Dr Paul Tax Policy

[jsorens]

The President can't abolish programs unilaterally. Too many politically illiterate Americans seem to think the President is responsible for the state of the economy: he's not! Congress has supreme legislative authority. The President can veto things, but those vetos can be overridden, and the President can use executive orders to make administration more efficient. Importantly, the President can also control military operations (not really an authorized presidential function in the Constitution, but one that exists nonetheless).

Basically, a Ron Paul presidency would mean that for a few years, things might stop getting worse all the time, and the troops would come home. Unless two-thirds of Congress is mobilized against him - which I think is actually unlikely. Republican congressmen would not intentionally humiliate a Republican President without grave cause, no matter how much they might disagree with him, and Republicans are likely to hold at least one-third of the seats in at least one of the houses of Congress for the foreseeable future.

[J’raxis 270145]

The President can't abolish programs unilaterally. Too many politically illiterate Americans seem to think the President is responsible for the state of the economy: he's not! Congress has supreme legislative authority. The President can veto things, but those vetos can be overridden, and the President can use executive orders to make administration more efficient. Importantly, the President can also control military operations (not really an authorized presidential function in the Constitution, but one that exists nonetheless).

Basically, a Ron Paul presidency would mean that for a few years, things might stop getting worse all the time, and the troops would come home. Unless two-thirds of Congress is mobilized against him - which I think is actually unlikely. Republican congressmen would not intentionally humiliate a Republican President without grave cause, no matter how much they might disagree with him, and Republicans are likely to hold at least one-third of the seats in at least one of the houses of Congress for the foreseeable future.

Did you see the parts of this thread over here before it was forked off to this new thread? Was I missing or misunderstanding anything when I described one way in which a president could effectively de-fang the IRS?

[Braddogg]

It was a prediction, advertised as such, and I sought comment on the prediction.

And then you took offense at the comment.

Sure I did.  It was sarcastic and snarky, don't you agree?  I mean, Dreepa's been nothing but sarcastic, snarky, and destructive this entire thread. 

Me: I have a question about Dr Paul's tax policy.
Dreepa: Stop harassing the Ron Paul supporters.
Me: But . . . for real, what's he going to do?
Dreepa: He'll figure it out.
Me: But I don't think it's going to end well.
Dreepa:   Don't be a little bitch, at least he's doing something.
Me: I was making a prediction that the things he was doing weren't going to work.
Dreepa: So you're a Fascist-Commie?
Me: I find that irritating.
Dreepa: So you predict it, and it comes true?  Puh-leeze.
Me: Y'know, I find that irritating too.

I really don't think what I'm saying warrants this much hostility, Dreepa.  What do you think?

I'm not Dreepa, but I think Ron Paul doesn't deserve the kind of hostility you're displaying.

Tell me more.  Is it hostile to be persistent in asking tough questions of a candidate's supporters?  Is there something else I was doing on this thread?

Your avatar seems at odds with the opinions you've expressed lately.

How so?

[Braddogg]

He's got valid questions. I'll tell you what I've heard Dr. Paul say because he's been asked this question and he answered it.

He would end the Iraq war for one thing. <snip>

Now apparently there is a misconception that most of the federal money comes from income taxes. There are lots of other Federal taxes. What I just described is a big chunk o change, but it's still only a portion of what the Federal government takes in. I don't completely understand the federal budget. It's a bit overwhelming, but Dr. Paul seems to understand it. <snip>

Did you read the rest of this thread?

If Dr Paul were to eliminate the IRS (personal and corporate income tax), he would not have enough intake, if I'm reading the chart on the Government Printing Office website correctly.  In 2005, the US took in $23.3 billion in customs duties and fees and $22.5 billion in excise taxes (alcohol, tobacco, telephone, etc.).  That adds up to less than $50 billion.  In 2003, the US spent $318 billion servicing the national debt, according to the Brookings Institution's Tax Policy Center.  Am I missing something, or will Dr Paul have to drastically increase excise taxes and import/export duties (by more than sixfold!) just to service the national debt?

The numbers, near as I can tell, don't add up, and no one has pointed out an error in what I've said.  I mean, it is definitely possible that I misread a figure on a chart, or forgot to carry a 1 or something, but it seems like everyone who comes to this thread just sort of ignores what I'm saying and tells me that Dr Paul would cut programs and save money.  I'm saying that if he cuts the IRS, he'll have to increase excise taxes and customs duties by sixfold just to service the national debt.  It'll have to be more than that to pay for the programs Dr Paul would like to keep (like a small military/navy, like maintenance of our nuclear stock, like securing the borders).  So can you help me out, Dale?

[LordBaltimore]

The IRS takes hundreds of billions just to run (somewhere around $300-400 billion I believe).

The IRS budget is roughly $10 billion per year.

[LordBaltimore]

The President can't abolish programs unilaterally. Too many politically illiterate Americans seem to think the President is responsible for the state of the economy: he's not! Congress has supreme legislative authority. The President can veto things, but those vetos can be overridden, and the President can use executive orders to make administration more efficient. Importantly, the President can also control military operations (not really an authorized presidential function in the Constitution, but one that exists nonetheless).

Basically, a Ron Paul presidency would mean that for a few years, things might stop getting worse all the time, and the troops would come home. Unless two-thirds of Congress is mobilized against him - which I think is actually unlikely. Republican congressmen would not intentionally humiliate a Republican President without grave cause, no matter how much they might disagree with him, and Republicans are likely to hold at least one-third of the seats in at least one of the houses of Congress for the foreseeable future.

What he said.

[Dreepa]

Nice read on me Braddog.

I do think that your intent was just to play devil advocate which you seem to do a lot and that is why I moved it to here.  If someone said black you say white.
I never even knew that this was a thread that was split off.  I don't read the IRS vs Brown thread anymore.

I also answered you question about what I thought he might do.

I never called you a fascist commie... I said we will have choices of fascists (neocon GOP) and Commies (dems)

[Braddogg]

The first post in this thread I made featured quotes from another thread; didn't you find that indicative that I had split it off from somewhere?  Maybe I should have made it more explicit, though.

You agree that you were being very aggressive, sarcastic, snarky, and dismissive throughout this thread, right?  Your responses to my questions were flippant, proceeded by a rolling-eyes-smiley.  When I corrected your misunderstanding about one of my posts (I said a Paul presidency would result in riots, you asked if the Paul campaign had caused riots, and I corrected your understanding of what I said, and your response was that snarky comment about us needing another neocon or commie, which implied that I thought another fascist or commie would be better).  I mean, you don't owe me anything, but if you're going to respond to my questions, I'd expect a little more respect than that.  And if you don't think I deserve to be taken seriously and respectfully, after 1300 posts, then maybe you should just not respond at all.

[Dreepa]

ok I won't post in this thread anymore.

and for the record it is not me pinging your karma.

[dalebert]

Did you read the rest of this thread?

I've only read what's in this thread; not whatever you linked it from. I'll take a look at the numbers again. I'm going off of 2nd hand information that I may have misinterpreted.

For what it's worth, I don't think he's necessarily talking about ending corporate taxes. A corporation may be considered taxable as a privileged activity even without any changes to the original constitution. Also, keep in mind that a large reduction in taxes has traditionally resulted in an increase in government income, though it's not certain that the reduction is the cause and not some other coincidence.

For what it's worth, I think these are good Devil's advocate questions that we, as Ron Paul supporters, should be prepared to answer. You've encouraged me to investigate this more thoroughly. I gave you karma.

[Dan]

I listened to an hour's worth of Ron Paul interviews... I know somewhere I heard him address part of this.  I just can't find it.

As executive, he would direct the various depts to downsize.  Then cut the taxes.  He can abolish the fed before and during all of this.

Let's just keep it at abolishing the Federal Reserve.  Is that feasable?  It's been done twice before in this country.

In the meantime I'm going to find my favorite Government report: there is a financial statement prepared and given to the Senate complete with balance sheets and profit/loss statements, as absurd and disgusting as it sounds for an entity that "profits" from coercive deductions from paychecks.

[Dan]

Found it:
http://www.gao.gov/financial/fy2006/fy06financialstatements.pdf

[jsorens]

The President can't abolish programs unilaterally. Too many politically illiterate Americans seem to think the President is responsible for the state of the economy: he's not! Congress has supreme legislative authority. The President can veto things, but those vetos can be overridden, and the President can use executive orders to make administration more efficient. Importantly, the President can also control military operations (not really an authorized presidential function in the Constitution, but one that exists nonetheless).

Basically, a Ron Paul presidency would mean that for a few years, things might stop getting worse all the time, and the troops would come home. Unless two-thirds of Congress is mobilized against him - which I think is actually unlikely. Republican congressmen would not intentionally humiliate a Republican President without grave cause, no matter how much they might disagree with him, and Republicans are likely to hold at least one-third of the seats in at least one of the houses of Congress for the foreseeable future.

Did you see the parts of this thread over here before it was forked off to this new thread? Was I missing or misunderstanding anything when I described one way in which a president could effectively de-fang the IRS?

Thanks for the link... The President doesn't have the authority to de-fund or de-staff a program; Nixon tried to do that with "impoundment," but Congress passed a law essentially forbidding the practice. He could, to a point, re-organize the department & its methods in the field.

[LordBaltimore]

My response to you from the other thread.

The budget for the IRS is determined by Congress, not the President, and any executive level people that the President wants to put in place at the Treasury and the IRS have to be confirmed by Congress.  This is the system checks and balances designed by the Founding Fathers; the power of the President is severely restricted by Congress on purpose.

This is grade school civics.