posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 07:52 PM
reply to post by thunderlady
Originally posted by thunderlady
He does not believe in a woman's right to have autonomy over her own body. This defines him as a misogynist.
And he doesn't believe in taxes which means no public funding for roads or fire departments, etc.
Ron Paul is anti-abortion but I doubt its because he "hates women". While you may feel that it is your right to terminate a pregnancy, there are
others who view it as terminating a life.
Its your perception that people who are anti-abortion "hate women" and I suppose that might be the motivation for some anti-abortionists but this view
is a bit extreme. For Ron Paul, I would argue that this issue is more about protecting a life as opposed to "hating women".
I'd rather not get into the constitutionality of an un-apportioned tax. You'll find arguments for and against. I would argue that income taxes are
less about expenditures and more about control. As you know, if you dont pay your taxes, not only are you subject to garnishment of your current
wages and future income, the IRS can seize your bank accounts and personal property. And if paying your back taxes wasn't enough, they can even strip
you of your freedom and imprison you.
Income tax was enacted introduced and signed into law by the same Senator Aldrich and President Wilson who pushed through the "Federal Reserve Act".
Now that a mechanism was in place to allow deficit spending, there had to be a way to ensure that the interest on this borrowing would be paid. They
were aware that the states would reject an income tax so they were bypassed and instead enacted the 16th amendment on a federal level, the validity of
which is still challenged today.
In 2011, income taxes represented 42% of receipts or $1.1 Trillion out of a total $2.567 Trillion taken in by our government, leaving $1.467 Trillion
in receipts. Our budget deficit for 2011 is $1.2 Trillion. So as you can see, our income taxes could be completely eliminated if our Congress would
control spending and to do that we would need to go back to 1994 spending levels when total outlays were $1.461 Trillion.
Not surprisingly, in 1994 we had roads, firehouses. Heck, we even had a pretty big global military empire.
edit on 10-12-2010 by gladtobehere because: (no reason given)