Question: Would Ron Paul hurt the poor??

After reading and reading these post a lot of great points but this is great. People talking about it not fighting About it. It has taken years to get to this mess and it will take years getting out of it. If you believe everything is equal now between black and whites, rich and poor your either living in a shell or out of touch with reality. Our system is not fair and its not the peoples fault its the system itself. More Tax money is pushed into the white areas of town then black areas and thats a fact. Why, because they collect more property taxes and votes and funding from those area then from black areas. This flows down to the schools and every aspect of the system. I wondor if any of those in congress, senate, or any part of Goverment are poor. If you look back at history the government job was not really something you wanted to do, it was an average job. Now look at it. You have waiting list to get into a spot and my garbage man makes 18 bucks an hr with full benefits and retirement more so then most of the people that work for a living. We work to maintain them, not us, and i would rather see my taxes help the poor get out of the shit holes then maintain the rich in office. This will be a long road guys and there is no room for republican or democrate views, racist views, religious views but only American views, and get back to the point where this government serves us again.

...The poor would get an immediate 20% pay increase minimum and that makes a TON of difference for starters.

The funds from the inner city aren't diverted to the suburbs. It's actually the other way around. Property taxes pay for the schools and the suburban households pay dramatically higher taxes on their homes than those in the inner city. The money is diverted from the suburbs into the inner city to try and prop up the tax structure in the inner city. We will be much bettter off when the local government has the ability to take control of the school system and have the school be more accountable to our communities,

Under Ron Paul's plan we would once again become the most prosperous nation on earth. It would take some time. Maybe even more than 2 terms in office. He would be able to get us moving in the right direction again and we could have a country where poverty is dramatically reduced.

There are so many ways that Dr. Paul's system would help the poor, I can't begin to count them all. Would it also help corporate america? Yes. When corporate america and small businesses do well, americans do well. That increases the corporate tax base (which we are keeping under paul's plan). This also creates jobs for workers who prefer to work for someone else. His plan also shores up the dollar so that people who are working for a living can actually buy something with their wages. No taxes would make it much easier to give to the charity of your choice. Families may be able to get by on one income again, thereby creating more opportunities to support more households with one income per household instead of each home needing 2 or even 3 jobs to get by. Kids might actually have a parent (mom or dad) at home with them during the day instead of being carted off to daycare.

Sit around and think about it for a while.... things could be so much better if we would quit being such economic bozo's with our national budget.

Everyone is going to be poor soon. US is heading into a recession [from my outlook] - US dollars becoming worth less and less. Ron Paul's America's only hope. Fiscal conservative. Only man with the ideas, and will to see it happen.

my major beef here isn't that it is the government's responsibility to give out handouts and to turn the country into a socialist/welfare state.

but shouldn't there be something that ensures a fair playing field?? We are all Americans and we are all viewed as equal under the Constitution, but how is that true when the individual is at a certain disadvantage to succeed since birth.

i went to a public high school which was over 50% black, where nearly half of the kids either dropped out or didn't finish in 4 years. our freshman class composition was 70% black. our senior class was more like 25% black. A few of the smartest people i've ever met (and i'm a freshman at the university of michigan) dropped out of high school....but due to the way they were inherently raised, they did not appreciate the value of education.

i simply speak from what i've seen...i am not poor and not a minority. however, I am pro-affirmative action because I don't think the current system in this country is fair.

as much as we would like this be colorblind society, it is not...whether we like it or not, race will always come into the picture...i mean as much as you hate to say it, put yourself in their position....

i'm sorry if i am coming off as hard-headed. this discussion has helped understand and definitely embrace some of these capitalistic views, but i still can't get over some of these things...it just doesn't seem right to me.

maybe it's just the way i was brought up.

i think this idea of "freedom" and "equality" is somewhat of a paradox...i just don't think that charity is the answer....

I haven't read many of the comments in this thread as there are too many to catch up on, so I hope I'm not being redundant. Let me first say that not all the following points will apply to ALL poor people, and I'll address that fact at the end. Anyways, here are some thoughts:

(1) Rich/Poor is a relative notion

Are the poor today really poor? In one sense, yes, the poor really are poor when you compare them to people of today who own much more than they do. The rich have many more luxuries than the poor and therefore have a greater quality of life. However, if you compare the poor today to the poor from 1000 years ago, the poor today are far more wealthy than the poor back then.

Furthermore, the poor today are perhaps even more wealthy today than the wealthy 1000 years ago. The wealthy 1000 years ago had larger homes, with nicer landscaping, and servants to bring them food and give them massages, but the poor of today have electricity, better plumbing, cars that allow them to travel great distances in a short amount of time, hand soap, and a greater life expectancy. The number of material comforts enjoyed by the poor today certainly outnumber those of rich 1000 years ago. If I had a choice of a large house with nice landscaping and servants 1000 years ago or to be poor with the material comforts that the poor enjoy today, I'm not sure which I would choose which says a lot for the poor of today.

An application to this point would be on the question of whether or not health care is a right. Health care is not a right, but merely a technological progression. The poor experience greater life expectancies today even if they CAN'T afford health care compared to their poor counterparts 1000 years ago. So to say that health care is a right is like saying that electricity was a right when it was first used by the rich because it afforded some extra material comforts.

With that said, all people SHOULD be able to afford health care. It's something that we should strive for by improving technology and providing competition so that prices will go down and care will become disseminated to the poor.

(2) Many poor people just don't spend their money wisely

Poor people in the US today have become so poor that, ironically, they are among the most overweight people in the world. If they have trouble paying their bills then why don't they just buy less food? The poor can't even complain about healthy food being too expensive, because at the very least they could just spend as much on food as they do now except buy all healthy food which would bring their weights down to normal.

Also, the poor spend money on things like alcohol and cigarettes. If you can't pay your bills then why are you buying these things?

(3) With all that said, the poor are getting screwed

The Federal Reserve screws over the poor. Because the poor don't get bank loans, or banks loans of a large quantity, they don't get to use the newly created money first, meaning they have a constantly devalued dollar. The phenomena increases the disparity between the rich and poor through illegitimate means. It's theft, and it's highly immoral.

I don't believe there is anything immoral about a disparity in wealth, but when it is done through fraud and theft it's a completely different story. The Fed is part of the reason why the poor can't afford health care, and they are worse off than they otherwise would be. If you really care about the poor, you will want to abolish the Fed.

(4) Not all poor apply to point (1) and (2)

Obviously, some poor people are very bad off and don't have material comforts greater than the wealthy 1000 years ago. This is partly the fault of the Fed, and around the world where people are in poverty we just need to continually improve technology. The best way to do that is by the free market, and to distort it harms the poor.

Also, I realize that not all poor people waste their money on too much food and alcohol, but these people as well would be helped if we had a sound monetary system and a free market which improves technology.

There are lots of great comments on this thread. If you don’t mind, I’d like to give my thoughts on the moral and psychological implications of socialized welfare.

When help is given directly or through the various charity organizations, the one giving feels good about helping. They don’t give more than they can afford. They don’t deprive their own families of necessities. They give voluntarily. However, when society by use of government force demands that not only must you give but how much, then you may feel resentment and a loss of control over your own life. This resentment may also go towards those receiving this help as well.

When one receives help directly or through various charity organizations, while they may not feel great about their current situation, they are certainly grateful for this help. But again, when government force is used, disconnecting the act of charity from the receipt of this help, over time, this creates a sense of entitlement. After all, “it’s the government’s money” and it’s their job to take care of me. Forced social welfare separates the humanity and goodwill in the act of giving from the act of receiving and alienates each from the other.

Forced social welfare programs divide Americans to the benefit of those politicians, central bankers and other elitist in control of our government. By building a society of individuals either fearful of government confiscation or dependent on government for their very sustenance, power is removed from the citizen in favor of those in positions of government power controlling these funds.

You referenced the problem of poor fatherless children (black or otherwise). Would it surprise you to know that welfare is one the biggest reasons for this problem, probably even more so then the war on drugs. When you tell a woman that she can only receive welfare to feed her children if there is no man (father) in the house, guess what, no man in the house. When you base the amount of welfare money on the number of children in the house, guess what, more “fatherless” children. This comes under the heading of “You get what you pay for”.

While social welfare programs may seem like good ideas they are an ever expanding trap working against the poor. Long term welfare programs unlike charity become the “expected entitlement” and work against a person’s sense of self and personal control and are detrimental to the well being of all of us.

Liberals have a genuine concern for the less fortunate, no question about that. But you can’t use force to turn money over to the government. Government is not about charity, it is about power. We need to find a better way to address our social problems.

Returning to a sound money policy that stops the hidden tax that destroys our dollar’s buying power, removing trade agreements that do not favor our own citizens sending jobs away, and eliminating a forced confiscation of income depriving us of our right to be charitable are a good start to stopping the ever growing poverty in our country.

This is my very “broad stroke” opinion on this subject, hope it adds something to this important subject.

Best Regards,
Anti-Stupid

Dr. Paul speaks for himself in addressing the important question:

http://www.youtube.com/wa...

It's a good question. How do you even out the economic playing field?

It seems to me, the more money individuals are allowed to keep, the more they can afford to pay employees and spend in the economy.

But i think Paul would have to take some serious action against the tight fisted billionaires who swindle the poor!

Why do you think they would never just have a flat sales tax in this country? Because the Rich would actually have to pay it. As it is now, most of them dont even pay income tax because there are simply too many loopholes, and they pay their accountants a lot to hide their incomes through tax shelters.

"Its time for a new Revolution! Ron Paul 2008"

You asked "wouldn't abolishing the income tax be most helpful for the rich?" Surprisingly, no. Most people are taxed on their wages--the more wages you earn, the higher your tax bracket. Whereas capital gains are taxed at much lower levels than wage income--amazing but true. And most of the wealthy, especially the wealthy that have inherited their wealth, get their income from capital gains--the sale of assets that have appreciated in value--rather than from wages. So the heirs to wealth get richer, while the middle-class wage-earner gets stuck with the bill. And somehow, no matter how many times the tax system is "reformed," the rich, who can afford expensive accountants to set up tax shelters and help them evade the new tax laws, always end up paying proportionately less than the poor and middle class.

You asked "Wouldn't his philosophy of unregulated capitalism benefit the corporations best of all?" Again, you'd think it would. But as Milton Friedman has said--I'm paraphrasing here--somehow regulatory agencies always end up controlled by the largest corporations of the industries they regulate, the ones who can afford to hire the most and the loudest lobbyists. And oddly, those agencies' decisions almost always end up benefitting those corporations the most, whether the decisions benefit consumers or not.

"He also opposes federal student loans. How would poor kids be able to compete with the wealthy for good colleges?" Since the federal student loan program was instituted, thirty-odd years ago, the price of a college education has gone up 500%, far outstripping even the worst inflationary estimates. Mostly this was due to federally subsidized student loans, which vastly increased the demand to go to college, since the money was loaned at below-market rates, and anyone could qualify. Did it improve the education any? Didn't seem to; rather, because schools were accepting government money, now they had to abide by government rules of hiring, student body composition, political correctness, etc, rather than focusing on teaching history, mathematics, literature, and so on. Forty years ago almost anyone who wanted to go could afford college, now they have to take out half-a-house's worth of student loans, and end up no better educated than they went in. Half the education at five times the price, thanks to government. And that doesn't even address the taxpayers who have to make up the cost of the below-market loans to the lenders. For a much more comprehensive explanation of why well-intentioned programs go so badly awry, read Harry Browne's "Why Government Doesn't Work," there's a link on the official Ron Paul campaign website.

Government is not reason, it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

By product of their environment I was referring to the fact that a black male born in the inner city, probably fatherless, filled with culture of violence around him, is much less likely to succeed than somebody who grows up in an upper-middle class household in the suburbs with 2 parents that went to college.

By ending the war on drugs many blacks will be freed from the prison-industrial complex, this in itself will increase the chances of children being fathered. Ron Paul is on record stating that the "war on drugs" has placed an undue burden on blacks and black males in particular.

Poverty can only grow worse in a system designed to keep those in need dependent on government. The best social programs come from ordinary Americans via churches and other faith based groups. When the citizens are relieved of undue tax burdens they will give more generously to legitimate groups who can make a real difference. Why trust government to tend to the needs of the less fortunate? They don't do anything very well and the state of the inner cities is a glaring example of failed government intervention.

I have taken parts of this thread and combined them into an article at The Paulunteer which you can read here. If you want to subscribe to the newsletter you could then forward it to people who might benefit from reading this conversation.

The Paulunteer - Grassroots Newsletter

Paulunteer.org - Grassroots Projects

WWRPD?

to what Ron has been saying? Ron has stated that by bringing our troops home from around the world that this would help protect the people that have grown dependant on the nanny state programs that the Dems. and Repubs. have created, and it would also protect the people on social security. Of all the money that the IRS collected from the people, not one dime went to these programs it went to pay interest on forign debt. Most welfare and education is paid thru the states and sales taxes. As for the department of education, it should be trashed it is just a medaling faction that tries to dictate what our kids learn in school (you can thank the socialist dems. for that one.) Most of the programs that Ron wants to do away with are just a burdon on the people of the US. People need to understand that we have sat around and let the government destroy everything that this country was founded on.

Give Me Freedom

If Tyranny And Oppression Come To This Land, It Will Be In The
Guise Of Fighting A Foreign Enemy. James Madison

Q: Why are there still starving kids in the deserts of Africa despite decade after decade of humanitarian fund raising and support?

A: Because it's all sand < see Sam Kinnison>

It is up to you to move to a small town, learn, change your future, do manual work if you have to and follow appreticeship programs. Work for two years and buy a car to establish credit (e.g. 10k and PAY IT OFF). Then get a credit union student loan and continue on.......there's a thousand ways...none of them easy like a handout from the Fed.

"How are you going to cut $1 trillion after you've already done the easy part of downsizing the military to just what we need to defend our own country? The Department of Education, the Department of Commerce, NASA, and and those other alphabet agencies add up to maybe a couple of hundred billion dollars. That's not a trillion."

There are so many more places we could save money to where we could hit this trillion dollar mark fairly easily. Just a few simple examples:

1) Corporate welfare:

In 2006, the US government gave the oil industry $60 BILLION in subsidies. And what did the oil companies give us back? Record profits that benefited those who are wealthy enough to own their stock in significant quantities as to make the dividend checks substantial. And don't get me started on the fact that the $3.30 a gallon gas we saw following Katrina was supposedly due to "loss of refining capacity due to the hurricane". So with all of those subsidies, were they not able to get those refineries fixed so they could resume production and return to a balanced level of supply so that our gas prices would go down? Well, here we are 1-1/2 years later and gas is back to $3.00. Those subsidies really helped those oil companies, and surely were beneficial to all of us who's money they received.

And let's not forget Northwest airlines, who were bailed out by our tax dollars after 9/11 when it was their own lax standards (the airline industry in general) that allowed 9/11 to happen in the first place. And how did they repay us citizens who bailed them out? They moved all of their support jobs overseas, leaving American workers out in the cold.

And just the last few weeks, the government is going to bail out the poor banks who caused the mortgage ciris we're in right now with a boatload more money. Forget about the people who are losing their homes. It's the rich bankers we need to protect here. I'm sure they'll repay us down the line with free mortgages and savings accounts that give 20% interest. I mean, after all, it's OUR money that is going to bail them out.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg. So there's a hefty chunk easily in the hundreds of billions we could save.

2) Foreign Aid (welfare): Just this week the Bush administration had to figure out what they would do in regards to the $10 BILLION dollars in aid we have already given, and the BILLIONS we have still promised to keep funneling to Pakistan because they are such a great "ally in the War on Terror". I wonder how much aid we give to other countries who have leaders who overthrew an elected government, have now declared martial law and suspended their Constitution, are rouding up lawyers who are protesting this action, and have a leader who is doing all of this in an attempt to have the term limit restrictions recinded for his own purposes? But Pakistan deserves this money because they've done such a great job of hunting down the guys in their country who actually sit and plan how to attack the US.

We probably spend hundreds of millions in indirect "military spending" with these sorts of handouts to countries. Forget the fact that Bush has damaged the reputation of th US so badly that we have to buy our allies.

3) Humanitarian aid:

While this sounds noble on the surface, the mere fact that the US is borrowing money in our names to sustain this government while sending hundreds of millions, if not BILLIONS, overseas for things like Aids education is preposterous. These programs simply never work, and if American citizens feel compelled to donate their own money to these efforts, then by all means let them. And if I hear one more Democrat say that "This is a disgrace! The USA is the richest country in the world...", while we're quickly going bankrupt, I think I'm going to puke. I'm not cold hearted, but you can't feed the cat in the ally with food you need to keep yourself alive. We ARE going to go bankrupt if things don't change drastically. Yet we always find money to help others. Noble, yes. Smart, no. Who will take care of the world when the US runs out of money?

Anyway, this wasn't even the original point of the thread. On that note I will just say that less government means more money in OUR paychecks. And this gives individuals the ability to help those in their communities. Why shoud the money be channelled through a government bureacracy where much of it will be wasted on keeping the machine running, much of it will be outright stolen, only to leave a small percentage to actually get to the level where it will do some good for the people who need it? The homeless guy on the corner is much better served by a local shelter, or church, etc. if I directly donate $50 to that shelter, as opposed to that same $50 being reduced to maybe half as much when it gets there, and coming along with regulations and restrictions tacked on to it. To think that we need the government to provide assistance to those in need, and even moreso to think they can do a good job of it, is idiotic! WE THE PEOPLE can much better assist those in our own commuities than the government will ever be able to do on a national level.

Biles,

You have a lot of character to inquire about this. I wish more were like you. What I say to people is that bureaucracy has grown beyond your wildest imagination, and that Ron Paul's way is the only way to slay that dragon and get serious about what the government should and shouldn't do for poor people.

2005 stats: numbers have since risen by several percent.

According to the Congressional Research Service, a non-partisan agency within the Library of Congress, the federal government runs 85 benefit programs “providing cash and non-cash aid that is directed primarily to persons with low income.” Such programs constitute the public ‘welfare’ system, when welfare is defined as income-tested or need-based benefits. This definition excludes social insurance programs, such as Social Security and Medicare. These benefit programs are administered by six federal departments: Health and Human Services, Agriculture, Housing and Urban Development, Labor, Treasury, and Education. Welfare is not one line item in the federal budget, but a combined federal and state bureaucracy made up of cash aid, food aid, medical aid, housing aid, energy aid, jobs and training, education aid, social services, and urban and community development programs.

…For fiscal 2005, we can project the federal government will spend $432 billion on poor and low-income people through these 85 programs. Additionally, there is some state aid for welfare represented in the above list, most of which is spending that is mandated by federal law. The states are projected to spend $172 billion in fiscal 2005.

…In the U.S. in 2002, total charitable giving was $240.92 billion and it is not known what percentage of that was for the benefit of low-income and poor people.5 According to IndependentSector.org, 92.2% of household contributions in 1998 went toward the following types of charities: religious organizations, human services, health, education, youth development, arts, culture and humanities and public/societal benefit. Each of these feature assistance programs for the poor. It seems reasonable therefore to say that charitable contributions for the poor can be estimated at 20% of that $240.92 billion, uncovering another $48.2 billion in assistance.

So counting federal ($432 billion), state ($172 billion) and charitable contributions ($48.2 billion), the cost of bringing aid to poor and low-income people in America is about $650 billion dollars per year. Notice I didn’t say the cost of raising the needy out of poverty, and of getting everyone health insurance. The $650 billion does not even pretend to approach such lofty goals.

If we just gave the $650 billion directly to the poor, virtually no one in America would live below middle class. Divide that number by the amount of poor people in America, 35.9 million, and we could distribute $18,106 to every person, every year. Before you consider that too modest, the statistic is $18,106 per every poor person --- from a 6-month old to a 95 year old. So a poor family of three would get three allotments, $54,318 in cash annually instead of Food Stamps, Medicaid and other benefits. A poor family of five could get $90,530 per year --- a dream life compared to what they are living now.

Notable is the bright commentary on this thread, thank you for starting it. I particularly liked what ChesleyElkins, wclass and JPL had to say.

-JP

Well, he certainly wouldn't try to beat them with the freedom stick.

I admint this is one of my concerns as well. I donate to the poor whenever they ask me for it (the only time I don't is when I have no Reserve Notes on hand). However, the average American has thousands of dollars in credit card debt and for the government to take money from them to give to others is IMO stealing. I didn't used to think this way; but, doing research and reading Dr. Paul's book has convinced me that he has been 99% correct over his carear. The 1% difference has to do with the death penalty. I believe that he is correct when he says that there have been too many mistakes made. However the reason I disagree with the death penalty is because throughout history governments tend to put their own citizens to death with it.

The thing I get asked about his philosophy most is, "do you really think that if we leave them (Muslims) alone they won't attack us?" I have to answer this honestly, with "Yes, I do think that for a decade or two we will have to be on the lookout for attacks. However, we are on the lookout for attacks right now, and we are told this could last for 50 years. So atleast with his philosophy there is an end that doesn't result in perpetual non-stop warfare."

www.ronpaul2008.com

Because of our government's wasteful spending the FED just keeps printing and printing more money. When the dollar crashed long ago from being worth $1 to $0.50 we got "the great depression".

Now, the dollar is worth $0.03 - $0.04 on the dollar.
If the dollar sinks any further people, POOR people won't be able to afford to buy even a gallon of milk, let alone a gallon of gas.

Oil is about to hit $100
Gold is probably going to hit $1000 by Christmas

I think the $0.04 on the dollar stat is wrong, I think it's more like $0.02 right now we just don't see it yet.

So in order to help the poor, we need to fix our economy, imagine if a family making $20k/yr has the same wealth as a family making $40k/yr a year ago, that would be ground breaking, and yet, we'd only need a government that doesn't give aide to foreign countries to prop up puppet governments. With a stronger dollar we can probably solve a lot of funding issues.

We don't have to eliminate ALL socialist programs, that would kick people out to the curb, but how will we pay for these programs if we have no money? Ron Paul's solution is the only one that gives these programs like Social Security a chance.

That's what the government can do to help the poor. What our society can do to help the poor is create orginizations and private businesses that give aide. As individuals we can solve this mess. In my town the blue club bar has a daily free soup for wonderers and homeless that want to come in and relax.

The government needs to butt out of handouts because they forcefully take from those that may need it to give to those that may or may not.

I'm poor too so don't worry I feel your pain. Less taxes would never hurt the poor. Income taxes on labor is illegal period no matter who it benefits. But thank god our founding fathers made such a perfect constitution, because taxing the rich is legal, as long as they own a business hahaha, and if they don't own a business than who the hell cares.

The problem is that the more we get from the goverment the more poor we'll always be because in reality that help you think their giving you is really a loan in the form of inflation tax which we would all have to pay with our labor anyway. Think of it this way:

More tax= more debt = more work = more slavery

someone will have to pay the debts and it won't be the rich, if our current economy they actualy pay smaller % of taxes

Great topic! Once Federal Govt. is put into it's place and States and/or individuals regain their constitutional power and rights, then wages will start to reflect that shift. Wages are constantly being manipulated by Federal Govt. programs, incentives, etc. Get the borders secured and oust the illegals who draw down the wage for the working people of this country. Taxing corporate activity/profit is constitutional however. This is a subject that will make your eyes bleed from reading all of the terminology and viewpoints. I definitely am not qualified to explain this to someone else. You simply need to do the research yourself. As far as the poor is concerned...how did the poor get by before 1913? Citizens took it upon themselves to help their fellow man, either individually or through group efforts. Responsibility is what we are taking back from the Federal Govt. The 16th amendment, which was not constitutionally ratified, gave the power to the Federal Govt. and Ron Paul plans on repealing it, thus giving the power/responsibility back to the people. There will never be a Utopian society of perfection. That's why we have intellect, to solve the problems that will present themselves to us all.

"Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism."

-George Washington

Jean Roberts The benefits of a free society is a strong family,friends and communities helping each other. Any child can learn the basicas abc in 100 hours. parents need to control thier schools without complicated programs to produce classes in society.

... people who say:

1. Giving the younger generation the choice to opt-out of social security is a bad idea because... they will need the SS income if they get poor when they grow old & the govt will have to take care of them anyway.

All I could think of so far is basically that's where private charity comes in. Plus, there won't be any $ in the SS fund for them anyway, so their "payments" are going eleswhere ie wars)

2. taking the SS money & allowing people to invest on their own is risky because the stock market is gonna bust (due to unethical accounting practices as with Enron)... and that people are not educated enough (due to the welfare/dumbed down society we have) to make wise decisions/save $ etc

I've been trying to formulate some answers to people who ask, but need some help
Thanks

The real issue here is what should be done by the federal government vs. what should be done by the states. The states have a lot of leeway under the Constitution. They can be quite socialist if they want to be. They can impose progressive income taxes, distribute welfare payments, and so forth. They can not print money however, so whatever benefits they pay out have to be funded by taxes or borrowing, and the bond market puts a limit on how much they can borrow (get too deep in debt and lenders start demanding higher interest rates).

One thing to keep in mind: If Ron Paul succeeds in his goal of eliminating the income tax, you have to expect significant increases in state taxes as they pick up some of the slack and do more of what the federal government used to do. For example, Paul wants to eliminate the Department of Education. Just what does the DOE do? Mainly they take your tax dollars and distribute them back to individuals and local governments in the form of Title 1 money, Pell grants, and the like. Without the DOE the federal budget would go down by about $50 billion and the states would then increase their taxes to make up for most of the difference so they can still fund their schools.

Let me say that I don't think it's likely that Ron Paul wll succeed in eliminating the income tax. I don't doubt that he sincerely wants to. But Congress won't cut government spending enought to make that feasible. The real federal deficit is over $700 billion if you use generally accepted accounting practices. If Paul brings all our troops home and slashes the military budget he just might succeed in eliminating the deficit. Let me say that if that's all he does that will make him one of the most successful presidents in our history. But eliminating the income tax would blow a hole exceeding one trillion dollars in the budget. How are you going to cut $1 trillion after you've already done the easy part of downsizing the military to just what we need to defend our own country? The Department of Education, the Department of Commerce, NASA, and and those other alphabet agencies add up to maybe a couple of hundred billion dollars. That's not a trillion. To get a trillion dollars there would have to be deep cuts in entitlement programs, and that would cause a lot of howling.

So will the poor be hurt? If, say, the earned income tax credit is eliminated it will indeed hurt the working poor. Unless states pick up the slack. Controlling our borders, which the Democrats refuse to do, would help the poor because it is their wages that are pushed down the most by cheap illegal labor. Whenever a businessman says those illegals do the work Americans won't do he means at the wage he's offering. There always exists a wage where Americans will do the job.

There are no easy, pain free solutions to the fiscal disaster that our politicians have got us into. Ron Paul will point us in the right direction, he won't be able to fix the mess all by himself.

So many have their minds made up. Glad you're thinking.

The reason socialism has appeared better than capitalism is because government falls down on its biggest responsibility - the protection of property rights. Air pollution, for example, would be resolved by prosecuting companies (or individuals) for dumping industry byproducts into air which others must use. Companies would no longer be able to take the land of individuals by force without considering the consequences . . . and on and on.

If you will look at the condition of people in many socialist economies you will find that everything is very fair - everyone is at the same level of poverty as everyone else. Capitalism, at least, gives an individual the opportunity to improve their situation, if they want to.

Pick the one you trust to help you:

Habitat for Humanity
FEMA
Red Cross
Girls and Boys Club
Local church
Salvation Army
Government Foster Care
Neighbors and family
Court System

There always has been unfairness in the world and always will be. The best we can do is make sure that people are free to improve their own lives. That means keeping what they earn, not being forced to pay for government overhead and wasteful spending.

A free and healthy economy is like a rising tide that raises all boats. Without the income tax, both parents would not have to work so hard, and many problems would be solved. Tax the rich, and manicurists, yacht-builders and housekeepers lose their jobs. Tax big companies and their employees are laid off or prices go up.

There are some good introductory Economics books around that will change the way you reach your goals. Taking from one to give to another doesn't work.

IMissLiberty

There are a few points that are important. I'll try to keep it brief.

#1. Ron Paul feels that our fiat currency needs to face competition from a gold or silver standard. At the surface this seems to have nothing to do with the poor, but it's probably one of the single most important issues to the poor. Under a fractional reserve system the federal reserve can flood the market with additional currency by sinking us further into debt. This deflation of currency corrolates to an inflation of prices.

The reason oil is spiking at $97 a barrel today has less to do with Saudi Arabia's miscalculation on production and more to do with the sinking dollar. Who gets nailed by inflated prices the hardest? The poor. We all require a basic set of goods and services to survive, and the rich require far less of a percentage of their annual income than the poor.

The system also encourages debt versus savings. The average american saves -1% per year. Why? Inflation means that if I borrow $100 today, even with interest, after inflation I come out ahead. If we had deflation or miniscule inflation, there would be a greater emphasis on savings. Again this system hurts the poor. They often can not qualify for loans, or the loans they do get are often at 20% or even hundreds of % when you look at payday loans. This system benefits the rich in every possible way.

#2. Ron Paul doesn't want to abrubtly end all social services. He realizes that people are dependent upon Social Security and Medicare, etc. But he wants to give young people the ability to privitize retirement savings to eventually eliminate Social Security.

You also have to realize that under the Constitution the federal government has limited authorization to do much of anything. The general welfare clause is very weak and when James Madison and Thomas Jefferson were quoted on it, they had this to say:

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison

So if it's not the job of the federal government, whose job is it? Look no further than the 10th Amendment.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Under a Ron Paul administration the States would be responsible for deciding which, if any, social programs they wish to provide. Now some states will look very socialist and others will probably eliminate most all programs. Some see this as a negative, but I see it as a chance to live among people with similar views on government.

You also have to realize that under our current system there is but one way to solve a problem. Where the States have the power, there are 50 ways to solve a problem. If Iowa finds an effective means to provide subsidized healthcare, isn't it reasonable to expect other states to look at its model and attempt to adopt it?

#3. Eliminating income tax does not eliminate revenue for the federal government. As Ron Paul said recently, eliminating the federal income tax will bring us to the revenue levels of 2000. Bring the troops home and stop nation building and we will see a surplus.

Also, eliminating income tax allows people to invest all of their money pre-tax, not just for retirement. It also frees up money for people to donate to charities of their choice.

The income tax burden has gradually shifted to the higher income folks. It is now to the point where 98% of all income taxes are paid by 50%, or in other words, the bottom 50% earners pay virtually no income taxes. If we ever get to the point where less than 50% are paying income taxes, you can kiss any meaningful tax reform goodbye, when the majority don't pay any income taxes at all.

So for the most part the poor do not pay income taxes already today. The bull in the China shop is the refundable Earned Income Tax credits, which can be up to $4,536. This results in many "poor" families getting refunds in excess of what they paid. There are familes in the USA that are getting thousands in refunds and yet pay zero taxes (can you say welfare).

If we went to a no income tax system or even a fair tax system, I can see the MSM bringing these "poor" families on the air showing how they have lost their thousands in EITC refunds in the new system. They will also show a Bill Gates type who now pays no income taxes.

I feel tax reform or abolishing the income tax is something we need, but the liberal media will squash it. The poor don't pay income taxes now and still can get refunds. It can't get much better than that for them from an income tax stand point and why change will be very difficult in my opinion. Any income tax change will be answered by the MSM as hurting the poor. Take that to the bank.

if you get to keep the money you make.

Imagine families, church groups, and other local neighborhood organizations taking care of their own without insurance or special subsidies at the federal level. The federal level should only be reserved for oversight based on human rights.

It will take some time to get the price of services down because everyone is used the to tax/insurance middleman, but it can be done.

I would also like to see a great majority of social programs questioned/investigated/outlawed at all levels. Many of them are scams that prey on caring people who give and see no results.

I know I can only speak for myself but race has absolutely nothing to do with it for me. Luckily I've been raised to see people as Ron Paul views people, without classifications like race and etc.. If being black is the so-called "problem", and that's the "group" your worried about, why can't well off black people tend to give more money to a group that gives more towards the black community? I don't have any problem with that at all. I would love to see the USA become a colorblind society where race doesn't mean anything, but the reality of that is quite slim. But to say that slavery is somehow going to make "fatherless Black inner city kids", well I don't get that one. I think the welfare state, not taking responsibility for our own actions, and the HORRIBLE HORRIBLE drug war is to blame for that, not the color of ones skin.

On a personal note: Would I set up a mission for "Black Americans"? Heck no, that's ridiculous. Would I make sure that my money that I personally donated to a worthy cause went to EVERYONE regardless of race, religion, etc...Sure thing.

I just don't see how the inner city black kids should be treated any differently than anyone else. The fact is that just as welfare became a reality and a reliance for so many, once it's gone within a generation welfare will be but a faint memory. It's different to see the people around you that are giving to Charity to help you and your family, it should make you want to strive to be self reliant and start giving back. Getting a check from the government is just that, getting thieved money from millions of people and no one to answer to.

I for one wish that people would quit claiming to be "African American", "Chinese American", And so on and just become AMERICANS with a sense of HISTORICAL pride. I'm Scottish American if there's such a thing, but you know what. I was born in Ada, Oklahoma not Scotland. So I am true blue American and I don't see others any other way.

As far as an inner city kid having the same chance as a middle class suburban family. NOPE not right now, but imagine if the fed wasn't involved at the University level. Remember when people could actually go to school without piling up 100k in loans? Well we would be back to those days and those in the middle class and above would be able to outright pay for their schooling. The lower class? Well we have scholarships, if they've been earned (that's called personal responsibility), and we can very easily have real American DONATED support. Think of it like the African American Scholarship Fund, only drop the African part.

I am very sorry if I appear racist to anyone, that is definitely not me nor my intention. I'm personally sick and tired of hearing race is responsible for so many things, and I dont' doubt that it is. But I also see it used as a crutch every day, and I personally would like for all those crutches to be kicked out from under people so they can see for themselves that they can stand up without it. I also know that all of America doesn't see the way I do and never will. And that's why if Uncle Sam wasn't taking a third of my income I could put the money where I see fit, as a self-governing responsible American. That happens to be proud of his Scottish Heritage. :O)

Biles, good question and honestly asked AND it reveals where your continuing quest for knowledge can petition itself for further enlightenment.

In the Declaration of Independence, the founders articulated the central tenant upon which our government was to be based. Having written:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

I must first ask do you understand what is REALLY meant by this term, "Liberty". Here is an excellent, short video that very effectively communicates the meaning in a fashion that also communicates what happens when you don't have it.

http://www.youtube.com/wa...

Now, once you understand what REAL liberty is, I would suggest looking to history, to see what happens when governments start trying to LEGISLATE LIBERTY. Here are two suggestions to get you started.

The Man versus the State - by Herbert Spencer - 1884
http://www.constitution.o...
You must take the time to understand everything this man is writing about. Your intellect will be transformed.

The Law - by Frederick Bastiat - 1850
http://www.constitution.o...

I can't help but quote some of the Jewels from this one:

The Seductive Lure of Socialism

This is the seductive lure of socialism. And I repeat again: These two uses of the law are in direct contradiction to each other. We must choose between them. A citizen cannot at the same time be free and not free.

And another priceless Jewel

The Superman Idea

They would be the shepherds over us, their sheep. Certainly such an arrangement presupposes that they are naturally superior to the rest of us. And certainly we are fully justified in demanding from the legislators and organizers proof of this natural superiority.

Dedicate a week to studying these texts. Your Mind, Your Life and your Destiny will be gloriously LIBERATED. For what PURPOSE did our Creator endow us with this unalienable right of freedom? Show me the man or the government in possession of the RIGHT to STEAL this gift, considering Who has endowed it.

Here is a video of Ron Paul's 1988 response to this very question.

http://www.youtube.com/wa...

This thread and the input by everyone involved has the potential to help a lot of people answer some nagging questions. I know that I personally have a few people in mind that I would like to see this.

For that reason, I have taken parts of this thread and combined them into an article at The Paulunteer which you can read here.

If you would like a copy emailed to you so that you can send it to others you can sign up for the newsletter and then forward it to them.

If anyone objects to being quoted in this way, please let me know and I will remove your comments immediately.

Thank you to everyone for your words of wisdom!

You asked: "Wouldn't corporations also be able to pollute as they please?"

See here for a great interview showing Paul's approach to this issue: http://grist.org/feature/...

=====================

There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:

--Ed Howdershelt (Author)

Politicians have promoted the idea that hurting the rich will help the poor. How much have the poor really been helped by the income tax? And really, how much has it really hurt the rich? Rich people know how to make money, and they are going to make it no matter what the government does. If you hit a rich business owner with a 35% tax, he raises his prices and cuts workers' salaries to make up the difference. Unintended consequences when the governement tries to redistribute income. If you let that business owner keep more of his money, the market will force him to lower prices and pay his employees better.

Dr. Paul's policies will not hurt the poor. They may hurt the lazy, but that is only short term, because they will not be able to stay lazy for long.

Also, the American people are the most generous in the world, and they will be more so if they are not left to assume that the government will take care of all.

As it is right now, so much money (and therefore power) goes to washington to be divided up. Politicians must make decisions on how to do this, and they are heavily influenced by lobbyists. How many poor people are able to hire lobbyists? The poor are thrown a few bones to keep them from unilaterally voting everybody out of power, but it is a pittance and a hindrance to their self-reliance.

A Ron Paul presidency would not result in no poor. The Bible says clearly, the poor are always with you. But the opportunity would be there to get out, as well as the incentive.

Abolishing the income tax would benefit everyone poor and rich. That is the benefit of freedom. When the government takes a portion of your labor by force, (try not paying income taxes) you are no longer a free individual: you are a slave. Whether you earn a little money or a lot of money, government still forcibly takes money from you.
With freedom comes responsibility. Each person can enjoy the benefits of their own decisions and choices or can lament the costs of their own decisions and choices. That is what freedom is. Freedom is also when you can give as much of the produce of your own labor as you wish and voluntarily help those in need. Taking money forcibly from one individual and giving it to another is not charitable it is evil. Imagine if you went to buy groceries and after you paid for them an armed guard, standing at the exit, would look at your receipt, determine a percentage of what you spent, forcibly made you pay (if you didn’t you would be thrown in jail) and then gave your money, your hard earned money, to another person. That is slavery. No matter how much you earn, the government still owns you.
I would suggest you read The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx, a great enemy of freedom. One of the planks of the Communist Manifesto is a “heavy progressive income tax.” Communism is never about “equality” it is about power. Those in power want to stay in power and they put as many obstacles in place as possible so that you can never become successful. Government forced do-goodism (socialism) is a stepping stone to communism.

Here are the other 9 major points in the Communist Manifesto
1. Abolition of private property (Imminent Domain “for public good”)
2. Abolition of all rights of inheritance (Death Tax, Probate Court)
3. Confiscation of property of all emigrants and rebels (Asset, Forfeiture, Seizure laws)
4. Central Bank (Federal Reserve)
5. Government control of communications and transportation (FCC, TSA, Department of Transportation)
6. Government ownership of factories and agriculture (Department of Commerce, EEOC, Department of Agriculture)
7. Government control of labor (Department of Labor)
8. Corporate farms and regional planning (Archer Daniels Midland, Monsanto, ect.)
9. Government control of education (Department of Education)

Let Freedom Ring.

He would cease to encourage the group identity fostered in this country over the past thirty years. The divisiveness and economic destruction wrought upon this country by the encouragement of ethnic tribalism such as ( "diversity" speak) has been so destructive to race relations and economic progress among those who most need that progress. By and large this has been a cornerstone of the Democratic party for quite some time, increasingly Republicans are dancing this same regressive (not progressive) dirge. Treating minorities like special need children has undermined whole segments of our country morally, economically and in terms of being a united nation. This racial patronage mentality is a devastating departure from the constitution and the principles this country was founded on. We have individual rights not group rights.This may run very counter to your fundamental political assumptions, I don't know..

As others have mentioned a "true" free market is a very different thing from the feudal capitalism that this country is increasingly converting to. The so-called "free trade" agreements are anything but, and they are hurting low income and middle class Americans the most.

Illegal immigration could be one of the single largest issues hurting the poor and lower middle class. Our leaders are using millions of Mexicans to lower wages and shore up their constituency, regardless of the cost and contradiction of their stated platforms. You want to help the poor? Eliminate the invasion of Mexicans and Latin Americans who have broken into this country (of course, at the behest of our leaders) . The law of supply and demand will always work if not short circuited and circumvented by the elites. We do have the need for agricultural workers, no question. However, what is currently happening is a strategic wholesale re-population effort that is being orchestrated between the presidents of North America. Mexico is offshoring it's poverty to this country in order to defuse a revolution that would otherwise be happening there. Our President and a good number of those in Congress are now acting as colonial rulers rather than elected officials of a soverign republic.

Incidentally, we are now in the surreal situation where labor unions are acting like scabs in their support of an amnesty and open borders. Apparently they have devised some way to circumvent supply and demand dynamics of wage pressures.... Or maybe they are just trying to shore up their own power... hmm, no that coudn't be the case. ;-O. The same is true for the groups like La Raza and the NAACP. Two pertinent examples of the folly and destructiveness of the group rights/ identity mentality. Strange and ironic times indeed.

And how successful have the myriad of governement programs been at generating wealth anyway? A better question would be to ask how have they contributed to and increased poverty? Check out some of Thomas Sowell's work if you can.

Lastly, there is no guarantee of outcomes in a democratic and free market society. There is however, a far greater chance of prosperity and upward mobility when you have a truly free market and freely operating constituiton.

Free markets are not feudal capitalism.

P.S. Pardon the brevity of my responses. Hopefully it doesn't come across as curt- I'm a horrible typist, writing in stream of conciousness mode.