• I would say that there are

    I would say that there are some posters that outright admit that they don't share those views (they want a more anarchist government).

    Then there are the many that widely, widely, WIDELY disagree over what "constitutional government actually means". Interpretations of the Constitution differ vastly, even among like-minded people on this website.

    Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

    Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

    Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

  • Well, if the report said it,

    Well, if the report said it, then it must be true.

    The Grace Commission report is utter bullshit. The Commission's main point is that 66% of tax revenues are never collected due to collection issues and the underground economy. This is patently false. The idea that government doesn't spend on things that the people want or that it all goes to the national debt is factually not true. Interest payments on the debt are less than half a trillion a year, with tax payments well above that.

    From GWU:

    This myth is easily debunked by just looking up the numbers involved. Unfortunately, looking things up is a skill many tax protestors lack.

    Let's look at the Budget of the United States.

    The amount collected from income tax greatly exceeds the amount spent on interest on the national debt every year. For example, in 2006, the individual income tax raised $1.04 trillion (click this link and see page 30 of the historical tables). The government’s net interest expense in 2006 was $226 billion (see page 54 of the tables). That’s about 20% of individual income tax revenues, not 100%. (See the update below for more recent figures.)

    Twenty percent of all income taxes is a lot of money. Interest on the national debt is a big amount and the national debt is a legitimate concern. But it’s not remotely true to say that all income taxes go to pay interest. Net interest is only about 1/5 of annual income tax revenue. (And that’s not even counting $353 billion in corporate income tax revenue.)

    (By the way, the “net interest” figure is used because quite a bit of the interest goes to government trust funds. The interest paid to the trust funds essentially amounts to the government paying interest to itself (by moving money from one government account to another), so it makes sense to disregard that interest in calculating the amount of interest the government pays. But even if you look at the “gross interest,” that was $406 billion in 2006. That is, again, a big amount, but still only about 40% of income tax revenues, not 100%. See page 72 of the tables.)

    So the claim that 100% of income taxes pay interest on the national debt is completely not true, as anyone can see by just looking up the figures. (Similar percentages can be seen in the figures given by the privately run national debt clock -- compare the "interest on debt" figure to the "income tax" figure.)

    Many Internet sites will tell you that the Grace Commission said that all income taxes go to pay interest on the national debt. The Grace Commission was predisposed to try to make income tax look bad, because President Reagan wanted a big cut in income taxes. But even with this bias, the Commission didn’t claim that all income taxes do is pay interest on the national debt.

    Here’s what the Commission actually said (this is from the cover letter accompanying the Commission's Report):

    Excerpt from the Cover Letter to the Grace Commission Report:
    "Resistance to additional income taxes would be even more widespread if people were aware that:

    One-third of all their taxes is consumed by waste and inefficiency in the Federal Government as we identified in our survey.

    Another one-third of all their taxes escapes collection from others as the underground economy blossoms in direct proportion to tax increases and places even more pressure on law abiding taxpayers, promoting still more underground economy -- a vicious cycle that must be broken.

    With two-thirds of everyone's personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt and by Federal Government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government."

    Thus, the Commission first claimed that one-third of income tax revenue is wasted by the government. Another third, the Commission claimed, is not collected because of underreporting of income. Then the Commission said that, with one-third of income tax wasted and another third not collected, the result is that all income tax is absorbed by interest on the national debt and transfer payments.

    So even accepting the Commission's word as gospel, the Commission didn’t say that all income tax goes to interest. The Commission said it goes to interest and transfer payments. “Transfer payments” are payments for programs such as welfare. You may or may not like welfare programs, but many people regard them as an important government function. So there’s a big difference between saying that all income tax goes to interest and saying it all goes to interest and transfer payments.

    Moreover, the Commission put its statement in a misleading way. In the last quoted paragraph, the Commission said that “all” income tax goes to interest and transfer payments, but the prior paragraphs show that the Commission meant "all the income tax left over after the part we regard as wasted." The Commission wrote off 1/3 of income tax as wasted. That’s obviously pretty contestible. Moreover, because the Commission regarded 1/3 of income tax as “not collected,” the 1/3 of income taxes that the Commission regarded as wasted represents 1/2 of all collected income taxes.

    So what the Commission really said is “half of income taxes collected by the federal government go to interest on the national debt and welfare.” Again, even accepting the Commission's word, that’s pretty different from “all income taxes go to interest.”

    So the statement that 100% of income taxes go to pay interest on the national debt is completely wrong.

    And what is the point of these statements anyway? Protestors who say that 100% of income taxes go to pay interest on the national debt seem to be responding to the argument that we need the income tax to fund the government. They appear to be claiming that we could eliminate the income tax without affecting any government programs that people might want. I guess they reach this conclusion by thinking something like this: "the income tax doesn't fund any government programs that anyone might want, because 100% of it just goes to pay interest on the national debt. Some other source of revenue funds the programs people want." But even if that were true (which it isn't), so what? It's not as though we can stop paying interest on the national debt. That's mandatory. If income tax weren't available to fund that interest, some other revenue would have to be used to pay it, and the programs that rely on that other revenue would suffer. So we can't conclude that we could eliminate the income tax without hurting government programs that people want.

    So anyone who wants to criticize government spending should go right ahead. But they should get their facts straight first. Yes, the government does some stupid things with our tax dollars. Eliminating stupid spending and lowering income taxes would be great. But it’s absurd to claim that all income taxes go to interest on the national debt when such interest actually accounts for only about 1/5 of individual income tax revenue.

    Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

    Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

    Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

  • Really? The Church is a

    Really?

    The Church is a private organization that vastly misuses funds and partakes in some incredibly gross actions. I don't see people taking their money elsewhere, for the most part!

    Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

    Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

    Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

  • The Supreme Court has

    The Supreme Court has defended the validity of all the programs outlined in your first sentence. Thomas Jefferson tried to set up a health insurance system in the 1790s, for crying out loud.

    Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

    Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

    Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

  • Presumably, no one forced you

    Presumably, no one forced you to work in the state you work in, in the country you work in, getting paid by US dollars, and at the rate you demanded.

    Secondly, do not pretend as if all your tax dollars go towards bombing people oversees. Those tax dollars go to many state functions, including the protection and establishment of your property; without the government recognizing that your property is owned by you, and the government's defense of that ownership through the use of force, your property rights are meaningless. They go to the police, which protect your street, they go to the roads, the firemen, the schools, etc. All of which directly reflect the value of your property.

    Federally, money not only goes for necessary national defense functions, but it also goes towards energy and research programs that surely make your life better. It goes to the US postal service, it goes to national parks, it goes to service the debt on all our previous spending. It goes for space exploration, to take care of sick veterans, and yes, to the poor and unfortunate so that they are not dying on the streets, not only bringing down property values but also so that they are not looting and pillaging the property of others.

    It also goes to pay for YOUR medicare and Social Security so that when you retire, you can get a decent retirement income and don't have to life off others' dime.

    Of course, both the federal and state government spend money very wastefully. They spend money on programs you see no benefit from. They spend money on programs you don't like. And they spend money on programs you may benefit from, but still don't support.

    If you don't like it, leave the country, don't get paid in dollars, or don't work at all.

    Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

    Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

    Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

  • If "China" "demands" payment

    If "China" "demands" payment in US dollars, the federal government would merely print it and hand it to them.

    I don't see the issue.

    Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

    Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

    Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

  • Most Christians haven't

    Most Christians haven't actually read the bible, but I am going to go ahead and continue with this exercise.

    The Bible has some truly horrific things in there, including sanctions of rape and slavery. However, very few people would say that "because the Bible says x, Christians must believe in x". We know that even when very religious Christians say that they believe everything in the bible literally, etc. that they don't REALLY mean that. We can tell from their actions they don't believe it.

    When it comes to Christians, people can make the distinction between the theoretical Christian and the Christian living next door, as well as hyperbolic rhetoric from actual truth.

    Yet when the situation involves Muslims, this is not what happens. IE, "the Quaran says x, therefore all Muslims must believe x". Forget about the actions of so many Muslims. Forget about the natural tendency of man to swear by a religious book yet not abide by it at all. No, it is an open and shut case!

    Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

    Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

    Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

  • Try out the billion prices

    Try out the billion prices project at MIT:

    http://bpp.mit.edu/usa/

    Plus, consider wage growth.

    Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

    Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

    Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

  • Yes, well we all know that

    Yes, well we all know that the price of a snickers bar at your local CVS is the absolute perfect measure of inflation.

    Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

    Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

    Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

  • Well-said! The anti-Fed

    Well-said!

    The anti-Fed people have been making claims of a secret conspiracy, of totalitarian overthrows, of massive hyperinflation, of a stock market super-collapse, of the downfall of the US government and the rise of the one-world government, for years. YEARS!

    Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

    Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

    Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

  • Well, in some ways, yes, in

    Well, in some ways, yes, in other ways no.

    Ron Paul almost exclusively means "low taxes, low military" when he says "most libertarian government".

    In Hong Kong, there is no private land ownership, very strict laws, a very heavy-handed justice system, etc.

    Singapore is much the same. Big distinction between citizens and non-citizens, owning land or starting a business there is very, very difficult, and the justice system is very heavy-handed, though many commentators have praised it since it is very "fair" (equal).

    Plus, in both cases, there is an element of welfarism. Both entities rely on others to provide them with defense. I'm not saying you need to be like the US and field a massive military...but Hong Kong has its borders protected by China; they are leeching off the Chinese taxpayer.

    Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

    Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

    Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

  • Of course, you are only

    Of course, you are only seeing that people want to see what they want to see because you want to see that people want to see what they want to see.

    Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

    Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

    Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

  • Well said!

    Well said!

    Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

    Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

    Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

  • So, a question. If we are

    So, a question.

    If we are really about the rule of law, and justice, and fair and equal treatment under the law...shouldn't any high-ranking member of the Vatican be arrested upon his stepping on US ground?

    They are the leaders of an organization that is guilty of pedophilia and worse. If it wasn't a religious, Christian, organization but a social group or community organization that did this, we'd be clamoring for justice.

    Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

    Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

    Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

  • Fear-mongering and class

    Fear-mongering and class welfare. That article has plenty of mistruths and lies in in.

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/deathspiral.asp

    Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

    Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

    Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

  • Why does the IPCC have no

    Why does the IPCC have no credibility?

    The IPCC carries out no original research. It bases its assessment based on published literature, much of which is peer-reviewed. They merely collect the data.

    Where is your 17 and a half years coming from? Certainly not from that Moncton "study".

    Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

    Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

    Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

  • "because you cannot be dumb

    "because you cannot be dumb and become a doctor"

    As someone who is a doctor, I have to say you have no idea. :)

    Look, I am not saying that Rand Paul is a drooling, inbred, idiot (and that is something you should get from context). But he isn't at the intellectual level of his father(who've I've admittedly only talked to), or Judge Napolitano, or even Barack Obama.

    Generalizing here, many libertarians you meet, especially those who are very active politically, tend to be very well-read. You generally get that sense that this is a guy who has read a lot of philosophy, etc. Rand is pretty libertarian but you don't at all get that impression from him. Its tempting to draw the conclusion that he believes what he believes because that is what his father believes...

    Specifically, his ability to do basic arithmetic is terrible. As in, I'd be surprised if he could multiply...say 6 by 7 without a calculator or a paper and pen.

    Trying to explain to simple concepts like...evolution....like talking to a brick wall. He just doesn't get it. He wants to, but he just can't! The guy is a doctor, and it was like talking to a child when someone tried to explain to him how caffeine works.

    Probably the best example I can think of: Rand Paul is staunchly against Keynesianism. Very staunch. Alright, that's superb. Why is he against it? Because Keynesianism is bad and doesn't work. OK, fine. Then if you ask him, what is Keynesianism...he'll say something to the effect that Keynesianism is a belief system that puts faith in a central bank. Which may be true, but that is HARDLY Keynesianism's descriptive property. Yet he LOATHES and HATES this form of economics that he doesn't appear to understand!

    It is kind of funny...I never saw Rand learn anything new. If that makes sense? Like he can give a great talk or a great logical breakdown of foreign policy that will have you applauding. He's a bit of a history buff. But I never saw him actually learn these things...I just know that he was like that when I met him. But I have never seen Rand Paul make the jump from not understanding a complex subject, to understanding it at least somewhat.

    To be fair, it is not at all laziness. Rand is the guy who will stay up late at night trying to learn something, only to fail miserably. He's a hard-working guy.

    Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

    Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

    Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

  • George W. Bush graduated from

    George W. Bush graduated from Harvard and was a successful businessman, yet from all accounts as as dumb as mud. I've certainly met plenty of dumb doctors, especially from Rand's generation.

    If he runs for the Republican nomination, I really don't know what I would do. I could very easily imagine>/i> a candidate that is better than him, however, I could not at all imagine a candidate who is "better" than him that also had a better chance of winning both the nomination or the presidency.

    Fact of the matter is, however he got there, and for all his stumbling, bumbling, immaturity, and lying, I agree with Rand on a lot of things. Namely, foreign policy, regulation, and taxes. On foreign policy especially, I don't think there is a candidate out there who would do better than him.

    I would be very worried about how he would handle any curve-balls that come his way during his presidency. His unwillingness to *listen* to others is grating. The best leaders know how to delegate properly. He needs to surround himself with people who are well educated, well published, and well-respected in their fields, not people who just agree with everything Rand agrees in. Come 2016, we're going to have 16 years of a president who surrounds himself with his unqualified friends who practically define control fraud. Rand needs to head in the opposite direction.

    Plus, he has to be able to work with people. Obama doesn't know how to do this. Balance between being firm and open.

    I think how he campaigns will be a huge telling sign. Both for the nomination and for the Presidency. If he shows the signs of petulance and frustration, then he's not going to get my vote or my support (I'd just abstain).

    I can't imagine voting for any candidate from the Democratic party, probably because I can only imagine Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden winning the primary. Is there a single thing I agree with either of them on?

    I do like a couple of things about someone like Elizabeth Warren, but her foreign policy and tax policy stances are practically a non-starter for me. Plus, while I do not know her at all personally, her publications portray her as a very sharp woman. I like the fact that she's such an academic. Academics are prone to be open to other views. On the other side, they can tend to be a little idealistic and unable to pass policy. As an academic, I imagine she would surround herself with academics, compounding the problem.

    I'll probably just write-in Ron Paul.

    Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

    Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

    Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

  • Maybe we are talking about

    Maybe we are talking about different things.

    So nature produce 780 giga-tons per year. "People" emit about 30 gigatons. So this is about 4%. As mentioned, the lands and oceans absorbed that 780GT/year. That kept CO2 levels between 180 and 280 ppm for 800,000 years. Now it as 400ppm and still rising. That extra 4% year after year makes a difference; yes, the environment can compensate as more plants grow, etc., but the net effect is about 15 gigatons, or 2ppm per year (http://www2.mps.mpg.de/projects/sun-climate/data.html, http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-3....).

    We know that this is caused by man, because it is carbon-13 which is increasing in the atmosphere, not carbon-12.

    Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

    Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

    Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

  • His biggest issue is that

    His biggest issue is that reality doesn't influence him...his views just influence his reality. For example, he believed that the office of printing, the federal department responsible for handing out printed versions of bills and legislation to Congressmen, is a ridiculous waste. Fine. So he estimated that that office was costing the US taxpayer 60 billion/year.

    But it isn't. Like, literally, it isn't. It is a number you can look up. But he doesn't care. No, to Rand, the office of printing is a huge waste, and a huge waste must be in the tens of billions of dollars, so, 60 billion!

    He does a lot of that...pulling numbers and situations out of nowhere because they "must be right". As I mentioned, his mathematical proficiency is terrible.

    He also has a tendency to blame the media for everything. He was really angry when the media took him to task for his stance on the Civil Rights Act. I mentioned to him that he actually SAID those things. No one was misquoting him. He said that. Does he want the media to not cover it? Same thing when he plagiarized a speech, or when he gave one of his bogus figures...people call him out on it and he gets angry that they had the gall to do so.

    On top of that, he has a pathological dislike of "experts". I guess he thinks he knows everything.

    Maybe the worst part is, is that Rand isn't lazy at all. He's a pretty hard worker, and he really wants to DO things. The problem is, because he is an idiot who doesn't really like different opinions, he ends up doing stupid things very quickly and efficiently. Its like the worst situation possible.

    Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

    Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

    Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a