 |
Ron Paul Means Change, But Who Benefits? |
 |
Ron Paul supporters would have you believe he is the candidate that most represents a change from the status quo. And indeed, many of his policies are big shifts from current practice. If the U.S. went back to the gold standard, withdrew from foreign bases abroad, abolished the IRS, and got rid of the FDA, EPA, Department of Education, and other federal programs, our country wouldn’t look terribly familiar.
Whether this change is an improvement, however, depends strongly on who you are. Some of Paul’s policies would benefit almost everyone. Withdrawing from foreign bases and ending the war in Iraq would only hurt the military-industrial complex and those who draw money and power from it. However, many of Paul’s other sweeping reforms only help a subset of the population.
Take, for example, Paul’s promise to abolish income tax and replace it with the Fair Tax, or something like it. Right now, income taxes disproportionately affect the middle class. The income tax rate for the middle class is between 25 and 33 percent. Most middle class people are workers, which means they make most of their money via taxable income. By contrast, even though the tax rate for the rich is 35%, they make most of their money via investments. The long term capital gains tax rate is only 15%, and therefore the rich end up paying less income tax (in terms of percentage of their total income) than the middle class. The poor only pay between 10 and 25% of their income in taxes.
The fair tax, by contrast, forces everyone to pay a flat 23% income tax. For the middle class, this is a tax break. For the poor, who spend a disproportionate amount of their income on goods, especially disposable goods, the Fair Tax represents a doubling of their tax rate. Fair Tax proponents argue that prebates would be offered for the poor to cover essentials, but I’m not clear how prebates could be managed without the IRS. An abolition of the IRS, it seems, would mostly help those at the upper end of the middle class tax bracket. Certainly change, but not for the good of everyone.
[NOTE: It has been pointed out that Paul's latest comments advocate an elimination of the income tax with no replacement. My point still stands. The middle class pays the highest percentage of their income through the income tax than any other Americans. Eliminating the income tax would benefit the middle class the most. It would benefit the rich and poor too, though I can understand how the poor might be hesitant, as Paul would eliminate the social programs they depend on as well.]
As another example, take Paul’s abolition of the FDA, EPA, and other federal oversight programs. These policies again tend to help a certain subset of the middle class. Those that most want the government to stay out of their business are those best equipped to take care of themselves; small business owners, young white males with a college education and a decent job, families that own houses and land. These people have the time and money to educate their kids on their own, research medication, and move to environmentally healthy neighborhoods. Those that do not have the time or money to do these things, the poor and/or uneducated, would not benefit from an abolition of these government programs, just as they wouldn’t benefit from a cessation of welfare, another of Paul’s proposals.
The subset of America that would benefit from a Ron Paul presidency recognizes this fact and donates (and probably votes) accordingly. Ronpaulgraphs.com has data on where those who donate to Ron Paul list their address. As you can see below, Ron Paul’s movement is primarily made up of Western residents (and possibly mostly male at that):
Contrast this map with a map of minority distribution from the 2000 census:
Ron Paul supporters, to a great extent, live where minorities do not. While African-Americans and Hispanics make up the largest population in the South and Southwest, these states represent the lower end of Paul’s donations. In fact, as you can see below, Ron Paul supporters and significant minority populations are almost mutually exclusive:
This shouldn’t be surprising. If Ron Paul’s policies benefit largely white, middle class, young, educated homeowners with land, then these people donate most to his campaign. Ron Paul represents change, yes, but all change is not positive change. Clearly, Ron Paul can’t claim to represent all of America, as all of America would not benefit under a Paul administration.
So, a certain subset of the middle class is voting in their self-interest. Makes sense, right? The problem is, these people make out their actions to be in the best interest of everyone. In reality, the Ron Paul “revolution” is a revolution of those that already have it pretty good in America, people that are white, male, educated, and already primed to succeed in our society.
Paul
offers
no
replacement
As a high-school age Asian living in a racially heterogeneous town (one which boasts many Paulites), I can assure you that any assertion claiming that Ron Paul’s supporters are mostly educated white males is sorely mistaken. Even more sorely mistaken is your claim that Ron Paul advocates the Fair Tax - that’s Huckabee’s platform entirely. Dr. Paul, if I recall, wishes to eliminate the need for an income tax by reducing government spending; i.e. NO replacement.
Though attempting to categorize the constituency of any group can be (rightly) viewed as collectivism these days, I’d be willing to wager that most, if not all, of Ron Paul’s supporters are merely previously-jaded people who are looking for a way to change things in politics and government. No race or gender speculation necessary.
While the Fair Tax isn’t Paul’s policy per se, he does say he would vote for it. See http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=news_presScorecard
As for the mixture of his constituents, clearly I’m generalizing. I’m sure there are people of all races and backgrounds supporting Paul. But your one specific instance of difference does not prove the rule. I have some (admittedly limited) facts to back up my assertion.
Jason, you are disingenuous to the core! Ron Paul said, TODAY, on Meet the Press that he DOES NOT advocate replacing the income tax with something else, even though he thinks ANY other taxation method would be an improvement.
Here is where you blatantly show your bias: You show how a change in taxation affects groups of people disproportionately then you make the claim that “Certainly change, but not for the good of everyone.” - THIS is where you are wrong! If I am poor and pay 15% of my income in taxes then removing that tax would be a HUGE improvement! If I am rich and pay 5% or even 35% in taxes then removing that tax would also be a HUGE improvement! EVERYONE would benefit, to different degrees surely, but that is true of ANYTHING! Abolishing ALL income taxation so that every citizen is EQUAL in both the amount AND the percentage of their income taken by government is simply the most ‘fair’ and ‘equal’ method of taxation - no one should be paying anymore or any less for the workings of government doing its constitutional duties. Any specialized services that government decides to undertake can be funded through a user fee system much like the highways are funded. It is a violation of my property rights to have my stuff (money, property, etc) taken from me through a forceful government. It is simply wrong for government to treat me as a slave to fund political power games and attempt redistribution towards other groups of folks, be they foreign governments, poor folks, farmers, oil subsidies, or whatever.
You really should just write a straightforward article that states: “I hate Ron Paul and capitalism and complete freedom and feel he is a distinct threat to my ability to endorse wealth redistribution to groups that I support”. Then you can move on to other things and stop attacking and possibly having nightmares about this poor old grandfather. He’s really not that scary, and neither are his policies.
I did not see Paul on MTP. I am going by what Paul has said in the past, and what Fair Tax has said about Paul.
But if what you say is true, and I have no reason to doubt, than I take back Paul’s advocacy of the Fair Tax. My point still stands. Those that pay the most percentage of their income to taxes are the middle class. An elimination of the income tax, without replacement, would again most benefit the middle class, though it would no doubt help others as well.
ok then… now to the REAL meat, and, your problem with this. If Paul is proposing something that benefits ALL, some more than others relative TO THE CURRENT SYSTEM, why does it matter to you? Note, this is much different than Paul GIVING money to different groups in varying amounts, which is actually what you are making the jump to…. he is NOT giving anything, he is EQUALLY ‘not taking’ anything!
In such a perspective, any comparison as to how each group fares on the ‘net’, amounts to just a form of jealousy. If Bob earns $100k a year from his job, and his neighbor earns only $20k a year, do you find this somehow ‘unfair’? If Bob is allowed to have the entirety of his wealth to disperse as he pleases AND his neighbor does as well, without any regard to their earnings, isn’t that treating them equally, from a rights perspective? Either you yourself are a bit lost in the same old pandering lines the politicians have been feeding Americans for 100 years, trying to divide people into groups and non-existent ‘classes’ to get votes and divert attention, or you are cognitively aware of this and are purposely using the same form of argument to further your own beliefs and agenda…. the first instance can be forgiven once you are presented with the truth and change your views, the second instance is unforgivable and demands a loss of respect from others.
You do understand the argument I am presenting, correct? Sometimes I am not very clear with my words…
I believe I do understand your argument, but I don’t think you’re taking into account the entire picture.
Elimination of the income tax is only one piece of the puzzle. From my research, that means that lower income people would keep 10-15% more of the money they earn. As you correctly state, this is a benefit. But what about the social programs they lose? If Paul cuts welfare, medicare, and other programs these people rely on, I think the net benefit is negative. And as such, I understand why these people probably don’t support his run for the Presidency.
OK, there you might have a point - the people that net benefit from transfer payments have a reason and an incentive to vote according to continuing such a system… If I could somehow get government to take money from others and give it to me - whoopeeee! BUT, is it morally ‘right’? Is it something that should be endorsed, used as a political tool to enhance a politicians own power? Isn’t this playing to the basest of our humanity? These people have no more right to my money than I have to theirs! This is ALSO why I (and Dr. Paul) also desire to address the entire corrupt monetary system as it is an OPPOSITE transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class TO the rich, connected, the elite. NEITHER system is moral, nor is it in tune with our constitution. I am not ‘against’ poor people - in fact, I have been one at many times during my life (right at this moment I could probably qualify for food stamps, if not welfare altogether) - I am against one person, or a group of persons, using force to extract wealth (property) from others - it simply is immoral, any way you slice it. I am sorry to keep bringing up ‘morality’ as if I am some holy roller type, because I am not. I bring it up because 99.9999% of the human population of earth pretty much agrees that taking something that belongs to another without their consent is ‘wrong’ - this would fit my concept of a ‘general morality’. I think you would agree that theft is wrong, BUT, somehow you rationalize that since a group of humans live in a defined geographic area dominated by one particular type of ‘government’ that, in itself, invalidates the immorality of theft. I claim it does not. If me and 10 of my neighbors feel it would be a good thing to force the 11th neighbor to give us his house/car/portion of his income, that would certainly be viewed by folks as ‘wrong’. and it is. and it is wrong for ‘government’, whether by ‘democratic’ vote, or by bureaucratic regulation, to do so as well. Join me, and the Revolution, endorse Paul and let each human be free to find the life they desire as they see fit…. I know you want to, right?
maybe we should tax Mexico? why infringe on only our own fellow citizens rights and yet be fine with letting the rest of the world alone and free from our governments taxes?
No, I think you’re well within your bounds to bring morality into this discussion. This is, after all, the basic disagreement we have. You believe it is wrong to force something on another categorically. I believe that letting someone slip between the cracks in our society is wrong, and what’s more, I think it’s more wrong. I think it is right to give up some of our freedom to keep that from happening.
Which is not to say what you’re arguing doesn’t make sense. It does, I understand that morality. I just don’t believe in it. Which is why I could never endorse Paul.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m glad he’s running. I love to see him on stage with the other Republicans and rail against the drug war and the war in Iraq. Ron Paul’s presence changes the conversation. But I can’t endorse him. I do not subscribe to his (and your) version of morality.
The article also emphasizes the disparities with respect to Blacks and Hispanics, traditionally disempowered minority groups, as far as median income and education level goes. Asians, on the other hand, have a higher median income and education level.
The geography also reflects areas with larger employment in technological sectors. This isn’t surprising when looking at the income levels of college-educated tech jobs. There is also a larger ratio of Asians in tech jobs in comparison to Blacks and Hispanics.
The reason for this? Minorities are not politically active and will just vote for who they are told (Hillary, Obama) for shallow reasons. They don’t do the research.
If you can’t speak English and/or are illegal, of course you have no clue.
If you look at Dr. Paul’s demographic, you will see all walks of life and many many minorities.
After all, he delivered many minority babies in his day!
PS- I’m a white female, age 60, from NH and I vote. I’m voting for Dr. Paul.
Now your green eyes are showing, eh? We tolerate ignorance on our site, but not racism. You’re on the edge of a precipice and I would urge you, in your further statements, to stick to facts and not prejudies.
I am a 40 year old Male who was a dem up to 5 months ago. I am disalusioned with Big Fedral government, Foriegn wars, Spying on our citezens etc.. Cut taxes and spending on foriegn wars.. Tax locally spend locally is my motto.. I am voting for Ron Paul and so are all my gay friends.. We love Ron Pauls view of liberty. New Hampshire will supprise everyone.. just wait and see…
I for one would not be surprised with a 2nd or even 1st place finish of Paul in NH.
I’m from New Hampshire, but not a native. The racism in this state just simply due to the extreme isolation from people other than whites is astounding. Typical is the comment of the woman above.
Paul is not running that high in the polls and I don’t think his showing will be that big here. The Republican base has a history of voting for more establishment politicians with a more stable background with the machine, that paul does not have. Remember when Forbes ran here and many thought he’d show well in the primaries? Well, he didn’t despite all the hullabaloo prior.
Just my opinion but if you are a U.S. citizen and do not vote for Ron Paul something is wrong in this country. He runs for the Constitution which is what all of us should remember. I own a couple of small businesses and I can tell you first hand that the IRS in this country should be abolished. If you do not pay sole proprietor taxes then you can not understand the tax situation here.
I do not generally like the political process here, just look at the past few and I am sure you can imagine why. But for me this is one of the first candidates in a long time that has really sparked my attention.
Only got to the third paragraph and read this:
“Take, for example, Paul%u2019s promise to abolish income tax and replace it with the Fair Tax, or something like it.”
Paul has said THROUGHOUT this campaign he would “Abolish the IRS and replace it with NOTHING.”
That’s right. NOTHING.
I know this is a blog, but why not take 10 seconds to research before writing?
Take a look at the note I placed as an update. I stand corrected on the Fair Tax, but the point I believe still stands.
OK.
Why not just change the mis-statement? I’m sorry but your point does not stand once you realize it’s replaced with NOTHING. You can’t beat the drum of “only the middle class make out and the poor get hurt” if both the poor and the middle class DON’T PAY TAXES.
If you’re saying that the poor should be subsidized, I ask why?
When my great grandparents came to this country they had nothing. They were minorities and they were given no subsidies. They not only made it here but thrived. They started at very low paying jobs and worked many hours. In their own words they lived a great life and would have done it again if they could (EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST INCESSANTLY).
My son’s mothers family came here from Ecuador in the late 1980’s. They never took a subsidy from government. Got jobs raised families and now have over 4 children that graduated from college.
They started with NOTHING when they got here. Worked hard.
They own a house in New York and a house in Florida that they rent out.
I don’t get your POOR people BS. I’m sorry. I just don’t get it.
If you subsidize POVERTY you get more POOR PEOPLE. PERIOD.
If you subsidize laziness, slothfulness and not being educated you get more of it.
If you encourage freedom, responsibility, morals and education (without legislating HOW each person should perform each of these) WE MIGHT BRING BACK THE PIONEER SPIRIT THAT MADE THIS COUNTRY GREAT.
Why don’t I change it? I think it’s important to be transparent with the editing process. By doing it this way, I come clean with my mistake.
As for subsidies, my general question is how low do you let people sink? I believe that in a country as rich and powerful as America, there should be a floor under which we don’t let people live. I think it is a travesty that we allow people to go without the basics; food, housing, health care.
Certainly, some will succeed and some will fail, and I’ve got nothing against that. But I do believe there needs to be a floor.
You Wrote:
“Certainly, some will succeed and some will fail, and I%u2019ve got nothing against that. But I do believe there needs to be a floor.”
I couldn’t agree more. However, I don’t think we agree on HOW it should be done.
The use of FEDERAL LEGISLATION to pull people out of poverty has historically been a complete failure.
In fact, almost all poverty, crashes, bubbles, social problems, current racial tensions, etc. can be attributed to Federal Mandates and Legislation. I’d give line by line examples but I don’t want to turn a blog response into a book.
As to racial minorities and poverty: Historically people that have been racial minorities have banded together in neighborhoods, associations and clubs to help newcomers out when they enter the US. This still occurs to a VERY small extent.
However, since the perception of the poor and minorities has shifted from looking towards culturally similar communities for support to looking to “MOM OR DAD” government for hand-outs its been a steep downfall.
Now culturally similar groups only band together to clamor to “MOM AND DAD” for more money or to yell and scream that someone else is getting the “booty” (stolen by the government to be redistributed) that should be rightfully theirs.
It’s pathetic. It hurts the minority groups. It hurts their independence. It hurts their ability to grow into a powerful force in this country that contributes and makes a difference.
Instead it turns minorities and the poor into nothing more than bands of beggars with the weak bond of those coming together for nothing else but supplicants to the almighty re-distributor (government).
It’s pitiful.
I agree with you on the importance of a strong community, especially for the less fortunate or recent immigrants. I’m not sure I attribute that decline to social programs entirely or even at all (I’m sure changing technology and American culture have a lot to do with it too), but I agree that it is something that should be brought back.
The problem, of course, is still about the floor. Even in close knit communities, there are those who fall through the cracks.
Now, I’m not saying our current programs are necessarily perfect. I, as you, see a lot of failings in them. Social programs that keep people from falling down to far should also offer a hand up, a way for someone to work their way towards real, lasting success and not just a temporary band-aid. Programs that rely somewhat on market forces, choice, and positive reinforcement are ones I would like to see more experimentation with.
See http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/19/nyregion/19schools.html for an example.
I read the article.
I am a big fan of behaviorism.
However, for belief and attitude change the idea of paying cash for certain behaviors doesn’t work well. Read Robert Cialidini’s classic book for more on why? You can also read the layman’s book on behaviorism Don’t Shoot The Dog, for some good ideas on how to use positive reinforcement. However, again, although the system suggested in the NYT article may work to bring up Standardized Test Grades it will probably not have the long term behavioral effect desired.
My greatest concern right now is that currently in many public schools, many minorities (and from what I’ve seen kids in general) hold the view that learning is for losers or not “cool.”
Rather than encourage just the changing of grades, an effort should be made at changing the perception of learning in general - I think that’s where the real solution lies.
This brings me back to the point that Gov’t CAUSES many of these problems. The Dept. of Ed. has had it’s grip on our school systems for quite some time now. Since they have the average child coming out of school has gotten dumber and dumber.
Well, to get me to agree with you that the government (let’s say, the Board of Ed) is responsible for the problems in our educational system, you’ll have to bring facts. As you say yourself, the educational problem may be more cultural than policy based. I don’t see how the Board of Ed (which isn’t perfect, of course) really has been the cause of this downturn, at least in the long run.
I would agree that on the whole, these kinds of proposals to keep people from slipping through the cracks, or even to reinforce positive behavior, aren’t a full solution. But full solutions take time. Creating good educational habits usually starts with parents who value education. Learning those kinds of habits can take generations. For now, paying a parent to care about his or her child’s education is a good start. One would hope that the care a parent displays, even if they are being paid for it, rubs off on the child, and when that child grows up, they display the same care to their children. That’s how you change the culture.
Jason, there are these wonderful entities called “states” that are better positioned to respond to the local economic conditions and cultural attitudes of its residents. Paul’s focus is on the Federal Government. If he succeeds in eliminating the IRS and the income tax, states can DOUBLE their income taxes (or raise sales taxes in states without an income tax) and the people would still come out ahead. And because the money doesn’t make a round trip via DC, the Feds don’t take their “cut” of the take, which is actually quite substantial.
Scott, that’s a cop-out argument and you know it. I’m not necessarily against states doing the collecting and management of the programs, but there needs to be a national, federally mandated floor. Just because my state (DC) might be doing a good job of keeping that floor up doesn’t mean it’s not a travesty if another state (say, NY) isn’t. In America, with our riches and our talent and our moral backbone, nobody should be allowed to sink below a certain level, period.
Wait a Second here! Why does there ‘need’ to be a national program?
and…
what do you exactly mean when you say “with our riches and our talent and our moral backbone” - I don’t have any ‘riches’, your ‘riches’ are certainly NOT ‘my riches’!!! There is NO ‘our riches’!! or ‘our talent’ as you portray it - there is YOUR talent, and MY talent, and taken together it is ‘our’ talent - but it is not an ‘ownership’ type of ‘our’ - you have not right nor moral standing to tell me how to direct MY talent, and neither do I on you or your talent. This whole bee-like societal hive community thing is really getting out of hand and needs to be addressed at every turn - we ARE individuals! we are NOT the same! you do NOT own or OWE me anything, just as I do not own or owe you, just because we happen to live within some predetermined geographical boundary and under rule of the same oppressive government. It is a complete fallacy to allude to such an arrangement.
It seems we’re going around in circles. I believe that no man gets to where he gets in life without significant help from those around him, his community, and his government. Therefore, he owes something and he can be compelled to give back. You don’t believe this.
I don’t disrespect your opinion, I understand the arguments. I just believe differently.
Jason, why does there need to be? Because you said so? What governs national political action is the Constitution, a document that included the means to alter it. If you and enough other people agree that a federally enforced floor is called for, it can happen. If not, it is not only required for the states to handle, in my opinion, it is better for the states. Just as each state has a different cultural and economic makeup, each state’s “floor” should be designed appropriately. One of the reasons people seethe about things like a federal minimum wage is that such a floor makes no difference in high cost states, but prevents states with low costs from competing.
Scott, I’m sure you and I have different interpretations or what the Constitution means. However, the Supreme Court has said these programs are legal, and the Constitution provides for such interpretive powers.
“The problem, of course, is still about the floor. Even in close knit communities, there are those who fall through the cracks.”
hmmm, you mean in our current system where money is forcibly taken then politically redistributed not based on ‘need’ but rather based on political power grabbing and backscratching? Gee, maybe we should change the system! Perhaps the result would be ‘less people through smaller cracks’?!
Jason, I think you might actually have some libertarianish ideals but with maybe a tinge of socialism ‘just in case’. It’s understandable, and, I do not think I or anyone else, could sway you from your beliefs (the same for me, I am pretty adamant and steadfast in what I have built up as a guiding philosophy… we are all entrenched, perhaps overly so, in our beliefs). BUT, let me try one more try: I AGREE with you - there SHOULD be a ‘floor’. The problem is that the amount and the recipient who I think are deserving are probably both different from yours, and Bobs, and Larrys. So is it correct for me to lobby government to force all you guys to contribute to ‘my’ view? Or, perhaps, is it most ethical, most compassionate, to respect the rights of these other possible ‘donors’ and let each of us determine for ourselves how much and to whom to spread our compassion on? I will tell you that I have personally helped ‘poor people’ MORE directly than anything the pitance that they might have received from my portion of government funding: I have brought homeless into my house, I have given money to various folks on street corners (in particular a young lady with children and an obvious one on the way), and if I had more money and less resentment towards government theft and redistribution, I would help out more. We, as Americans AND more importantly, as humans, have something we call compassion… we do NOT like to see others suffer for the most part. I think that elusive ‘floor’ you allude to exists and would be even further helped if we stopped legalizing the immoral act of taxation, especially income taxation! This does NOT depend on everyone being an angel, just enough to cover those in need (and perhaps lay down some heavy guilt on greedy ’self-lovers’ would might decide to donate nothing - but ‘guilt’ is the ONLY moral weapon we have as fellow citizens without violating property rights). Come now, let yourself dare to think that enough people (such as yourself and myself) actually care and will be able to provide a ‘floor’, as you say, to those deserving!
It comes down to the moral imperative and to the facts.
1. I have never seen any proof that a) charity alone (though admirable) can sustain an acceptable level of that floor. If my floor means housing, health care, basic education, and food, you can see that private charity already is failing to fill the gap, and that’s with government programs, and b) that charities are any less corrupt or inefficient. You ask me to take a chance and believe in this free market process. I will not, unless it is backed up by facts.
2. I believe it is the business of government to serve and better its people. Putting a floor under people is directly in a government’s job description. As for agreeing on where that floor is, I’m with you. You can’t impose. That’s what the democratic process aims to solve. We elect leaders, we pressure our leaders, and we work for the change we want to see. A broad consensus emerges from those discussions on what that floor should be.
Right now, I think it’s too low, and so I work to elect someone who will raise it. You think it’s too high, and so you work to elect someone who will lower it. That’s how democracy works. It’s not a taking away of freedom, as you suggest. You are free to work to change the law. Democracy means you accept the will of the people. It means you must take the good with the bad. No man is an island. We prosper or perish on the strength of our nation as a whole.
no, that is NOT how democracy works - and you very well know this! Have you every read about Public Choice Theory? Basically through studies and observation of government and the voting process, it was determined that people in office operate the EXACT same as people outside of politics - that means they are… in it for themselves! This, in turn, means that they can be influenced by favors which benefit them personally, and whether or not it also happens to benefit the people they supposedly represent, is inconsequential. This means, and explains, why we have what we have today - the Iron Triangle of: Government, Lobbyists, Corporate Interests. The government does not represent us, the regular folk, in the least! ADM is not getting farm and food subsidies because it is ‘in the best interest’ of the people, it gets them because they have a powerful and well-monied lobby who influences enough of congress to appropriate such spending from me, regular joe, to them. I may indeed protest - but who listens? who cares? This is ‘democracy’? Sorry, but, it is not any democracy I desire, and, in fact, democracy fails on almost every level except in very local and small groups to achieve any sort of palatable consensus. Concentrated benefits and dispersed costs is all it takes to make democracy a mockery. Which is why government, our Republic-type of government, was supposed to be CONSTRAINED by the constitution - because the founders understood about power and how power in government takes on most evil forms.
Every American Benefits From Being FREE! Let’s Talk About Civil Liberties! This shouldn’t even be an issue. Ron Paul is the only candidate (other than Mike Gravel and unfortunately that’s not working out) who really believes that Americans should be free to make their own decisions about their lives.
The whole income tax thing is a scam. That money goes into the pockets of the rich. It’s income redistribution alright. From the middle class into the pockets of an elite group of rich bankers.
America needs Ron Paul. Liberals, Conservatives, whatever you call yourself. Put down your politics as usual and pick up freedom.
Over half of everyone in US prisons are there on non-violent drug related charges.
They are disproportionately black, hispanic and poor whites.
The ‘democrats’ are falling all over themselves to prove they are tougher on ‘crime’ than the ‘republicans’ - they’ll lock up more people - just like Bill Clinton did.
Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate that has ending the ‘war on drugs’ as part of his policy. His goal is not to ruin people’s lives or to lock up parents, his goal is Freedom for every American.
PS - Comparing a list of donors which by definition have money, to give to a map of people with no money is always going to be mostly exclusionary. The site owner is either ignorant or dishonest.
The drug war must end, and I give Paul credit for being one of the few who are willing to speak out on this issue (the Iraq war too). Though I’m not sure you’re right about the crime part. Crime and punishment has not been a big part of this election so far. I do wish Democrats were actively repudiating the drug war, however.
As for the comment about money, it is not true that minorities do not give to Presidential candidates, as you are insinuating.
Rosenbaum uses drugs, so he supports Paul’s call to deriminalize their use.
Rosenbaum and his family benefits from the current taxation policies so he opposes Paul who threatens to take away those benefits.
Rosenbaum is a collectivist who judges people by their skin color or ethnicity. He seeks special treatment for his own race at the expense of others, so he opposes Paul’s principled stand that all people are individuals (regardless of color or ethnicity) and therefore equal before the law.
Rosenbaum is a race-baiter as evidenced by the tenor or this article.
Rosenbaum’s family is rich, so fo course he would hate to see any advantage going to the middle-class. He is so myopic he believes that by giving handouts to the poor will aid them out of poverty, instead of keeping them poor and dependent.
Look to the economies of the former Soviet Union and China to see just how fallacious Rosenbaum’s arguments are. Since entitlement programs in those places have been cut back or eliminated by goverment reforms in the past 15 years, their poor have gained economic opportunities and better standards of living after being weaned from the public teat. The middle class in both countries has increased in size.
Rosenbaum, Who do you serve? Not the Anerican People.
Respectfully, those are quite a lot of assumptions from someone who doesn’t know who I am.
Jason, I must say, it is quite impressive that you are able to carry on multiple threads of in depth conversation without becoming emotionally charged or frustrated - Kudos, my friend! I believe that you and I may have tangled before in various forums on the net but with you under different guise perhaps, no? In fact, I would almost be willing to bet that you are a Geolibertarian or a Georgist, am I correct? This is not an attempt to smear, just pursuing my own curiosity… if so, you probably do know me from other conversations along these lines.
I’m not familiar with the term Geolibertarian or Georgist. I would consider myself a liberal, or maybe more specifically, a Democratic libertarian (which is a pretty vague term, one that I’m still defining for myself).
Anyway, I don’t have too many discussions outside of The Seminal, but I suppose it is possible we’ve been conversing somewhere else. Either way, I enjoy the exchange and I hope you’ll be back around here in the future to continue it.
Basically, a Georgist or Geolibertarian believes in individual freedoms, but he stands on the idea that we each have equal ownership of the earth (and the universe itself) so property rights, in as much as an actual libertarian believes, are not sacrosanct. A geo would advocate for a land (property) tax system where all the taxes are divided up on a per person basis and then redistributed. So, one effect, is a redistribution from a wealthy, large (or just valuable) land owner to poorer, perhaps non-owners (renters) as a way to compensate then from excluding them from ‘his’ property. It is an interesting idea, and they are VERY smart debaters, but such a system necessitates a large, politically influenced governmental structure (not to mention an invasive tax system) which are two things I have major problems with. I am more of a ‘head tax’ guy, where if each person is ‘equal’ in the protections of rights provided through government, then each citizen is due an equal amount: divide up the federal budget among citizens and give them each a bill for services rendered. We are each equal citizens and thus it is only correct to pay for such membership ‘equally’. But, enough about me, I would rather talk about what Ron Paul believes since it is he who will be our next president.
LPM,
I don’t think land value taxation requires a large system. It relies on systems that already exist to assess land value and collect property taxes. Admittedly, some places do assessment rather poorly or rather infrequently. But the mechanism is already in place, and simply needs some standardization and quality control. Much of the QC can be readily achieved by simply posting online the relevant facts about each property: its location, its dimensions, the age and quality of the building on it (Many Georgists would prefer to ignore this completely, but for transition purposes, we should probably look at it) and the recent transactions in the neighborhood.
Interestingly, it is not all that difficult to assess land well, particularly where there is still vacant land selling, or teardowns occurring with some frequency. Assessing buildings is harder, assessing personal or business property within them is harder yet.
But if we post the assessor’s valuations online, for all to see, and map the land values, it will become obvious where the “misses” are, and they will get corrected shortly.
Computers allow mass assessment, to keep up with changing values. Within a town or city, sites in different neighborhoods exhibit very different patterns. Good elementary schools lead to higher values; proximity to transportation leads to higher land values. Redistricting produces changes in the land values (buildings are merely their depreciated replacement value, un
Sorry, LVT fan - but this is not the place I will indulge a discussion over a possible georgist system - suffice it to say that in a truly free society, the georgists would be free to gather together and tax themselves as they saw fit and not a complaint from me would be uttered… as long as they didn’t try to enforce their rule over me and my property. Your proposal is thought out, and obviously possible, but I have a moral conflict with the foundations. Again, this is not the venue for a lib vs geo debate - real people are watching! LOL
I would say I’m not a Georgist then, nor am I a libertarian. I place my beliefs a little bit less at the extremes (which is not to say extremism in a negative sense, as it usually has negative connotations, but extreme as in a more pure ideology).
I believe, as I’ve said, that nobody gets to where they are without help, and because of that, they should give back. I believe in hard work. I believe in the free market. I believe in individual freedom and responsibility. But I also see the limits of those ideas and I see the interconnectedness of mankind, especially in today’s technologically charged world. This means I believe government needs to strike a balance of encouraging growth and individual success on the one hand, but helping those who fall through the cracks in society on the other.
You moron. Any and all previous immigrant groups economically benefited from some level of government intervention and mass collectivization, i.e. the New Deal and the old union movements which provided employment, improved working conditions, low-interest loans for housing, and safety nets for the common worker (the 40-hour work week for chris’sake…).
The middle-class in the US didn’t magically spring up from some BS ‘pull yourself up from your bootstraps’ mythology. It came from opportunities that were created for people to take advantage of, opportunities historically denied to currently impoverished minorities like blacks and hispanics. Lily-white suburbs and urban blight are not an accidental phenomenon. It happened by design. Next time you contemplate libertarian values while using a public road or saying hi to a cop, think about who pays for it and whether or not private roads and private police forces roaming the streets is a good idea.
the ‘improved working conditions’ supposedly provided by the New Deal were ONLY possible due the advancement of capitalism - it IS capitalism which allows for the distribution of labor and for those who own very little to take part and improve their life conditions. The ‘middle class’ did indeed ‘magically’ spring up, but from an economic system which respected individual rights and property rights - transferring power from land holders to those that worked the land themselves. It allowed farmers to save, to send off their sons and daughters to college and the city to find better and more productive employment.
By the way, there are more ‘private police forces’ in America than public ones, by about 10 to 1. Also, roads were first successfully created and managed by private entities, in fact, the government and its politiking was so inefficient that some states OUTLAWED the government from getting in the road business. Be it fire service, ambulance service, security, or whatever, the private sector has always proven itself better able and more capable to: (a) provide more choice and better choices to citizens, (b) been more responsive to emergencies and crisis situations, (c) respects individual rights and caters to the ENTIRE market with multiple options which fit the wealthy, all the way down to the blighted poor.
Your ‘urban blight’ has a specific and rational explanation: ask yourself how the government was directly or indirectly involved in: (a) housing subsidies, (b) zoning regulations, (c) eminent domain usage, (d) taxation and other repressive methods which suck the lifeblood out of communities. The answer is just pure common sense and obvious.
Not that you ‘know’ - you will vote for our man, Ron Paul, correct?
I have no idea yet as to who I’m supportng in the coming election, still doing my research, not that you can really trust anything you read or hear, because most people (and all politicians) will tell you what you want to hear in order to get what they want.
I read somewhere that George Washington wrote in a letter “Beware of politicians, for they will be the downfall of this nation.” Now, I haven’t actually found any proof of this quote yet, but, as years go bye, I am seeing proof of this statement as this country continues to fall apart. The profesional politicians seem to run the show. I thought that this country was supposed to be run by the people, for the people. Government isn’t supposed to be your job, but your duty. Whether you’re a doctor, lawyer, butcher or baker, you are elected by the people to serve them, then when you’ve done the will of the people who elected you, you go back to your job.
To many of our representatives in government are there for themselves, and why not, it’s a good way of life. Good pay, benefits, and lets not forget the nice kick-backs from lobbyists and corporate intrests.
Washington won the war for our independence and handed this country over to the people, when he could have made himself emporer or something. Then, when there was a need for a president, he accepted the duty and again stepped down, handing the country back to the people. Will we ever see this sort of selfless servitude for the people again, probably not.
But now that I’ve said my piece, I ask, who out there IS the right candidate to run this country?
Daniel: “…all politicians) will tell you what you want to hear in order to get what they want.”
This does NOT apply to Ron Paul. What he says now is what he has said and how he has voted throughout his 10 terms in Congress. He walks his talk. Everyone needs to research Ron Paul to understand his consistent voting record - his message of freedom and liberty underlies his positions on all issues. Go to RonPaul2008.com or RonPaulForPresident.com and listen to his talks. The man is brilliant on foreign policy, economics, history. He has no need for notes when giving speeches as he Knows his positions and what they are based on, and has studied them for decades.
Other issues not often spoken of include his belief that people should be free to chose alternative health therapies (and this is a medical doctor speaking). He also wants to end the failed, expensive ‘war on drugs’ and legalize marijuana. And at the beginning of every term of Congress, he introduces legislation to eliminate the Selective Service.
Ron Paul - America’s Last Hope. RonPaul2008 !!
I doubt that you believe that letting someone slip between the cracks in our society is so wrong that you would lift anything but your voting finger to stop it. It is easy to be generous with someone else’s money. There are probably people that are falling through the cracks as we speak, yet you are not offering them your apartment, offering them your car, offering them you food. I am sure that you could give more.
But, that isn’t the problem for you. What you really think is wrong, is not the people falling through the cracks, but that there are those who are in a better position to stop this than you, and they don’t. What you think is wrong is not the falling through the cracks, but the failure of the people of means to stop it. That is what you think is wrong. There is nothing wrong with falling through the cracks, what is wrong is the the people who are to blame for ignoring this problem. And they should be forced by moral people like you to do their fair share - which is more than you because they have so much to give.
Money doesn’t fall out of the sky. It is earned. All money is earned. There is not a cent anywhere that was unearned. So, the current owners of money have already given once for it. You want the most productive people to give more than once for their fair share? From each according to their ability; to each according to their need.
Need is the desire for someone else’s money, greed is the desire to keep your own money, and compassion is the act by a politician to arrange the transfer of wealth from the greedy to the needy in exchange for a cut of the action. You are the politician’s best friend.
rhys, please don’t assume. I do more to help the poor or less fortunate than vote, though I believe voting to be an integral part of that civic actions.
Actually, it was through sheer unchecked capitalism that brought about the Great Depression and the business owners themselves that repeatedly fought against the current working standards of the modern age. Were it not for unionization, we’d still have the 12-hour work day.
No, the middle class didn’t magically spring up from the “invisible finger up your butt”. The New Deal itself combined with massive government spending for the war effort did the most in reviving American prosperity as the main engines of the market (i.e. the stock exchange and the banking system) proved too unstable to do anything of the sort.
Where’s the 911 number for the local private police force? Can I call them? Do I have to subscribe? What are the rates and fees? Terms and conditions? What if I can’t afford my own cops? Do I get robbed, stabbed, and shot at with impunity? No, thanks, I’d rather just pool my money with everyone else in town and have a collective police force at the ready.
Actually, in regards to ‘urban blight’ that has more to do with the fact that a long time ago, those wonderful capitalists decided to move out of the cities and into the burbs in the not-so-fine American tradition of white and capital flight. There’s a reason why you find many an abandoned factory in an American city and industrial parks in remote locations and it has nothing to do with your conspiratorial notions of governmental repression. Housing subsidies are actually a good thing, they prevent people from being homeless and out on the street ready to stick you up, you know…the ones who can’t afford a lifeless, cultureless suburban lifestyle. I don’t really see how that relates to whatever it seems you’re pulling out your “rational” arse. Major cities nowadays actually bend over nowadays on both zoning and taxation for companies to come in, though once they do come in, low-wage jobs and coffer-draining municipal subsidies abound.
No one’s oppressing your poor entrepeneur. Save your Ron-bot liberwackoan spiel for someone else,
Sorry, I don’t have the time to provide you with an education, nor the patience to fight against your emotional appeals to what you think occurred before, during, and after the depression. If you are interested in actual historical fact combined with a sharp economic and intellectual perspective, feel free to browse through the myriad of articles at mises.org, and, in particular, download and read ‘The Great Depression’ by Murray Rothbard… then compare those ideas and perspectives against other books on the subject, especially the obviously sparse and few textbooks you might have happened to carry throughout your short career as a student. I am happy to discuss opposing viewpoints, even perhaps change my mind especially when in comes to interpreting history, but I have no patience for moronic, inflammatory statements regarding fingers and various body orifices. Thanks for playing, but I recommend staying on the playground where your views and antics might hold sway, politics is for ‘big people’.
Uh huh, Mises.org and Murray Rothbard. Yeah, there’s no ideological bend there. *Cough!* All hail the Ronbot! Huzzah!
no matter the source, always test the logic - draw your own conclusions…. I read all manner of material, and disregard the authors ‘bend’ because his or her beliefs do not change facts or logical deductions - their opinions are a different matter though!
Love to know who he’d stack his cabinet with if elected..he’s gonna need some super duper power shakeing personel..to un-do G.W.S mess.,and how do you un-do bushite congress, senate and house and supream court…???? like to of heard Tim Russert ask him that one.
yup - now THAT would have been ‘reporting’ or ‘interviewing’ instead of the idiot questions Tim Russert asked…. but, as far as the senate and house, the rEVOLution is getting started in that direction as well - already getting up a slew of freedom ‘Ron Paul’ candidates running in various races and whether or not Ron wins the WH (longshot, I know) he will still play an instrumental part recruiting and endorsing candidates - this ISN’T a ‘one shot’ deal, this is a major power play and takeover attempt of the republican party - expect some knockdown drag out fights to come!
Since the 1960’s, black incarceration rates have skyrocketed. Ron Paul wants to end the war on drugs that disproportionately targets inner city blacks. He wants to abolish the civil rights act of 1964 and affirmative action programs that treat blacks like children that need to be nannied by the state and tries to legislate morality in whites. He wants to end the inflation tax that wipes out the lower and middle class.
Ron Paul gets polls higher with black Americans than any other Republican presidential candidate.
I support Paul’s stance on the drug war, but that doesn’t mean necessarily that he fares better with minorities. If you think he polls higher than other Republicans, please provide the numbers.