted by The Walking Fox
Let's say you're a poor person in North Dakota receiving federal aid. Suddenly Ron Paul's VISION FOR AMERICA™ takes place. All states, no feds, all the time! Well, North Dakota doesn't exactly have what we would call a robust economy, and so the state legislature votes to not institute any sort of welfare.

A stronger state government would put the power more easily in the hands of regional representatives, which would empower voters. North Dakota would very likely adopt some kind of a welfare program as would many if not all states in the union. It would really depend on what the residents of that state wanted to do with their tax dollars. And while some of these states may not have a robust economy, they would be much more in control of their own economy with more tax dollars to spend.

Originally posted by The Walking Fox
But wait! Under the VISION FOR AMERICA™, none of the states you would cross through have quite the same laws. Particularly outstanding is that the Department of Transportation no longer exists under hte VISION FOR AMERICA™ and regulation of hte roads is subject to the states. heading straight west to Oregon, you discover that the Road Barons of Montana have instituted tolls every fifty miles along the interstate, and along many back roads as well. Since if you had the spare change to pay for road use every fifty miles, you wouldn't be crossing Montana in the first place. So you have a hell of a time picking your way through what toll-free roads are left..

Finally, you reach Idaho... and the Idaho State Troopers open fire on you because Idaho has enacted state legislation preventing "illegal interlopers" from crossing its borders. Without the interstate regulations guaranteed by all those unconstitutional programs that Ron Paul did away with in his VISION FOR AMERICA™ the Idaho Legislature has seen fit to declare itself a semisovereign, whites-only state with VERY strict border patrols and rigorous standards of entry. You, being poor, don't qualify.

But you're so free without the feds providing you welfare!

Are you having a laugh, or are these scare tactics intentional? I could just as easily paint a picture of a world where government corruption continues to eat away at the integrity of this country, where the need for identifying terrorists turns America into a living 1984. I could just as easily do that, but i won't because i'm smart enough to know that you NEVER get ALL or nothing.

You're also leaving out the fact that when individual states have more power and rely less on federal regulation and law, they must communicate more fully with their neighbors. Diplomacy doesn't exist only on the national scale. Friendships are formed and partnerships are made. Neighboring states would likely cooperate a lot more than what you're posing, and you'll never see Idaho opening fire on Americans from neighboring states for any reason. That's just ludicrous.

There are so many opportunities available to the free market when we downsize our government agencies. Education can be given to the market, and the consumers will decide how much education is worth. Private business is quicker to adapt than government, and isn't held down by the same bureaucracy. Private education would create a competition-driven market which would result in a higher quality education, likely for less what we're paying now.

You assume that the free market would do such a bad job, but you fail to point out that our government is driving all of these areas into the ground. Is this really better? Really? At some point America is going to have to come to terms with the fact that just talking about the american dream doesn't make it attainable, and that the freedom to realize our dreams is slowly slipping away from us. This is because we are losing our edge in competition and our influence around the world. This isn't all our fault. Other nations are rising up and challenging us in ways we haven't seen. We can't be afraid of change or we'll be paralyzed as this Empire crumbles like all the rest.

reply to post by The Walking Fox


You have given some serious food for thought to me my friend. I've spent a lot of time looking at the Ron Paul side of things, but I haven't spent near as much time looking for good things about the other side. It's perfectly alright for me to admit that I am misinformed on welfare and I never thought about the underfunding issue, and other things. Here at ATS we should not be above our convictions...

I'll be researching the other side because I've read enough of one side already for 2 months straight. I doubt very many paid as much attention to our dialogue as us because it was a ton to read, but I think it was very useful - and any Ron Paul supporters, it wouldn't hurt to hear The Walking Fox out (and if you don't know for sure then it's time to do research for yourself, as I will be doing) - a lot is at stake, and it doesn't hurt to be more informed on the issues, regardless.

[edit on 19-12-2007 by Novise]

reply to post by The Walking Fox


Congress wont need to be paid that much seeing as they are only required to meet ONCE a year, If the pay is a problem perhaps they should reevaluate why the wanted to serve in public office, there job is to make sure our rights are protected...

Congress far surpasses its Constitutional power holding votes on issues it has no authority to vote on, and issues that are STATE issues, Its powers and limitations are clearly laid out in the Constitution, if its not in there then simply put its a state issue Congress has no business dealing with.



As far as financing certain programs, this can still be done at the STATE level closer to home, where they can be tailored to the citizens issues of that state.

Its not about getting rid of the programs, its about getting the programs out of the federal government ant into the states, with the ability should the person choose, to go to the private sector, less spending on wasteful government programs cutting the military budget ect, the money is coming from us, and where do we live? in the states so the money still exists, it just won't be dealt with in the same bureaucracy.

[edit on 19-12-2007 by C0le]