Premier Rock Forum

It pleases me to no end to learn that jelly-spined so called 'leftists' have found an excuse they can use for running away from Ron Paul: newsletters that he didn't write or approve, and words that he has renounced.

steve wrote:

Skronk wrote:That's the whole point, smaller government for the benefit of the poor.

So, we help the poor and sick by giving them less of everything they need? So they "toughen up?" What?

As a medical doctor, I’ve seen first-hand how bureaucratic red tape interferes with the doctor-patient relationship and drives costs higher. The current system of third-party payers takes decision-making away from doctors, leaving patients feeling rushed and worsening the quality of care. Yet health insurance premiums and drug costs keep rising. Clearly a new approach is needed. Congress needs to craft innovative legislation that makes health care more affordable without raising taxes or increasing the deficit. It also needs to repeal bad laws that keep health care costs higher than necessary.

We should remember that HMOs did not arise because of free-market demand, but rather because of government mandates. The HMO Act of 1973 requires all but the smallest employers to offer their employees HMO coverage, and the tax code allows businesses- but not individuals- to deduct the cost of health insurance premiums. The result is the illogical coupling of employment and health insurance, which often leaves the unemployed without needed catastrophic coverage.

While many in Congress are happy to criticize HMOs today, the public never hears how the present system was imposed upon the American people by federal law. As usual, government intervention in the private market failed to deliver the promised benefits and caused unintended consequences, but Congress never blames itself for the problems created by bad laws. Instead, we are told more government- in the form of “universal coverage”- is the answer. But government already is involved in roughly two-thirds of all health care spending, through Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs.

For decades, the U.S. healthcare system was the envy of the entire world. Not coincidentally, there was far less government involvement in medicine during this time. America had the finest doctors and hospitals, patients enjoyed high quality, affordable medical care, and thousands of private charities provided health services for the poor. Doctors focused on treating patients, without the red tape and threat of lawsuits that plague the profession today. Most Americans paid cash for basic services, and had insurance only for major illnesses and accidents. This meant both doctors and patients had an incentive to keep costs down, as the patient was directly responsible for payment, rather than an HMO or government program.

The lesson is clear: when government and other third parties get involved, health care costs spiral. The answer is not a system of outright socialized medicine, but rather a system that encourages everyone- doctors, hospitals, patients, and drug companies- to keep costs down. As long as “somebody else” is paying the bill, the bill will be too high.

I have long been an advocate of ending the income tax and eliminating the IRS. People tell me that this is a laudable goal, but they don't see how it would be possible. The question that I am often asked is, "How would the government pay for the services they provide, or pay their employees, if there were no income tax?"

Between 1787 and 1913, we had no permanent income tax system, and America prospered! The Sixteenth Amendment was ratified to prevent the Supreme Court from ruling the income tax unconstitutional, as it had done in 1895.

The income tax isn't necessary to pay for government services. Few people know that every penny of the income tax is used to service federal debt, a large percentage of which is held by foreign investors and governments. Our government is borrowing nearly three billion dollars a day in order to perpetuate the welfare state and an international war-making empire. The fruits of your labor are going directly to Saudi millionaires and Chinese communist officials.

If we stop incurring this debt, we can quickly end the IRS.

Only about 42 percent of government revenue is collected through the personal income tax. During the course of the Bush presidency, government spending has increased by about 75 percent. Cutting spending to the same level it was at seven years ago would make it possible to render the personal income tax unnecessary.

If we further reduced spending to the 1992 level, we could quickly pay off our foreign debt, return our nation to solvency, and make April 15th a normal day.

Would you be comfortable with the government providing the services they did just fifteen years ago if it meant never paying income taxes again?

Skronk wrote:That's the whole point, smaller government for the benefit of the poor.

steve wrote:

It's not like I need to look very far to find despicable shit in the man's world view. He's a tax-cut-obsessed, states'-rights, anti-abortion, anti-public education, anti-welfare right-winger. Fuck him.

Its true hes anti-abortion. I dont agree with this one.

Hes not anti-public education though; hes just against it at the federal level. Rick pointed out why hes against this. We've been throwing more and more money into the system over the years, and were getting worse results. This is a quote from him from a 2002 newsletter -

However, the voucher debate really ignores the more important question of whether public schools should be run by federal or local government. The Constitution does not authorize any federal involvement in education; Article I grants Congress no authority to create, fund, or regulate schools at all. Therefore, under the 10th Amendment public education should be purely a state and local matter. This means Congress should not be taxing you to fund a huge federal education bureaucracy that exercises dictatorial control over curriculum and standards nationwide. Those tax dollars should be left with parents and local voters, who can best decide how to allocate precious education resources. Public schools should be funded at the local level with local tax dollars, where waste is minimized and accountability is greatest. The failed federal system of public school funding has become a bureaucratic black hole, where the majority of tax dollars never reach the classroom.

Rick Reuben wrote:to learn that jelly-spined so called 'leftists' ... paralyzed 'leftists' like Andrew L. will have nothing to do with Ron Paul...

Such 'leftists' are not ready for the battles this country faces. Who the hell knows what battles Canada faces, or why Canada's leading Marxist is currently obsessed with Ron Paul, after disappearing from the forum for the entire summer?

alex maiolo wrote:
Regan showed us that trickle down, voodoo economics is a joke. The rich were supposed to shower the poor with trinkets and baubles with all of the spare cash they had, and they did not. Some high profile people left the party in disgust, but mainly, the whole thing acted as a catalyst that kicked off three decades of selfish entitlement that we still have to deal with today.

alex maiolo wrote:

Skronk wrote:That's the whole point, smaller government for the benefit of the poor.

What kind of whack job double speak is that? I mean, it truly makes no sense.
How does less government help the poor?
No, seriously, I really want to know.
They're POOR, man. They need help.

alex maiolo wrote:Regan showed us that trickle down, voodoo economics is a joke. The rich were supposed to shower the poor with trinkets and baubles with all of the spare cash they had, and they did not. Some high profile people left the party in disgust, but mainly, the whole thing acted as a catalyst that kicked off three decades of selfish entitlement that we still have to deal with today.

alex maiolo wrote:"Me"
"Mine"
That's all I hear these days.

alex maiolo wrote:Money is made with public roads and businesses succeed with the help of publically educated people. Money is not made in a vacuum.
Give back.

I'm curious about how much tax you tax haters actually pay per year anyway. I'm guessing, like most people who bitch about that and the Estate Tax, that current tax codes affect you minimally at best.
But this is all about *principal*, right?

Skronk wrote:

alex maiolo wrote:

Skronk wrote:That's the whole point, smaller government for the benefit of the poor.

What kind of whack job double speak is that? I mean, it truly makes no sense.
How does less government help the poor?
No, seriously, I really want to know.
They're POOR, man. They need help.

Let them keep the fucking money they make. Read my last couple of posts for clarification.

alex maiolo wrote:"Me"
"Mine"
That's all I hear these days.

When has it been any different? Don't pull the altruist card.

alex maiolo wrote:Money is made with public roads and businesses succeed with the help of publically educated people. Money is not made in a vacuum.
Give back.

I'm curious about how much tax you tax haters actually pay per year anyway. I'm guessing, like most people who bitch about that and the Estate Tax, that current tax codes affect you minimally at best.
But this is all about *principal*, right?

Money is made in a vacuum. It's created out of thin air when it's not backed by something. I do give back, and I do pay my taxes. Your sly way of reducing the argument into "Oh, he's selfish!!" is bullshit.