A note from Ron Paul August 22

Yep, he wrote us a note.  For or against, it is a damn fine read.  He talks about taxes, happy warriors, togetherness, and  monetary policy.  You can see why his followers are so taken by him.  He doesn’t really spell it out, so I thought I would.

Lets start with happy warriors.  Anyone who has ever written a post that contradicted Dr. Paul knows what a hoot this is.  He has some of the most rabid people on the planet supporting him.  they will attack your children, your dead parents, your dog…anything to get an edge.  Ron needs to write a negative blog about himself and see the responses he gets from the pauliac tribesmen.

   The tax thing.  He doesn’t want to replace the IRS with a new tax.  He claims our problem is inflation and an unsound monetary policy that keeps us on a rollercoaster of financial uncertainty.  Here’s what he leaves out.  He wants the states to tax the holy living hell out of us.  He doesn’t want a big federal government, he wants huge monolithic state governments, just like the constitution envisions.  You wouldn’t be taxed less under a Ron Paul regime, you would merely be taxed by someone else.

Freedom brings us all together.  Again, he would be right.  Except his position does not create freedom.  Freedom is not a derivative of the state.  It is, according to his theological ethos I would assume, god granted.  Yet he wants the state to control everything that the fed now controls.  Ron Paul doesn’t envision a nation where abortion isn’t legislated.  He pictures a country where abortion is controlled by the state.   I’m sorry.  His policies would not make me a freer person.  Heres an example of what I mean.  My dog loves going for walks with me.  It’s because she behaves for me and I don’t have to put her on a leash.  She hates going for walks with any of the kids.  In fact they don’t go for walks they go for drags.  She loves the kiddoes, but she hates the leash.  IT DOESN’T APPEAR TO MATTER TO HER WHO IS HOLDING IT.   Ron Paul doesn’t offer you a chance to lose the leash.  He offers you the opportunity to have someone else hold it.  That isn’t freedom.

Unconstitutional government has created…  the guy is always half right.  He doesn’t mention that unconstitutional government has also granted us stability that there is no way the 50 states legislating themselves ever will.  He merely wishes to change the problems we face.  50 powerful little pigs trying to get all the slop for themselves will create a nation that feeds on itself.  At least under the current method we are feeding on others. 

   I’m not trying to change any minds here.  I’m just pointing out the fact that while it sure looks rosie when he says it, the reality could well be an entirely different thing.

Advertisements

29 Responses to A note from Ron Paul August 22

  1. Preston says:

    Where exactly does he say that he wants huge state governments to tax us as much as the federal government. Please reference this claim.

  2. NH says:

    OH brother rant on! Abortion isn’t the most important thing in the world is it? Are you going to have one? LOL

  3. Elizabeth says:

    Rasmusson poll is a scam.

    Anyway, you have a point but it’s my opinion it’s a bit simplistic. I’m upper 40’s and I can remember when the states governed themselves on alot of issues. If you didn’t like what they chose you either worked to change it or moved to where it was more to your liking. It didn’t seem to be so bad back then compared to the fact the the US gov’t (Fed) can now declare you an enemy and execute you without a trial. JMHO

  4. Jeff Bubb says:

    The lesh analogy; with 50 individual states garnering more power, if your dog doesn’t like being pulled in one state, he can move to the next. Under the current situation, he has no choice.

    • Gary Bubb says:

      My Neph would probably be a strong conservative (frustrated as it is). Just wondering if your dad is my bro. Richard?

      If yes, drop me a line at garybubb@yahoo.com.

      If no, well Ron is a nut for sure, but his roots are tight. He a tough, honest, and dedicated man.

      Whats not to like.

      Gary

  5. I’m still confused about who and what to believe. This is one of the most interesting races in recent history, that can be said. I go from one person to another, still unsure whose game to buy into. I just want to know that when he or she gets there, they will have a plan to fix this war, FOR GOOD. If it’s even possible anymore.

  6. Michael says:

    Once you have seen behind the curtain you’ll understand. Until then you will continue with the unfounded claims that you make. Unless of course you can give me a historical precedent in the US?

    1- The states have been governing themselves since their inception. They have their own body of government and their own constitution. Their constitution cannot infringe on the National Constitution. When they do, the cases are brought through the courts just like they always have. That’s a silly, unfounded argument saying the states will be out of control.

    2- I live in a state that does not have a state income tax. I don’t envision them starting that anytime soon. Maybe other states will follow suit?

    3- A long historical lesson in economics is a good starting point. A long list of economists praise Ron Paul on his ideas in economics. He knows what he’s talking about.

    4- His abortion stance is the same as many people in the country. Every republican President has not agreed with abortion. However, abortion is still legal. GW Bush wanted to do away with it too. Look how far he has gotten. This is a Supreme Court issue.

  7. John Howard says:

    Very large lies:

    “He wants the states to tax the holy living hell out of us.”

    “…he wants huge monolithic state governments, just like the constitution envisions.”

    “…he wants the state to control everything that the fed now controls.”

    “…unconstitutional government has also granted us stability.”

    “I’m just pointing out the fact…”

    Removing power from the big bully will make it easier to remove it from the 50 little bullies who are supported by the big bully. The big bully is the priority now. To suggest that Ron Paul WANTS the little bullies to do what the big bully is doing is to ignore everything he has been saying for the last 30 years. This is not just a mistaken post. It is a desparate and sadistically dishonest post.

  8. Hi John. I’m sorry to say this, but you are wrong. He has said on numerous occassions “this is not constitutional and therefore not the job of the FEDERAL government. Explain it to me how he could mean anything other than giving to the states authorities usurped by the fed….no, don’t bother. I’m righto n this one.

    thanks for coming by

  9. bbartlog says:

    While I’m sure some of the comments are less than polite, I imagine you wouldn’t be posting yet more Ron Paul material if you really hated the traffic it gets.
    As for the states versus the federal government – you’re right that states could cause the same sort of problems. But the states have to compete with each other, and this keeps their ability to tax people and/or inflict obnoxious policies on them in check. Think about this – states could (theoretically) set income tax rates at the same level as the fedgov. Why are they lower instead? At least in part because people can easily vote with their feet.

  10. every time that he says that is up to the states he backs up my claim.

    abortion was used as an example…drug legalization, gun control, all the little social issues, and sometimes huge issues will become state responsibilities.

    I’ve never once seen Ron Paul deny that it will costs the states more money to govern under the government he envisions. In fact, I’ve never seen any hard numbers from Ron Paul.

    Michael…with Ron Paul as president they would have to tax you. They would have to many responsibilities not to. Health care, medicare, SSI, basically every current federal government program would be curtailed, and the states would have to either pick them up, or discontinue them. Several states are currently so far in the red they would have to shut down schools and hospitals to even approach solvency.

    you can deny all you want, but it’s not my job to make the argument for you. Show me Rons numbers.

    arm jerker…it’s not going to make anyone happy. The only people that have raised any sort of exited following are the no hopers.

    Elizabeth…I’m mid forties…who has the government arrested and executed inside the U.S. without a trial? I’ll grant our government is way out of hand.

    as far as moving…why should i have to? Why should I want a government that forces me to migrate state to state on a legislative whim? None of you have thought this line out, or haven’t contermplated familial ties, age, financial stability or any of the other issues related to moving…i’m sorry…that’s just not a reasonable option.

    thank you all for your comments. I have to work tomorrow or i’d of answered you individually.

    thanks for coming by.

  11. bbart..i post about Ron because he is the most unique, and dangerous person in the race. Many of his viewpoints are sound. A return to states rights is off the charts dangerous, and unnecessary. Traffic isn’t the issue. I’m waiting to be convinced that I’m wrong, and so far that hasn’t happened.

    thanks for coming by

  12. brody says:

    The Constitution grants rights to the people that cannot be taken away even by the states, actually the federal government is supposed to be protecting these rights. The whole purpose of giving states rights is to decentralize the government, otherwise it becomes too large and powerful and cannot effectively represent the people. The checks and balances create a sort of competition between branches of federal government and the States, and brings power back towards the local level. The states would not raise taxes if most federal taxes were elimated, the opposite would happen. People and businesses would now be able to escape the system and move to tax friendly states, and the states would be forced to compete.

  13. Hi anita…good to see you, sunshine

  14. hi brody…I disagree…I see a weakened America if states rights returns….disastrously so. I also think it would be far more expensive…besides, if the fed can just overrule the states whats the point? Every law would be tied up in litigation…wait

    thats it…

    you’re all lawyers…you have to be to want this….

    kiddin, but lacking any numbers from the ron paul campaign projecting a lessening of my taxes overall, and an increase in my freedom, I’m going to assume its all just wind for now.

    thanks for coming by

  15. Hello,

    Interesting piece, but I’d like to offer some things to think about.

    We currently have a monolithic federal government because it is so far away, and therefore difficult for us – we the people – to control. No child left behind is a perfect example. Why should we take orders from 3,000 miles away on how our children should be educated? Why not return that power to the people in their own communities? This is what Dr. Paul’s campaign is all about – returning power to the people in their own communities. If you see and meet people on a daily basis, they’re not able to get away with the kind of waste and corruption they can when they are so far away and out of our sight/oversight. State government would therefore be much more efficient.

    As you mention, all of the Federal areas that Dr. Paul would like to see discontinued would have to be picked up by the states or discontinued entirely. For example, the war. How much money would we save without having to spend it on illegal foreign wars?

    Furthermore, you underestimate the power of the inflation tax. One dollar in the time of Washington was worth roughly the same as in 1913, the year of the founding of the Federal Reserve. Today, that same dollar is worth 5 cents. Those are the Fed’s own statistics.

    The Ron Paul Revolution is really quite simple to understand: It is about returning power to citizens and their own communities. There is no need to make it more complicated. In short, Dr. Paul has the confidence that people in their own communities can make better decisions for their own lives than politicians in Washington.

    I encourage you to learn more about Dr. Paul’s campaign and visit me at http://www.dailypaul.com. The more you know, the more you’ll like!

    Michael Nystrom
    Editor
    http://www.dailypaul.com

  16. hi Michael…i read the daily paul a lot. I’m not all that against Ron Paul as I’ve previously stated. I just don’t trust state governments, and feel that a multiparty system would grant the benefits Dr. Paul alleges would be reaped by returning power to the states, without the incredible risks involved.

    Further, I could probably in the matter of half an hour track down 1000 stories about state level government corruption, and to be flagrantly honest, could deal with my federal tax burden if my state wasn’t gnawing a bigger hole in my wallet every single year.

    I enjoy your blog immensely, and appreciate you coming by and commenting.

  17. Sam Marsh says:

    I think you will find that many Ron Paul supporters understand that vitriol doesn’t win votes. That being said, there are some posts out there that are deliberately inaccurate and hateful. Yours clearly does not fall in that category. I’d been waiting 10 years for Ron to run, so I’m definitely a Pauliac.

    As for the taxes issue, Dr. Paul wants to cut the foreign adventures out first. That will save a huge pile of cash that is going right out the window, and the states can’t pick up where the Feds leave off in that arena.

    The rest of the Unconstitutional social spending, which Paul has repeatedly stated will stay as long as we have obligations to meet for those dependent on governent, would indeed eventually devolve to the states.

    Have you considered that state government is necessarily more responsive than the federal government could ever be? For example, medical marijuana is legal in most states, but we can’t get the feds to admit reality, even with over 70% popular support. Even with the states doing more than before, they would have a hard time becoming the behemoth that we currently have.

    You are right that freedom doesn’t come from government. I would be shocked to hear such an idea from a Pauliac. We all know better than that, I hope. What government does best is take freedom away by the use of force. That is why the Constitution is primarily a document that puts limits on what government can do.

    The abortion question is a tough one. I’ve been a fence-sitter on that issue for most of my life. I see a distinct conflict between the rights of a mother to control her own body, and the rights of an unborn person to live. Most everyone I know feels strongly for one side or the other. The current status quo doesn’t make much sense to me, and it seems to have divided us . I really think the only solution we have available is to let the people decide for themselves in each state. I don’t know where you live, but I do know that most states will be pro-choice. The ones that won’t be will not surprise anyone. The difference is that you can choose which state to live in and still be an American. Alabama and California will be very different places in that respect. I’m OK with that, in fact I think it’s healthy. We will never find a community standard that will satisfy everyone in America.

    You’re right that Ron Paul isn’t offering anarchy (ultimate freedom), just Constitutional government. It’s not utopia, it’s the law as written. Your state representatives have a lot more to fear from you than your Congressman. It’s a matter of simple math. Your vote counts more at the state and local level. Watch what happens to the bums in the Virginia statehouse this fall to see what I mean.

    It scares me a little that you’re so comfortable with our nation feeding on others. Don’t you think that makes the rest of the world hate us? Do you think we can do this forever?

  18. Hi Sam. You are most definitely not a pauliac. Your comment involves reasoning, and reasonable pauliac is an oxymoron. That term was meant for the whacko’s.

    cutting out foreign military adventures not approved by congress is a good idea. Any effort to curtail foreign aid will I believe cause diplomatic nightmares, and quite likely destabilize a number of governments around the globe. this is one of the reasons I see him as the most dangerous candidate.
    Abortion is meant to be a divisive issue, and both sides use it like a weapon. I see no reason to remove it from government all together. It’s a medical procedure, and should be left up to doctors and nurses and health care facilites to decide whether they wish to perform the service.

    My only point on the fed vs. state thing is that in the long run it will change little. We need to change the system, not return to a system that wasn’t even effective 2 centuries ago.

    I’m not comfortable with us feeding on others, but think a united America is better than a divided one, and thats what will occur if we return to states rights. I’m almost curious to see how much less would get done.

    thanks for the comment

  19. William Stegmeier says:

    Well, duh. Stop all this arguing. It’s Ron Paul!

    Unite against the Clinton/Bush/New World Order regime.

    They are power hungry commies. Go Ron Paul

  20. hello William…i was sorta hoping we could find something in between fascist and commie without redrawing pre civil-war political battle lines.

    The only new world order I’m interested in at the moment is a baconator with fries

    good to see you again

  21. Condundrum says:

    This is a very interesting dialogue. One part that caught my eye is “As for the taxes issue, Dr. Paul wants to cut the foreign adventures out first. That will save a huge pile of cash that is going right out the window, and the states can’t pick up where the Feds leave off in that arena.”

    By ‘foreign adventures’, are the Paul supporters referring only to wars or also to foreign aid? The latter I suspect. Claiming the states couldn’t step into foreign aid or interaction is just simply mistaken. I base this on the observation that governors and mayors routinely visit other countries to develop relationships with their governments and businesses. They offer grants and such to encourage them to relocate or invest within their states and cities.

    I am so sick of this “If you don’t like it, you can just move” argument. What is the logic in driving the citizenry to relocate away from their homes, jobs, families, friends, cultural institutions and such every time the local state legislature goes on a binge of some sort? Makes no sense.

    This is creating a terrific dialogue – thanks for instigating it with your posts.

  22. Michael says:

    The state that I am in would not institute an income tax. If they did that, the people would revolt. The good thing about the people revolting in a state is that they don’t have to go very far to do it.

    The fact is that most states are hindered by the federal government. In fact, I believe I just read where Utah stop taking funding from the dept. of education because of the restrictions. They passed their own laws and the Fed threatened to take other funding away. It’s a good thing that they have a State tax surplus every year.

    The state that I am in is hindered by the federal government to do many things. I don’t think you give the people or the states enough credit. Look at California and Grey Davis/Arnold Schwarzenegger – Grey Davis was RECALLED. Something we all wish we could accomplish with some of the current Federal politicians.

    Truly I believe that you are a Ron Paul supporter and your are playing devils advocate and letting all these nice people prove that Ron Paul is the best thing in Washington. Sneaky tactic…Keep up the good work.

  23. Chad says:

    Criminy, I think I remember reading another post of yours a couple months back. Interesting take.

    I really feel that Ron Paul’s candidacy is more about a change in direction, and not so much about “here’s what would DEFINITELY happen within a year of the election.” We need to stop policing the world RIGHT NOW before there’s a global revolution against us.

    As for foreign aid, the citizens of many countries are now BEGGING the U.S. to just stop sending aid. Our aid in the form of money does nothing but prop up corrupt regimes. Our aid in the form of food or clothing does nothing but run local producers out of business. Many people in Africa are starting to see this very clearly and have begun to BEG us to stop the federal aid.

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,363663,00.html

    That is an incredibly eye-opening interview with an Kenyan economist. SERIOUSLY worth reading.

    That being said, I agree that to end our semi-empire of the planet, we’d need to do a lot of hard core diplomacy to let everyone know that we had an ideological revolution in our country and are not going to pursue the same kind of “subsidies if you do what we say/military threats if you disobey” policy. Yeah there might be some animosity, but that’s the fault of our policy up until this point, not the fault of changing it.

    “I’m almost curious to see how much less would get done.”

    Yeah, this is actually a good point. I think if you’re a libertarian, you WANT to see much less get done by the government at any level. Centralized solutions are not pro-freedom, they are one-size-fits-all, top-down mandates. I don’t see how this form of “getting things done” is superior to the state governments competing for residents.

    I’ve been reading Ron Paul’s stuff for about 5 years, and I can tell you that Ron Paul does not want the States to just do everything the federal government is doing. He would LIKE to see the states doing less than they’re doing NOW, as well as the federal government doing less than it’s doing now.

    That being said, he is a constitutionalist, and he doesn’t want to force a libertarian form of government on the entire country any more than he wants to force a socialist or fascist government system on the entire country.

    What’s wrong with California taxing its citizens to holly hell and providing every social program imaginable, if the citizens there tend to agree with this approach by majority, and if it doesn’t conflict with their State constitution (many of which have similar limits as our federal constitution).

    Ron Paul would LIKE to see a society where government at every level is doing very little, and instead people are making their own decisions.

    However, he’s running for president of the Federal Government, which means that he wants to run as a person who will move us back in a direction of following the constitution and letting states decide for themselves many of these issues.

    I can’t imagine some states not getting bigger in terms of taxation and regulation, and some states getting significantly smaller. I know New Hampshire is already fairly lean on taxation and regulation, and I think that would remain true.

    Thoughts?

    -Chad

  24. Ron Holland says:

    If you agree with Ron Paul please sign the petition to Abolish the Federal Reserve.

    Now in August 2007, the world financial systems and investment markets, real estate and the availability of credit are all under direct assault due to past actions of the Federal Reserve in the United States.

    Read and sign the Ron Paul Is Right – Abolish the Federal Reserve Petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/fed/petition.html

    Please link to the petition and forward this message to your friends and help the general public wake up during the current financial panic conditions to the problems we face from the Federal Reserve and Ron Paul’s solution.

    Also read comments from hundreds of signers who aren’t shy in saying what they think of the FED.

  25. bhday says:

    Well, you can guess what I’m going to say. 🙂

    For me, the biggest issue is a responsive government and self-determination. Why do folks line up to go into Federal government? That’s where the power, and the funds, are. It pains me to read my Congressman’s Web site, and see him trumpeting the fact that he’s bringing home $300,000 in federal appropriations to fund our local county’s mental health program.

    Why did that money leave the state in the first place? Where did it come from? Assuming we should be funding it, shouldn’t we be funding it ourself, in a way that respects our local needs and priorities? If we weren’t sending 40% of our incomes to D.C., we’d have a lot more wealth to deal with things at the state and local level.

    Even more importantly, our federal government makes fleecing the public through corporate and special interest lobbying *much* more cost effective. If corporations had to lobby for corporate welfare and protectionist policies on a state-by-state basis, they might actually be motivated to compete based upon creating value in the marketplace instead of legislating and regulating current and potential competitors out of business.

    And then take a look at the *quality* of your state government. Why do you fear it? Well, if you ‘re like me, you look at your governor and legislators and are underwhelmed by their intelligence, competence, and integrity. State government truly is the minor leagues — why should it attract the best and brightest?

    I believe, strongly, that a Constitutionally-limited federal government would encourage more competent state governments. First, there’s nowhere to hide. If a hurricane is bearing down on your coast, and you can’t expect to scapegoat FEMA’s incompetence when the disaster response is, well, a disaster, you might have a workable emergency plan in place. But to the extent that state governments learn dependency on Washington, they are less motivated to take care of themselves.

    Second, the issues, and responsibilities upon state governments will be greater — as they should be. Elevating the responsibilities of the state and local governments will encourage more competent folks to seek office. And if it doesn’t, the free market will work as our Founding Fathers intended — there are still fifty states from which to choose.

    I don’t understand the hostility, or unwillingness, to think about *your* role in state government. I understand that you might not just want to pick up and leave if the state government doesn’t meet your high expectations. But it’s your STATE government! It is, and should be, more accessible than the federal bureaucracy in Washington. So your involvement is necessary to ensure that the state approximates your values and priorities in its execution.

    In contrast, before learning of Dr. Paul’s campaign, our family was seriously considering becoming expatriates. There just didn’t seem to be another option to an out-of-control federal government. I’d much rather have the option to move from California to Texas if I need more than a two-bedroom “ranchette” for a $600,000 housing budget.

    Relying on a “benevolent dictatorship” in the form of an omniscient and increasingly-powerful federal government is a dangerous game. Evidence to date suggests that it doesn’t work all that well. While we have functionally ignored the 10th Amendment to our Constitution for some time now, I’m hopeful that enough people are waking up to the dangers of centralized power that we’ll again legalize the Constitution and the 10th Amendment.

  26. […] Paul and the Tenth Amendment Criminyjicket has a real talent for sparking debate, most recently about Ron Paul’s note of August 22: He doesn’t want a big federal […]

  27. mk says:

    He wants to give more discretion to the states. It does not necessarily mean the states will use that extra discretion to wield more power.

    Why would all of the states automatically have high taxes once they had more power? In some states, like Tennessee, the personal income tax is unconstitutional.

    You also have less pork when the states are running things.

    A great advantage of state level power is that you can at bad/good examples of regulation in other states and then act accordingly when creating law in your own state. When the feds do it, rules are usually stuck a certain way for decades, and no one knows how terrible things really are because there’s nothing to compare to.

    I could go on for a long time on why state level governments are better … but I’ll just leave it at this:

    Your argument fails because you don’t show why the state level governments will impose on our freedoms as much as the feds have. In fact, history shows us that the state governments would be very different.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: