I don't know about you guys but I like my currency in gold bullion and my pills laden with mercury. Hell, take out all the other stuff I'd like some pure mercury/alchohol pills.

The federal government didn't start funding the schools until the Lyndon Johnson administration, IIRC, under Title I, which gives money to schools according to the number of low income and minority students IIRC. Also, There is a lot of debate to where the Federal income tax goes. According to President Ronald Reagan's congressional investigation of the tax system not a single dollar of the federal income tax goes to pay for the operation of the government.

Schools for the most part are funded by property taxes, and the roads are funded by taxes on gasoline.  The only road system which I recall being 100% funded by the Federal government was the inter-state highway system, which was a military project. Eisenhower copied the idea from the German Autobahn after WW2, which is why the interstate highway systems are strong enough to allow for tanks to travel over them and for aircraft to land on them. There are also other excise taxes, on alcohol, tobacco products and even ammunition for fire arms. The government can make money without taxing our earnings directly as it does with the federal income tax. Also, we should scale back our military and our social programs, because they cost too much money to maintain, unless the government decides to tax 80% of so of our income.

Keeping on topic; I saw Ron Paul on Saturday the 10th when I went to his political rally in Philadelphia. I was about 40 feet away from him, it was electrifying to be there.

Also, there is another fund raising effort for the 15th and 16th of December, Bill of rights day and the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party IIRC. The goal is to collect 10 million dollars in single week end. I am kinda strapped for cash now so I dunno if I will be able to donate. Perhaps if I find a job in time.

If it got that bad, the states could simply raise their own taxes to compensate.  As it is, it makes little sense to tax the states's citizens, only to hand the money back to the state governments, when the state governments are fully capable to generating the revenue directly.  As it is, Federal money is often given back to the states only if the states agree to certain conditions, which often interefere with the ability of the states to properly appropriate the money and often require expensive bureacracies to be complaint.  Having the states directly fund their services would likely be more efficient and cost effective, and would keep the money under control of smaller, more local governments that are more accessible to those who will be benefiting from the education and other services it provides.

Actually, we managed to run the country for over two centuries without it, and it was done without running up a huge debt.  The Federal government was up to that point funded by tariffs and excise taxes.    This was more than enough to run our military.  Of course, at the time, are military was not stationed all over the globe, so it was much cheaper to maintain.

Schools and hosptials are run at the state and local level, and do not require Federal revenue to operate.

a) Good luck raising excise taxes and tariffs on free trade
and
b) In 1865 they did not have to worry about ICBMs (defence and offence) or stealth bombers or one of the several dozen other multi-billion dollars programs that the US government has to worry about until every other country in the world agrees to stop worrying about them too.

It's like Ron Paulists are stuck in 1792 or something; the world has changed a great deal since then, and so the US government superstructure has changed as well.

Maybe we should just repeal all the amendments (except the first ten, god bless america) because they are probably unconstitutional and then abolish the military, because state-run militias can defend the country for us.

You guys are pushing for laissez-faire feudalism. The federal government exists for a reason.

a) Good luck raising excise taxes and tariffs on free trade
and
b) In 1865 they did not have to worry about ICBMs (defence and offence) or stealth bombers or one of the several dozen other multi-billion dollars programs that the US government has to worry about until every other country in the world agrees to stop worrying about them too.

Before the income tax was established in 1913, the Federal government had no problem running both a standing army and the navy without the income tax, and the navy included some fairly impressive warships that were state-of-the-art for their time.  The key difference between then and now isn't that we didn't maintain an army or some impressive weaponry, but that our armed forces stayed within or near the country except during times of war, as opposed to being permanently deployed across the globe.

It's like Ron Paulists are stuck in 1792 or something; the world has changed a great deal since then, and so the US government superstructure has changed as well.

I wouldn't have any problems if the Federal governments changes were simply to adapt to changing times.  The problem isn't with any changes in the superstruture, but with the fact the the Federal government keeps on taking on new responsibilites, and often doing a poor job at carrying them out.  We are more than capable of dealing with changing times without the Federal government managing every last aspect of our lives.  After all, the United States has been a bastion of change and revolution every since it was founded, and thrived on such changes, long before the Fed took on most of the responsibilities it manages today.

Maybe we should just repeal all the amendments (except the first ten, god bless america) because they are probably unconstitutional and then abolish the military, because state-run militias can defend the country for us.

Actually, besides the 16th, I considered the amendments an improvement.  Just because I have a problem with one of them doesn't mean I have a problem with all of them.

You guys are pushing for laissez-faire feudalism. The federal government exists for a reason.

None of us want to eliminate the Federal government, you are confusing us with Anarchist.  Just a dramatic reduction in Federal government size, cost and responsibilites is desired.

You guys can make all the ridiculous excuses you want but it all comes down to this:

You're incredibly selfish and don't want to be taxed, damn the consequences.

It has little to do with selfishness.  Many libertarians, including myself, strongly believe in charity.  However, charity and selflessness entails spending ones own money on others or for good causes, whereas taxation is forcing others to pay for the causes you believe in. 

Before the income tax was established in 1913, the Federal government had no problem running both a standing army and the navy without the income tax, and the navy included some fairly impressive warships that were state-of-the-art for their time.  The key difference between then and now isn't that we didn't maintain an army or some impressive weaponry, but that our armed forces stayed within or near the country except during times of war, as opposed to being permanently deployed across the globe.

I'm... I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Surely you aren't trying to say that just because we could afford state-of-the-art weaponry in the 1700/1800s without the IRS, it means we could afford to the same nowadays if we just cut back on our globalization, right? I mean, there have probably been more advancements in warfare technology in the past 20 years than there was in the first two centuries of our country's existence...

What do the Terrorists think about Ron Paul, Truth? Glen Beck and David Horowitz said he's in bed with the Islamo-facists the other night.

Also, I was at the Ron Paul rally, mostly looking out for snipers on the mint building and surrounding bulidings, and although I saw metric fuck tons of veterans, I did not see a single Skin-head Neo-Nazi or right wing militant.

I'm... I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Surely you aren't trying to say that just because we could afford state-of-the-art weaponry in the 1700/1800s without the IRS, it means we could afford to the same nowadays if we just cut back on our globalization, right? I mean, there have probably been more advancements in warfare technology in the past 20 years than there was in the first two centuries of our country's existence...

You forget that our advances in industrial and manufacturer technology and techniques tend to keep pace with the rest of our technology(if not being outright necessary for the continued advance of the rest of our technology).  So while the complexity of the devices we build increases, so does our capacity to produce increasingly complicated systems.

i can't believe how dumb you lolbertarians can be.

You keep spouting off on charity but do you really think charity will cover all of the social programs that are needed in this country? Even WITH an income tax bush still cut hundreds of needed programs. Even more will be cut under paul's terrible plan. So you're ok with no special education, no welfare, no food stamps, no support for low income families, no fuel assistance, no student loan assistance, dillution of the federal prison system (lol), dillution of the interstate highway system, medicare, medicaid, social security, healthcare assistance, federal investigative groups (FBI, DEA, ATF etc, don't you watch.... without a trace?), the fcc,

AND MANY MORE

Well, there is no intention of retaining ever social program the Federal Government runs.  Several programs, such as welfare, have had a habit of aggravating the problems they were intended to create.  Others, such as the war on drugs and a lot of our foreign military intervention, have ended up hurting us far more than helping us, all while still costing plenty of money to maintain.

As far as the example you have mentioned:

special education - can be run at the state level just like the rest of education is

welfare, food stamps, low income family assistance - these programs actually carry a risk of making encouraging participates not to pursue employement, or at least not to pursue it with the same vigilance.  As it stands, these programs can probably be consolidated, and their burdens eventually shifted to charity, state and local government

fuel assistance - don't need it anyway, get rid of it

federal prison system - much of the burden currently placed on the federal prison system is do to drug prosecution.  The need and cost of the federal prison system can be dramatically reduced by eliminating drug prohibition

interstate highway system - despite 'interstate' in the name, interstate highways are primarily funded for and maintained by the individual states they reside in, just like all other roads

medicare, medicaid, healthcare assistance - the need for these programs can be greatly diminished by bringing medical cost under control and in line with the rest of the market system.  The remaining burdens can be dealt with like welfare, consolidate these programs, then try to phase them out in favor of charities, state and local programs.

social security - has its own tax that it is supported by, does not depend on income tax funds

FBI - can likely be maintained without the income tax

DEA - can be abolished as soon as drug prohibition is done away with

ATF - probably should have never been created in the first place, we don't need it and can just get rid of it

You forget that our advances in industrial and manufacturer technology and techniques tend to keep pace with the rest of our technology(if not being outright necessary for the continued advance of the rest of our technology).  So while the complexity of the devices we build increases, so does our capacity to produce increasingly complicated systems.

You obviously have no grasp of how the military-industrial complex of the USA works. It is not a steady curve upwards where factories magically become more complex and so the weapons they produce become more complex; they could have manufactured several million FULL KITS (including rifle and ammunition) for a General Infantryman of the second world war for what it costs to buy one F-22 Raptor from the people who make them (sorry pal the US government doesn't build their own armaments, they buy them).

Giant corporations like Lockheed-Martin and Boeing can charge pretty much whatever they like for their technology, and the federal government has to pay it. Why? Because of laissez-faire economics, my foolish friend! When you let companies have a completely free hand at running themselves, they will try to make as much money as possible and to HELL with the social consequences! That being said, it is obvious you live in a dreamworld if you think it costs the US the same amount of money today (even minus any peacekeeping or overseas operations) to run their military as it did in 1913 before the massive aggrandizing during the first world war (nevermind the second World War when the US built more new modern warships than previously existed in the world, total).

Just stop talking about the federal income tax and its relation to the armed forces of the US. You have no clue how they interrelate or how money works in general, it seems.



I like how during Ron Paul's speech he points out the mint and says "We can start to mint real money on gold and silver instead of this paper junk!". If you vote for Ron Paul, then you too can carry around a hefty sack of golden doubloons (with his face on them) wherever you go!

You obviously have no grasp of how the military-industrial complex of the USA works. It is not a steady curve upwards where factories magically become more complex and so the weapons they produce become more complex; they could have manufactured several million FULL KITS (including rifle and ammunition) for a General Infantryman of the second world war for what it costs to buy one F-22 Raptor from the people who make them (sorry pal the US government doesn't build their own armaments, they buy them).

First off, I never said that the government built its own weapons.  My claim was that our industrial capacity as scaled as more complicated weapon systems have become availible, and in some cases, certain industrial technology might be necessary before you even build certain types of technology.  For instance, you are going to have a hard time mass producing microchips without lithography.

Also, despite advances in technology, we still field relatively large number of soldiers in comparison to more sophisticated and expensive weapon platforms such as the F-22.

Giant corporations like Lockheed-Martin and Boeing can charge pretty much whatever they like for their technology, and the federal government has to pay it. Why? Because of laissez-faire economics, my foolish friend! When you let companies have a completely free hand at running themselves, they will try to make as much money as possible and to HELL with the social consequences!

They can't charge anything, as military budgets are limited, and they still have to make competing price bids to get the government to purchase their products.  That being said, the government is a terrible price negotiator and they are probably being charged than the true value of the equipment they purchase, but that still only will account for 10-20 percent of the cost.

That being said, it is obvious you live in a dreamworld if you think it costs the US the same amount of money today (even minus any peacekeeping or overseas operations) to run their military as it did in 1913 before the massive aggrandizing during the first world war (nevermind the second World War when the US built more new modern warships than previously existed in the world, total).

Well, why don't we compare how much weaponry cost relative to our ability to produce them(relative to our ability to produce is the key)

Here are some wooden warship pricetags from the 1790s:

USSConstitution 44 guns 1576 tons $302,719. Boston
USS President 44 guns 1576 tons $220,910. New York
USS United States 44 guns 1576 tons $229,336. Philadelphia
USS Chesapeake was changed-Chesapeake 36 guns 1244 tons $220,678. Gosport (Va)
from 44 to 36 guns.
USS-Congress 36 guns 1268 tons $197,246. Portsmouth (NH)
USS Constellation 36 guns 1265 tons $314,212 Baltimore.

Now before we can compare them to modern warships, we must correct for three things.  Inflation, the GDP per captia, because one person today produces far more than they did in 1790, and of course the enormous growth in population, as there is now a much larger take base.  Therefore, these numbers need to be converted into the relative share of GDP.

I went ahead and ran these numbers through a calculator to convert them to year 200 relative share of GDP by converting from 1790 share of GDP to 2000 share of GDP:

USS Constitution: $15.7 Billion
USS President: $11.4 Billion
USS United States: $11.9 Billion
USS Chesapeake: $11.4 Billion
USS Congress: $10.2 Billion
USS Constellation: $16.3 Billion

Bascially, this is how much these ships would cost today if they their cost took up the same portion of the U.S. total GDP as they did in 1790.

Now, let us compare to some modern warships:

Arleigh Burke Class Destroyer: $800 Million
Seawolf Class Nuclear Submarine: $2.1 Billion
Nimitz Class Aircraft Carrier: $4.5 Billion

So you see, despite their increased size, materials requirements, and complexity, it is actually easier for us to build complex naval warships today then their wooden predecessars in the 1790s, all because of a vastly superior industrial infastructure and of course, a larger population to share the burden.

Just stop talking about the federal income tax and its relation to the armed forces of the US. You have no clue how they interrelate or how money works in general, it seems.

I disagree.

No it can't. You're showing an uncommon level of stupidity if you think that letting each state handle special education is a good thing (Some states are far too poor to support it)

Why would the state, which essentially runs the rest of the education system, be unable to managed this single additional function?

You're the most ignorant person i've ever met thanks. CHARITY GUYS CHARITY. fuck you seriously. What you're saying is completely bigoted and some would even say racist. Guess what chach? My family was on welfare and food stamps when my mother left my dad, and not only are we not on it now, but she works full time while working on her master's degree in Speech Pathology. If those programs had not been available to us at the time I have no idea what we would have done. You're a horrible human being.

And how exactly is switching from government to private related support for the poor racist?  Or from federal government to state government support?  It is true that you probably needed support from somewhere, but the point is the federal government does not need to be the source of that support.  The state governments are actually better set up to manage the domestic affairs of individuals, should it become necessary. 

I would implore you to do a bit or research before posting nonsense like that. Not only do we NEED it but we need a larger and more comprehensive program in place. Do you really think it is ok for people to freeze every night because they have to choose between food and oil? Are you fucking crazy?

I see no reason why this is seperate from general assistance to impoverished individuals.

Saying "Much" is a ridiculous statement. But I guess you think it is ok for people to sell heroin and cocaine to our children right? DON'T TAKE MY FUCKING NOSE CANDY LIBERTY AWAY. Maybe you missed the part where federal crimes had a broader scope than just drug crimes chach.

Drugs laws violations may not be the only federal crimes, but between 55 and 60 percent of inmates in federal are there on drugs violations.  Not to mention there are more individuals in state prison on drug related charges.  You are looking at halving your inmate population simply by choosing not to imprison individuals for choosing what they do to there own body.  Rather than paying to keep these people locked up, they could be part of the tax paying workforce and increasing federal revenue through taxes, rather than decreasing it.

I just can't believe what i'm hearing. Some seniors cannot afford to spend hardly any money on their medical bills. Bringing things in line with the market is not going to help anyone other than the ones who could previously afford it. And again, if you think charities will help out enough THINK AGAIN

Reducing the cost of health care allows enables individuals who were previously too poor to purchase proper coverage to purchase it without assistance, as well as reduces the assistance required by those who are still unable to purchase health care.  Therefore, if healthcare cost can be reduced, it will be much easier to provide aid for the remaining individuals who are unable to efford it.

I'm aware. I was referring to the fact that ron paul wants to get rid of the social security tax too. Also it's a federal tax.

That is true, he also wants to do away with this tax and social security itself.  The program is very expensive to fund,  provides minimal benefit, and its setup is going to require either a tax increase or benefit reduction in the elderly take up a greater fraction of the population.

How do you suppose that can be? I'd seriously like to hear something than some baseless statement, I can make those too. "Ron Paul is likely a jew in disguise who in due time will kill everyone".

The FBI is not that expensive.  Elimination of the IRS will dramatically reduce funding, but the basic tariffs and excise taxes that were originally used to cover the Federal expenses were intended to be sufficient for basic law enforcement activity.

Again you say that the "War on drugs" is not a good thing when people die every day from overdoses, and it destroys our streets. And before you make a correlation to alchohol I want to know if you have EVER spent serious time around a person addicted to a hard drug? It's a completely different circumstance and if you can't realize that, you are insanely naieve.

I don't think anyone believes that using drugs, especially hard drugs, is a good thing, but going to jail isn't exactly a good thing either.  Basically, our policy on drugs seems to go something like this, drugs might ruin your life, but if they don't, the prison time probably will.  I have no idea why people believe throwing a drug addict in prison is supposed to help him.  We have been doing it for decades, and that hasn't helped reduce overall drug abuce.  Instead we have overcrowded prisons, people who have to deal with both the distructive effects of drugs and prison time, and gang violence centered around controlling illegal drug activity.  Not to mention additional civil liberties violations such as asset forteiture laws, unwarranted tactical police raids, enormous law enforcement expenses, and even the need to herbicide the crops of foreign nations.  All while drugs get cheaper, and are even availible in schools and prisons despite our efforts.

more baseless bullshit. Being an lolbertarian you must love the illegal gun trade and wish you too could have a fully automatic AK.

It is not like the state and local authorities don't already manage this sort of things.  Not to mention I don't see any real relation between alchohol, tobacco and firearms, all which are heavily regulated even without the ATF, other than bad Southern stereotypes and the fact that they are all considered to be bad things by some.  This organization is completely redundant as far as I am concerned.