Ron Paul being interviewed by Glenn Beck right now on CNN Headline news

[TMK9973]

Its fun watching you hits flounder in answering a simple question. Just give me the allocation of personal income tax to all those areas that you cite. I'm not the one saying that its loony this the onus is upon all you self proclaimed know it alls

This proves that you can not honestly debates.

Again - Please show me, in your own budget, what days you work to pay for food.

Then show me which days pay for you car, what days pay for your entertainment, etc....

Personal income tax makes up 50% of the incoming revenue - So, it makes up of 50% of all spending.

[PeterMP]

No it doesn't. If you are certain then why is it taking you hits so long to answer in detail? What portion goes to each department you reference? Where are you getting this info? You usually have links. Post them please.

The federal goverment doesn't track which dollar from which source went where. I've given you two links. You haven't supplied a single link.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/hist.pdf

Let's try this like this. In 2005, the federal goverment paid out 2,472,005 million dollars. To do this, they took in money from these categories:

In millions of dollars:

927,222 (individual income taxes) 278,282 (corporate income taxes) 794,125 (social security and retirement reciepts) 73,094 (excise taxes), and 81,136 (other). If I sum everything but the personal income tax, I get 1,226,637.

The difference between what was paid out and what was taken in minus individual income taxes is then 1,245,368 million dollars so if the goverment managed to pay all of that w/o using the income tax, they would have had to borrow that much, but guess what we know they didn't. The debt not held by the goverment only went up 253,959.

Where did the rest of the money come from?

[Predicto]

Its fun watching you hits flounder in answering a simple question. Just give me the allocation of personal income tax to all those areas that you cite. I'm not the one saying that its loony this the onus is upon all you self proclaimed know it alls

We are not floundering.

We are goggling at the fact that you seem to think you are asking a coherent question and somehow scoring points.

[GibbsFactor]

Replace the IRS is the first part, the second part is TO LIMIT SPENDING. You decrease the income, but you eliminate the spending, thus creating revenue not just by an income, but by allocating tax money responsibly.

Stop making this an issue of eliminating the IRS = no federal tax at all.

I think they get it. Some support a fairtax. They are just being antagonists by taking sound bites and not taking time out to do their own learning.

The Case Against the Income Tax

Could America exist without an income tax? The idea seems radical, yet in truth America did just fine without a federal income tax for the first 126 years of its history. Prior to 1913, the government operated with revenues raised through tariffs, excise taxes, and property taxes, without ever touching a worker's paycheck. In the late 1800s, when Congress first attempted to impose an income tax, the notion of taxing a citizen's hard work was considered radical! Public outcry ensued; more importantly, the Supreme Court ruled the income tax unconstitutional. Only with passage of the 16th Amendment did Congress gain the ability to tax the productive endeavors of its citizens.

Yet don't we need an income tax to fund the important functions of the federal government? You may be surprised to know that the income tax accounts for only approximately one-third of federal revenue. Only 10 years ago, the federal budget was roughly one-third less than it is today. Surely we could find ways to cut spending back to 1990 levels, especially when the Treasury has single year tax surpluses for the past several years. So perhaps the idea of an America without an income tax is not so radical after all.

The harmful effects of the income tax are obvious. First and foremost, it has enabled government to expand far beyond its proper constitutional limits, regulating virtually every aspect of our lives. It has given government a claim on our lives and work, destroying our privacy in the process. It takes billions of dollars out of the legitimate private economy, with most Americans giving more than a third of everything they make to the federal government. This economic drain destroys jobs and penalizes productive behavior. The ridiculous complexity of the tax laws makes compliance a nightmare for both individuals and businesses. All things considered, our Founders would be dismayed by the income tax mess and the tragic loss of liberty which results.

America without an income tax would be far more prosperous and far more free, but we must be prepared to fight to regain the liberty we have lost incrementally over the past century. I recently introduced "The Liberty Amendment," legislation which would repeal the 16th Amendment and effectively abolish the income tax. I truly believe that real tax reform, reform that so many frustrated Americans desperately want, requires bold legislation that challenges the Washington mind set. Congress talks about reform, but the current tax debate really involves nothing of substance. Both parties are content to continue tinkering with the edges of the tax code to please various special interests. The Liberty Amendment is an attempt to eliminate the system altogether, forcing Congress to find a simple and fair way to collect limited federal revenues. Most of all, the Liberty Amendment is an initiative aimed at reducing the size and scope of the federal government.

Is it impossible to end the income tax? I don't believe so. In fact, I believe a serious groundswell movement of disaffected taxpayers is growing in this country. Millions of Americans are fed up with the current tax system, and they will bring pressure on Congress. Some sidestep Congress completely, bringing legal challenges questioning the validity of the tax code and the 16th Amendment itself. Ultimately, the Liberty Amendment could serve as a flashpoint for these millions of voices..

This was written in 2001, a little out dated but serves it's purpose.

[Mad Mike]

2006 outlays

Social Security - $554,740

National Defense - $535,943

Medicare - $342,987

Income Security Programs - $215,690

Medicaid - $192,334

Federal Retirement & Disability - $99,180

Education - $83,480

Veterans Benefits - $70,410

Health Research and Regulation - $76,455

Highways & Mass Transit - $45,783

Justice Administration - $41,342

Unemployment Benefits - $38,554

International Affairs - $34,750

Natural Resources & Environment - $32,731

Farm Subsidies - $26,846

Community & Regional Development - $52,025

Training, Employment, Social Services - $26,171

General Science, Space & Technology - $23,996

Air transportation - $18,581

General Government - $19,085

Housing and Commerce - $9,087

General Retirement & Disability Insurance - $7,208

Water Transportation - $7,273

Energy - $2,621

Undistributed Offsetting Receipts/Other - $-68,648

Net Interest - $220,053

_________________________________________

Total Spending - $2,708,677

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/upload/93690_1.pdf

NOW........

Income:

$1,163 billion - Individual income tax

$869.6 billion - Social Security and other payroll taxes

$370.2 billion - Corporate income tax

$65.1 billion - Excise taxes

$26.0 billion - Customs duties

$26.0 billion - Estate and gift taxes

$47.2 billion - Other

Scratch individual income, corporate income, excise tax, estate and other taxes because those fall under the IRS that Paul said he would get rid of and not replace.

Paul: Mine is to get rid of the IRS but not replace it with anything

Beck: So, you want to replace it with some sort of a sales tax??

Paul; No Nothing. I want to replace it with freedom AND LESS SPENDING.

That leaves

$869.6 billion - Social Security and other payroll taxes

$26.0 billion - Customs duties

$47.2 billion - Other

For a grand total of $942.8 billion dollars. Too bad americans are not going to let the government take their Social security money to run the government. You now have 73.2 Billion.

Lets see a working budget. And don't forget to pay down the national debt. :laugh:

[TrumanB]

They are just being antagonists by taking sound bites and not taking time out to do their own learning.

Does Dr. Paul teach a class to his supporters to use this line EVERY time they are in a debate? :doh:

[GibbsFactor]

Does Dr. Paul teach a class to his supporters to use this line EVERY time they are in a debate? :doh:

Sorry if I hit a nerve, are you one that doesn't learn from himself? I didn't mean to offend you if you are.

[zoony]

So Ron Paul wants to continue with Social Security and Payroll taxes? Why? Wouldn't he abolish Social Security too?

So that leaves roughly $75 billion for a federal budget.

Looks like a few military cuts coming. :laugh:

[Mad Mike]

So Ron Paul wants to continue with Social Security and Payroll taxes? Why? Wouldn't he abolish Social Security too?

So that leaves roughly $75 billion for a federal budget.

Looks like a few military cuts coming. :laugh:

Fixed it.

[Mad Mike]

I think they get it. Some support a fairtax. They are just being antagonists by taking sound bites and not taking time out to do their own learning.

This was written in 2001, a little out dated but serves it's purpose.

[/size][/font]

:rotflmao:

[TrumanB]

Sorry if I hit a nerve, are you one that doesn't learn from himself? I didn't mean to offend you if you are.

It really amazes me how condescending Paul's supporters are. You don't research issues any more than folks supporting other candidates do. You don't know the Constitution better than everyone else. You don't love freedom more than anyone else.

You support a fringe candidate with radical ideas. You are polling in the single digits, at the bottom half of the field of candidates. And you will be treated as such. Deal with it.

[TrumanB]

:rotflmao:

You wouldn't be laughing if you did your own learning. Constitution hater.

[PeterMP]

I think they get it. Some support a fairtax. They are just being antagonists by taking sound bites and not taking time out to do their own learning.

Look, this is where I get into some trouble. I actually believe that the personal income tax should be eliminated, but telling lies is not the way to make the arguement. From your article, this is false:

"You may be surprised to know that the income tax accounts for only approximately one-third of federal revenue."

The income tax accounts for over 1/2 of the federal goverments incomes. SnyderShrugged has the money from the income tax going to some mysterious place beyond the goverments document spending even though he can't supply a single link.

The arguement against the income tax is very simple. It is wasteful. The IRS is much larger than it would have to be if the income tax was eliminated. That alone would save money. In addition, a whole industry is now cropped up around finding ways to minimize the taxes people pay. People involved in that industry are not really contributing in a positive way to the production of the country (they truly aren't generating income), and that industry simply encourages more complex income tax laws (i.e. they stay in business only if people can't figure out how to fill the income tax forms out themselves; that only happens if elected officials stay in office, which only happens if they are given money, which happens when they do things that make people money- like make sure the income tax stays complicated) and further corruption of the goverment.

With all that said, you can't simply say I'm going to eliminate over 1/2 the goverments income w/o addressing what's going to happen to the goverment (and cutting spending doesn't cut it- what spending are you going to cut and how much and how fast).

I'd argue you can eliminate the income tax in a completely revenue neutral manner. You simply have to up the cooperate income tax (or close loop holes in the cooperate income tax). Think of it like this. The company gets taxed and then they pay me some of the remaining income (in terms of actual salary, a dividend, or indirectly as a result of a stock going up). Then I get taxed based on what they gave me.

Why not just charge the company more tax? They'd adjust and give me less. You can even the amount to their amount of payroll as they are already doing payroll tax calculations anyway.

You'd have to do it slowly because there would have to be an adjustment period for companies to make corrections between paying more taxes and increasing salaries (as their taxes went up, our taxes would go down, but so would incomes (at least the rate at which they go up would have to slow)).

[GibbsFactor]

So Ron Paul wants to continue with Social Security and Payroll taxes? Why? Wouldn't he abolish Social Security too?

So that leaves roughly $75 billion for a federal budget.

Looks like a few military cuts coming. :laugh:

HUGE cuts coming in military spending, not defense spending. There's a difference.

He has stated many times that people that depend on these entitlement and welfare systems will have to stay on it. He would like to stop encouraging the welfare state. Our entire system is a welfare state from our citizens in poverty depending on hand outs to corporations depending on hand outs to politicians depending on handouts. We are a nation of handouts and little self responsiblity. Obviously people that have no other savings need SS and people with no other Health Care need Medicare and caid. But this is in my opinion not the best we can do. The side effects of our system are becoming clear with our debt and unsatisfied citizens.

Paul has been the only candidate with the integrity, pricnciples and voting record to come around advocating real change because most of us don't think our government is doing what it should be with all the money we give them.

Paul WANTS to get rid of the Income Tax but most likely won't be able to. But his mentality will allow him to cut our spending and we can save on our national debt while being innovative and creating new ways to provide these services. It doesn't have to be HIS way. It will be OUR way. Our ideas.

It's more of a philosophical change.

His plan for the military spending cuts have been known. He is also considered a leader in national defense and has been consecutively named the Tax Payers best friend. I'm a tax payer and I appreciate his efforts. Too much government pork is wasted. The Government is inefficient at best. It's time to rethink our strategy and I don't see ANYONE else coming up with ideas.

It's not really change if you think about it. It's more about getting back to why we were once a great country. Some may disagree, doesn't make anyone a loon.

[PeterMP]

His plan for the military spending cuts have been known. He is also considered a leader in national defense and has been consecutively named the Tax Payers best friend. I'm a tax payer and I appreciate his efforts. Too much government pork is wasted. The Government is inefficient at best. It's time to rethink our strategy and I don't see ANYONE else coming up with ideas.

Who considers him a leader in national defense? What important national defense measure has he gotten passed? What national defense issue has he supported that the goverment has taken action on?

"Too much government pork is wasted. The Government is inefficient at best. It's time to rethink our strategy and I don't see ANYONE else coming up with ideas."

I've you considered looking at McCain. He's famous for wanting to cut pork barrel spending (a reasonable first step to a smaller goverment). He'll certainly agree that goverment is inefficient.

Ideas to do what?

[Mad Mike]

He is also considered a leader in national defense

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA :laugh: OMG where do you people get this stuff? You are killing me! :laugh:

And here's the thing. A man with integrity would just come out and say "I want to cut taxes and spending" if that is what he wanted or planned to do. Paul is a libertarian and nut. End of story.

[GibbsFactor]

Look, this is where I get into some trouble. I actually believe that the personal income tax should be eliminated, but telling lies is not the way to make the arguement. From your article, this is false:

"You may be surprised to know that the income tax accounts for only approximately one-third of federal revenue."

The income tax accounts for over 1/2 of the federal goverments incomes. SnyderShrugged has the money from the income tax going to some mysterious place beyond the goverments document spending even though he can't supply a single link.

The arguement against the income tax is very simple. It is wasteful. The IRS is much larger than it would have to be if the income tax was eliminated. That alone would save money. In addition, a whole industry is now cropped up around finding ways to minimize the taxes people pay. People involved in that industry are not really contributing in a positive way to the production of the country (they truly aren't generating income), and that industry simply encourages more complex income tax laws (i.e. they stay in business only if people can't figure out how to fill the income tax forms out themselves; that only happens if elected officials stay in office, which only happens if they are given money, which happens when they do things that make people money- like make sure the income tax stays complicated) and further corruption of the goverment.

With all that said, you can't simply say I'm going to eliminate over 1/2 the goverments income w/o addressing what's going to happen to the goverment (and cutting spending doesn't cut it- what spending are you going to cut and how much and how fast).

I'd argue you can eliminate the income tax in a completely revenue neutral manner. You simply have to up the cooperate income tax (or close loop holes in the cooperate income tax). Think of it like this. The company gets taxed and then they pay me some of the remaining income (in terms of actual salary, a dividend, or indirectly as a result of a stock going up). Then I get taxed based on what they gave me.

Why not just charge the company more tax? They'd adjust and give me less. You can even the amount to their amount of payroll as they are already doing payroll tax calculations anyway.

You'd have to do it slowly because there would have to be an adjustment period for companies to make corrections between paying more taxes and increasing salaries (as their taxes went up, our taxes would go down, but so would incomes (at least the rate at which they go up would have to slow)).

I've posted elsewhere where the Income Tax is actually only 42%. You may have included Corporate Income taxation to make up the extra 8+%.

I think I see the misunderstanding here. Paul has said that in his first week he'd like to eliminate the income tax. I think you and I can agree that that is impossible. I think Paul also knows that can't be done and he also knows the limitation of changes one could do in his first year in office, legally. I'd also add that I personally do not think he could get it passed in his entire first term. And only in his second term if enough likeminded Congressmen were elected would it even be a possiblity. We are talking about over 40% of what we use to pay for our way of life. It's an almost incredible figure to cut in a first term, possibly in 5 terms. But he wants to do it and wants to work towards it. He doesn't like the income tax, I don't like the income tax, and I'm sure everyone else doesn't like the income tax. I know I could use my money more wisely then the Government that spends unwisely due to lack of competition. That's my biggest objection with the Government.

For instance, on immigration. Someone said, I think it was Fred Thompson or even Huckabee that if Fed Ex or UPS were responsible for knowing where the illegal immigrants are in this country, we'd know where 85% or more of them are. When the US Government is responsible, we know where less then 15% are.

So in order to even see if cutting taxes is feasible, we must cut spending. If you think HillaryCare or RomneyCare is the answer to our health care woes, go look at the VA Hospitals and tell me how well that is working.

This entire Ron Paul Vs Establishment argument is based on political philosophy. That's it. What is better for society, man taking care of himself or the group lifting him up each time he falls?

Of course I tend to believe man should be responsible for himself because if he is not, he becomes dependent on others. We as a people have become dependent on our Government. Hardly what this country was founded to be.

[GibbsFactor]

Who considers him a leader in national defense? What important national defense measure has he gotten passed? What national defense issue has he supported that the goverment has taken action on?

"Too much government pork is wasted. The Government is inefficient at best. It's time to rethink our strategy and I don't see ANYONE else coming up with ideas."

I've you considered looking at McCain. He's famous for wanting to cut pork barrel spending (a reasonable first step to a smaller goverment). He'll certainly agree that goverment is inefficient.

Ideas to do what?

McCain doesn't do it for me. I'm glad he wants to end Government pork but real idealogy change will be needed to accomplish this.

[Mad Mike]

McCain doesn't do it for me. I'm glad he wants to end Government pork but real idealogy change will be needed to accomplish this.

Oh PLEASE. Reagan would roll over in his grave if he heard Paul's plans for our military. That video make me want to puke.

And the second one? Another joke. Reagan never took anything off the table when it came to meeting potential threats. Reagan more than anyone understood the concept of having the biggest stick and using the political force that came with it.

Thanks for more YouTube wisdom though. Where would we all be without a video up from YouTube to tell us what to think.

[PeterMP]

This entire Ron Paul Vs Establishment argument is based on political philosophy. That's it.

Look, all I can look at is what the guy says he wants to do and more importantly in my book what he actually has done. You can say that Paul says he wants to do something in his first week, but that he won't be able to, but that doesn't comfort me.

Second, I agree w/ you to a certain extent, but the more socialist democracies in Europe haven't failed. You can't simply dismiss what they've done.

The larger issue is that you have a poor representative for your movement. He's to far out on too many things, and I know what he said last night on the Beck show about the truthers, but there is two threads now here where there is audio of him on the Alex Jones show where he is talking about how THEY want to turn this country into a dictatorship, and that THEY might try and assisnate him.

[TMK9973]

I've posted elsewhere where the Income Tax is actually only 42%. You may have included Corporate Income taxation to make up the extra 8+%.

I think I see the misunderstanding here. Paul has said that in his first week he'd like to eliminate the income tax. I think you and I can agree that that is impossible. I think Paul also knows that can't be done and he also knows the limitation of changes one could do in his first year in office, legally. I'd also add that I personally do not think he could get it passed in his entire first term. And only in his second term if enough likeminded Congressmen were elected would it even be a possiblity. We are talking about over 40% of what we use to pay for our way of life. It's an almost incredible figure to cut in a first term, possibly in 5 terms. But he wants to do it and wants to work towards it. He doesn't like the income tax, I don't like the income tax, and I'm sure everyone else doesn't like the income tax. I know I could use my money more wisely then the Government that spends unwisely due to lack of competition. That's my biggest objection with the Government.

For instance, on immigration. Someone said, I think it was Fred Thompson or even Huckabee that if Fed Ex or UPS were responsible for knowing where the illegal immigrants are in this country, we'd know where 85% or more of them are. When the US Government is responsible, we know where less then 15% are.

So in order to even see if cutting taxes is feasible, we must cut spending. If you think HillaryCare or RomneyCare is the answer to our health care woes, go look at the VA Hospitals and tell me how well that is working.

This entire Ron Paul Vs Establishment argument is based on political philosophy. That's it. What is better for society, man taking care of himself or the group lifting him up each time he falls?

Of course I tend to believe man should be responsible for himself because if he is not, he becomes dependent on others. We as a people have become dependent on our Government. Hardly what this country was founded to be.

So you want to vote for a guy who you belives knows he can't do what he says he is going to do?

I'm also sooo sick of the stupid arguement that "I can spend my money more wisely then the Goverment"

Not always true.

Lets use a simple example.

I COULD hire a private security firm. They could protect my house, and follow me around, and protect my family. And that would be more secure then useing the police force. But it will be VERY expensive and more then likely, seldomly needed.

However - my taxes would cost less and pay for a police dept for the whole area I live and work in. They do a pretty good job and I feel safe. My taxes, along with all my neighbors taxes pay to protect our entire area. that's better then I could have done.

Same with Roads. I would never have enough money to build a road from where I live to where I work. I could try to orginize everyone who would need that road and go build it myself, but that would tak a long time. I'd rather pay taxes and let the goverment poll the money for me and build the road.

I don't have a problem with income tax. And don't tell me "So you don't care paying 39% in taxes?" because my income tax, once all the deductions are used, are lower then 20%. I would bet yours are too.

not only that -But when I looked for a job, and negoitated salery, I took into account what my after tax salery would be. If there were no taxes, chances are the company would offer me less money. I would probably take less money because there were no taxes comming out. Of course, while my take home pay is the same, I'm getting less services from the goverment.....

That is a lose / lose situation.

[GibbsFactor]

So you want to vote for a guy who you belives knows he can't do what he says he is going to do?

I'm also sooo sick of the stupid arguement that "I can spend my money more wisely then the Goverment"

Not always true.

Lets use a simple example.

I COULD hire a private security firm. They could protect my house, and follow me around, and protect my family. And that would be more secure then useing the police force. But it will be VERY expensive and more then likely, seldomly needed.

However - my taxes would cost less and pay for a police dept for the whole area I live and work in. They do a pretty good job and I feel safe. My taxes, along with all my neighbors taxes pay to protect our entire area. that's better then I could have done.

I don't follow you. We aren't talking about local and state elections here.

I vote Democratic on the State and local level, most of the time and conservative on the federal side.

Same with Roads. I would never have enough money to build a road from where I live to where I work. I could try to orginize everyone who would need that road and go build it myself, but that would tak a long time. I'd rather pay taxes and let the goverment poll the money for me and build the road.

Roads are paid for by the gas tax. None of you income tax goes to roads. Again, I think you are confused as to what the Federal Government does and what you local and State Governments do.

I don't have a problem with income tax. And don't tell me "So you don't care paying 39% in taxes?" because my income tax, once all the deductions are used, are lower then 20%. I would bet yours are too.

Income taxes are what they are. But I see two problems with income tax.

1. My tax dollars are wasted and aren't used efficiently.

2. It's my income.

not only that -But when I looked for a job, and negoitated salery, I took into account what my after tax salery would be. If there were no taxes, chances are the company would offer me less money. I would probably take less money because there were no taxes comming out. Of course, while my take home pay is the same, I'm getting less services from the goverment.....

That is a lose / lose situation.

Did you also take into consideration what that company's policy is on raises and what percentage a year they increase your pay for solid work? Did you then take that number (usually less then 4%) and weigh it against inflation?

[GibbsFactor]

Oh PLEASE. Reagan would roll over in his grave if he heard Paul's plans for our military. That video make me want to puke.

And the second one? Another joke. Reagan never took anything off the table when it came to meeting potential threats. Reagan more than anyone understood the concept of having the biggest stick and using the political force that came with it.

Thanks for more YouTube wisdom though. Where would we all be without a video up from YouTube to tell us what to think.

If you want to disagree with what he said, that's fine. But he said it.

How bout the last Republican's platform when running for President?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfv4nC3xyr0

[TMK9973]

I don't follow you. We aren't talking about local and state elections here.

I vote Democratic on the State and local level, most of the time and conservative on the federal side.

Roads are paid for by the gas tax. None of you income tax goes to roads. Again, I think you are confused as to what the Federal Government does and what you local and State Governments do.

Income taxes are what they are. But I see two problems with income tax.

1. My tax dollars are wasted and aren't used efficiently.

2. It's my income.

Did you also take into consideration what that company's policy is on raises and what percentage a year they increase your pay for solid work? Did you then take that number (usually less then 4%) and weigh it against inflation?

1) Federal Goverment pays for half of highways. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/

The Gas tax does not pay for everything. It is used for a portion. Gas tax money goes to roads, but it is not the only source.

It's not me confused about what the state pays for, it's seems to be you.

2) the police were used as a simple example. There are federal law enforcement as well, if you want to get more technical.

3) Inflation has been around 3% a year for the past 10 years .

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/inflation/2006-01-18-dec-cpi_x.htm

Now - For me - It's irelevent - Raises at my company are tied to the cost of living index. But it wouldn't matter. I know Paul says going to the gold standard would remove inflation - But that is a (Dare I say it) crazy arguement that wasn't true before we got rid of the gold standard, and wouldn't be true today.

[GibbsFactor]

Look, all I can look at is what the guy says he wants to do and more importantly in my book what he actually has done. You can say that Paul says he wants to do something in his first week, but that he won't be able to, but that doesn't comfort me.

He does WANT to do those things which is why I support him. I want him to do these things. He and I are rational enough to realize it won't be done. I'm not sure why you are taking his statement that in the first week he'd get rid of the income tax so seriously. He's a ten term congressman and knows what he's doing.

Ask the Hill about their opinion of Paul and you get one response.

He surrounds himself with very intelligent people.

He advocates change and I can understand why that scares some.

Second, I agree w/ you to a certain extent, but the more socialist democracies in Europe haven't failed. You can't simply dismiss what they've done.

We aren't Europe and we shouldn't promote socialism.

The larger issue is that you have a poor representative for your movement. He's to far out on too many things, and I know what he said last night on the Beck show about the truthers, but there is two threads now here where there is audio of him on the Alex Jones show where he is talking about how THEY want to turn this country into a dictatorship, and that THEY might try and assisnate him.

This is all a reach and I won't comment on this drivel but...

THEY could be you or me. THEY is an unknown entity. You don't know who THEY are.

If you believe in Freedom, you also believe in people's individual rights to free speech and religion.

There's truthers for a lot of things. So what. They have that much lack of faith in our system that they resort to conspiracies like "Paul is Dead" and who shot JFK. It's all nonsense and just because some of these people support him, doesn't mean he supports them.

We've been through this before. Why bring it up? We were on an entirely different topic.