News Ron Paul's Candidacy - Should You Vote For Him?

[mheslep]

A good argument can be made showing the majority of the rich in the US lean left based on political donations, at least they did 2008, if political donations are any indication of wealth.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2795048&postcount=89
There are certainly plenty of anecdotal examples circling the White House: Jeff Immelt, Buffet, the Solyndra investors, etc.

 

[Angry Citizen]

I believe he is what the country needs in today's world of prison sentences for a bag of weed, massive unsustainable military spending, infringements on human rights, and unprecedented debt (at least in total size of debt, I think some of Europe beat us to it in terms of percentage of GDP)

This is not accurate. The social democracies of Europe have significantly more liberal drug laws, significantly lower military spending, much greater respect for human rights, and the issue of debt will be resolved once the EU figures out that they're repeating the mistakes of the Articles-era US by keeping a loose, independent confederacy without the ability to tax and redistribute wealth among nations. Of course, one cannot help but mention the fact that most of Europe is better off about debt than we are, and the most left-wing among them (Scandinavia) have very little debt at all. The world needs social democracy, not Ron Paul's new neo-Gilded Age.

 

[Angry Citizen]

A good argument can be made showing the majority of the rich in the US lean left based on political donations, at least they did 2008, if political donations are any indication of wealth.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2795048&postcount=89
There are certainly plenty of anecdotal examples circling the White House: Jeff Immelt, Buffet, the Solyndra investors, etc.

Well, there's also T. Boone Pickens, the Koch Brothers, so on and so forth for the Republican side. I think the case is stronger that billionaires lean Republican. Of course, it's inconsequential given that both the Republicans and the Democrats are technically right wing parties according to any reasonable political spectrum.

 

[dydxforsn]

This is not accurate. The social democracies of Europe have significantly more liberal drug laws, significantly lower military spending, much greater respect for human rights, and the issue of debt will be resolved once the EU figures out that they're repeating the mistakes of the Articles-era US by keeping a loose, independent confederacy without the ability to tax and redistribute wealth among nations. Of course, one cannot help but mention the fact that most of Europe is better off about debt than we are, and the most left-wing among them (Scandinavia) have very little debt at all. The world needs social democracy, not Ron Paul's new neo-Gilded Age.

What I said is completely accurate.. You "disproved" me with a complete red herring and mentioned nothing that Ron Paul advocates or plans on doing if elected.

 

[Angry Citizen]

Besides the elimination of the Civil Rights Act, which would torpedo the whole 'human rights' thing? Besides return us to the gold standard which would instantly implode our economy into massive, irrecoverable debt? You're right, Obama advocates all the things you mentioned. But on some of them, his method of going about them would be horrifying and destructive.

 

[mheslep]

The hard left wing European state thing is all very 20th century.

Fewer and fewer European countries are run by left-leaning governments. Only five left now, and Scandinavia is not among them. Sweden peaked out its leftism back in the 70s. Its current government is looking for ways to cut taxes.

 

[Angry Citizen]

The hard left wing European state thing is all very 20th century.

Fewer and fewer European countries are run by left-leaning governments. Only five left now, and Scandinavia is not among them. Sweden peaked out its leftism back in the 70s. Its current government is looking for ways to cut taxes.

Hmm. And did someone say something about Europe drowning in debt? I wonder why...

Incidentally, I know for a fact Norway is run by a Labour/Socialist coalition as we speak.

Did some more research. Finland's parliament is comprised mostly of economic left wingers. Sweden is practically evenly split. Denmark's left is very likely to form a majority in the next election. France's Parti Socialiste will very likely see huge gains in the coming election, and I'll be a monkey's uncle if Sarkozy survives it.

You're right that the Reagan Revolution was worldwide. Thankfully, the world seems to be coming to its senses again.

 

[ThomasT]

... both the Republicans and the Democrats are technically right wing parties according to any reasonable political spectrum.

This is the way I see it also. They're alike in that they're status quo parties wrt most important issues. Paul seems to me to be the only major party candidate who represents a departure from and opposition to the status quo -- especially wrt the corporatization of America and American politics.

But while some of Paul's positions are inspiring, others seem to me to be naive and potentially quite harmful.

 

[Angry Citizen]

I've actually seen nothing in Ron Paul's repertoire of 19th century policies which leads me to believe he would do anything for campaign finance reform. It would be government regulation, and he would be against it. If you have something to suggest otherwise, I would actually like to hear it.

 

[ThomasT]

I've actually seen nothing in Ron Paul's repertoire of 19th century policies which leads me to believe he would do anything for campaign finance reform. It would be government regulation, and he would be against it. If you have something to suggest otherwise, I would actually like to hear it.

I think that this might be one of the areas where Paul is, imo, naive to a fault, and where he's effectively not a man of and for the people. But this is a question that I haven't yet answered for myself. Any input is appreciated.

 

[dydxforsn]

Besides the elimination of the Civil Rights Act, which would torpedo the whole 'human rights' thing? Besides return us to the gold standard which would instantly implode our economy into massive, irrecoverable debt? You're right, Obama advocates all the things you mentioned. But on some of them, his method of going about them would be horrifying and destructive.

Now that's a better reply than your first. I think those would be weak points of his, but then again every candidate has weak points. In many ways being a libertarian would help reduce our federal debt and prevent civil liberty from being taken (I guess I meant "liberties" earlier when I said "rights", though I'm not sure what the difference is.) This point is obvious so I'm not going to go into any more detail.

I guess what I said is not "completely accurate" as I said, I apologize for that, but still I think overall he is the best of the republican candidates. I'm a moderate, but if there is not more radical spending cuts and downsizing in the government (this includes military spending), I don't believe we will be able to cut a radical debt. I feel Ron Paul will do this the best, seeing as how other candidates probably won't even touch military spending, which is an unbelievable sink of money, especially when so much military spending goes to international companies and isn't quite the stimulus to the economy that it once was.

I'm assuming "Obama" was a typo.

 

[Angry Citizen]

Now that's a better reply than your first. I think those would be weak points of his, but then again every candidate has weak points. In many ways being a libertarian would help reduce our federal debt and prevent civil liberty from being taken (I guess I meant "liberties" earlier when I said "rights", though I'm not sure what the difference is.) This point is obvious so I'm not going to go into any more detail.

I guess what I said is not "completely accurate" as I said, I apologize for that, but still I think overall he is the best of the republican candidates. I'm a moderate, but if there is not more radical spending cuts and downsizing in the government (this includes military spending), I don't believe we will be able to cut a radical debt. I feel Ron Paul will do this the best, seeing as how other candidates probably won't even touch military spending, which is an unbelievable sink of money, especially when so much military spending goes to international companies and isn't quite the stimulus to the economy that it once was.

I'm assuming "Obama" was a typo.

Yes, it was a typo, my apologies. No idea how that snuck in there.

I agree that Ron Paul is by far the best of the Republican candidates (not that that's saying much), but I can't say as I agree that the debt is the huge problem you believe it is. No one's going to let us default (except apparently the Republican Congress - what in god's name were they thinking...), because if we default, the economic foundation of the world - the dollar - will collapse.

Six things need to happen to fix the American economy in perpetuity. 1) Cut the military budget by half (gradually, over about ten years). 2) Restore Kennedy-era taxation on the rich (approximately double what it is now). 3) Cut corporate taxes to about 20%-25%, and close loopholes. 4) Protect unions by nullifying all Right To Work legislation. 5) Engage in shameless protectionism against China and other countries engaging in immoral labor practices. 6) Single-Payer healthcare. ObamaCare is an interesting approach, but I believe that maintaining the profit incentive will only lead to greater expense.

Frankly, the debt will take care of itself with such a leftward shift. Again, I point to the fact that the EU debt average is much lower than ours as a ratio of GDP, and that more left-wing economies like Scandinavia's is doing very well with regard to debt.

 

[mheslep]

Deficit predicted to be another $1.1 billion again next year.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3737513&postcount=101

Suggesting that a balance budget can be achieved by cutting the defense budget in half (which I ~favor over time) and raising taxes on the rich, even immediately, is at war with simple math. If spending reduction action is not taken within the next several years, something akin to Simpson Bowles or what Paul proposes, then a return to historic interest rates on the debt will explode interest payments. In that case wiping out US defense spending entirely will not balance the budget.

 

[Angry Citizen]

Deficit predicted to be another $1.1 billion again next year.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3737513&postcount=101

Suggesting that a balance budget can be achieved by cutting the defense budget in half (which I ~favor over time) and raising taxes on the rich, even immediately, is at war with simple math. If spending reduction action is not taken within the next several years, something akin to Simpson Bowles or what Paul proposes, then a return to historic interest rates on the debt will explode interest payments. In that case wiping out US defense spending entirely will not balance the budget.

Deficit is predicted to be about $600 billion in FY 2015. Advocates of austerity always fail to conduct appropriate research.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=&chart=G0-fed&units=b

 

[Dotini]

I agree that Ron Paul is by far the best of the Republican candidates (not that that's saying much), but I can't say as I agree that the debt is the huge problem you believe it is. No one's going to let us default (except apparently the Republican Congress - what in god's name were they thinking...), because if we default, the economic foundation of the world - the dollar - will collapse.

Deficit predicted to be another $1.1 Trillion again next year.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3737513&postcount=101

Suggesting that a balance budget can be achieved by cutting the defense budget in half (which I ~favor over time) and raising taxes on the rich, even immediately, is at war with simple math. If spending reduction action is not taken within the next several years, something akin to Simpson Bowles or what Paul proposes, then a return to historic interest rates on the debt will explode interest payments. In that case wiping out US defense spending entirely will not balance the budget.

If the debt and deficit are not addressed, we will be eaten alive by interest payments.

"If you are broke and fighting, nothing else matters."
Ron Paul, bless his heart, addresses the issues of war and debt like no one else does, honestly and fearlessly. The others are all lying in order to get elected. War and debt is potentially an existential problem. Social and cultural issues pale into insignificance at such a time. Maybe Ron Paul is a crank. I've met him and I don't think so. But even if he is, to ignore his message on the importance of war and debt is to put our lives and fortunes into the gravest conceivable jeopardy.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[Angry Citizen]

Ron Paul, bless his heart, addresses the issues of war and debt like no one else does, honestly and fearlessly. The others are all lying in order to get elected. War and debt is potentially an existential problem. Social and cultural issues pale into insignificance at such a time. Maybe Ron Paul is a crank. I've met him and I don't think so. But even if he is, to ignore his message on the importance of war and debt is to put our lives and fortunes into the gravest conceivable jeopardy.

I'll risk it rather than elect a man who would return us to the 19th century. Sure, debt was very low back then, but would anyone really want the work conditions experienced during the Gilded Age? The level of wealth inequality? The monopolies spreading like a cancer?

I have no doubt that Ron Paul is a man of principle. But a man of principle can still have wrong principles. Ron Paul's principles are overwhelmingly wrong, save for some nuggets of common sense on the social and foreign policy fronts.

 

[mheslep]

Deficit is predicted to be about $600 billion in FY 2015. Advocates of austerity always fail to conduct appropriate research.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=&chart=G0-fed&units=b

Is that what you assert you have done there, conduct appropriate research? That FY 2015 estimate comes from the White House (table 1-1), which more than a little bets on increased revenue from economic growth. On what basis do you consider it reliable, or even plausible?

 

[Dotini]

I'll risk it rather than elect a man who would return us to the 19th century. Sure, debt was very low back then, but would anyone really want the work conditions experienced during the Gilded Age? The level of wealth inequality? The monopolies spreading like a cancer?

I have no doubt that Ron Paul is a man of principle. But a man of principle can still have wrong principles. Ron Paul's principles are overwhelmingly wrong, save for some nuggets of common sense on the social and foreign policy fronts.

Paul would not return us the the 19th century...maybe the 18th :)
Perhaps man has devolved since the apex of the enlightenment, or Age of Reason.

But no man, not Ron Paul, Nikola Tesla, Jules Verne nor anyone else can turn back the hands of time.

The other jerks out there lack even common sense. Through their senseless wars and heedless spending do they send us to moral ruin and financial poverty - worse than the 19th century!

Respectfully,
Steve

 

[Angry Citizen]

It makes perfect sense, actually. The economy will recover - it always does. The Bush Tax Cuts will expire (which is also something being considered in that figure, I believe, given that they expire this January and Obama isn't going to sign an extension of them). The extra revenue from ObamaCare will be factored in. All of this will happen within the next few years. But regardless, if you're going to question government sources regarding government debt, then I don't think there's much hope in any conversation.

 

[mheslep]

It makes perfect sense, actually. The economy will recover - it always does.

Over what time line? Ten years, as in the depression, or as in Japan, or as in Italy? Source please?

The Bush Tax Cuts will expire (which is also something being considered in that figure, I believe, given that they expire this January and Obama isn't going to sign an extension of them). The extra revenue from ObamaCare will be factored in.

Obama said he would not raise taxes, at all, on those making less than $250K/yr.

All of this will happen within the next few years. But regardless, if you're going to question government sources regarding government debt, then I don't think there's much hope in any conversation.

There are relatively independent government sources such as the CBO, there is the reporting of past and existing known data, and then there are future 'predictions' from blatant political government sources such as this White House's OMB. They are not all the same thing.

 

[jduster]

I guess I will diverge from most of the internet which seems to be infatuated with Congressman Paul.

1. Ron Paul will not win the nomination.
After each victory, the Paul camp makes false projections and after each setback they move their goalpost. The only reason Paul was successful early on was because the majority of Republican voters (who Paul would probably call "establishment" or "neocon") were divided among 5+ other candidates. Once Bachmann, Perry, Huntsman dropped, it is now apparent that with the weaker candidates gone, their votes went into Romney/Gingrich - not Paul.

2. His views are extreme/wrong
It's one thing to hear a speech on Iraq, the federal reserve or the bailouts and praise him, but his views go beyond that. He wants to end Medicaid, Medicare, food stamps, and student aid. He wants heroin and cocaine legal. He wants the wealthiest people in society to pay 0% in taxes.

 

[SHISHKABOB]

I find bits and pieces of Ron Paul's positions to be attractive, but when all of them are put together I get really put off. I don't think I like him.

 

[jduster]

I find bits and pieces of Ron Paul's positions to be attractive, but when all of them are put together I get really put off. I don't think I like him.

Yes. That's my overall point.

I've had many Democrats say they like Ron Paul until I told him he wanted to eliminate food stamps and taxes for the wealthy.

 

[ginru]

I've had many Democrats say they like Ron Paul until I told him he wanted to eliminate food stamps and taxes for the wealthy.

This doesn't surprise me as I used to be one of those Democrats until I became so disillusioned with the status quo and shifted more towards being libertarian. I actually agree with much of Ron Paul's idealistic craziness because to me it's an overall "1-step back, 2-steps forward" type of deal. The problem is he can only articulate the back step in his clumsy, old-fashioned way and somehow believes the American People will rise to the challenge of moving forward from the comfy nest of Big Government. Call it naive, but I still agree with him that we have that potential in us even if it's not easy to envision it.

 

[Angry Citizen]

Over what time line? Ten years, as in the depression, or as in Japan, or as in Italy? Source please?

Well, I could provide a source, but it would almost certainly be biased one way or another. I have no idea with what timeline it'll occur. But it will occur.

Obama said he would not raise taxes, at all, on those making less than $250K/yr.

When people refer to the Bush Tax Cuts, they're generally referring to the portion given to the rich. Obama has expressed the desire to maintain the cuts for those making less than 250k/yr, but I don't think there will ever be another deal like the one made in 2010. The tax cuts will expire. They can be reenacted if the Republicans take over again, but I find that a hopelessly naive proposition. The Republicans are doomed this election, especially if unemployment dips below 8%.

There are relatively independent government sources such as the CBO, there is the reporting of past and existing known data, and then there are future 'predictions' from blatant political government sources such as this White House's OMB. They are not all the same thing.

Ignore it if you wish. Shout conspiracies if you wish. I used to be like that, a conservative trying to explain numbers away... Then I decided to stop losing debates. *shrug*

 

[Angry Citizen]

This doesn't surprise me as I used to be one of those Democrats until I became so disillusioned with the status quo and shifted more towards being libertarian. I actually agree with much of Ron Paul's idealistic craziness because to me it's an overall "1-step back, 2-steps forward" type of deal. The problem is he can only articulate the back step in his clumsy, old-fashioned way and somehow believes the American People will rise to the challenge of moving forward from the comfy nest of Big Government. Call it naive, but I still agree with him that we have that potential in us even if it's not easy to envision it.

Funny story. In my slow but steady transition from a youthful, idealistic conservative to a (more) mature, pragmatic social democrat, I went through a libertarian phase. I understand the appeal of small government. But it's a fantasy - a fantasy that results in the Gilded Age and the Great Depression. We've tried Ron Paul before. It didn't work. That's why we had the New Deal and the Progressive Era.

 

[ginru]

Funny story. In my slow but steady transition from a youthful, idealistic conservative to a (more) mature, pragmatic social democrat, I went through a libertarian phase. I understand the appeal of small government. But it's a fantasy - a fantasy that results in the Gilded Age and the Great Depression. We've tried Ron Paul before. It didn't work. That's why we had the New Deal and the Progressive Era.

I see the Internet as the game-changer that empowers the people to a degree where they can create dynamic and more adaptive models for themselves. Perhaps my disgust with partisan bickering is nothing new, but my hope has turned to technology and peoples' innovative use of it as the path forward. We see a little of it in the use of social media, forums and networking to circumvent the mainstream media bias. One might have also said trying to topple Middle Eastern regimes through social networked mobilization would be a hopeless endeavor before it actually worked. I feel we're in a time where the status quo of stagnant models is being effectively questioned and I'm looking forward to where it all takes us as I believe we haven't yet seen this generation's full potential.

 

[Jasongreat]

Funny story. In my slow but steady transition from a youthful, idealistic conservative to a (more) mature, pragmatic social democrat, I went through a libertarian phase. I understand the appeal of small government. But it's a fantasy - a fantasy that results in the Gilded Age and the Great Depression. We've tried Ron Paul before. It didn't work. That's why we had the New Deal and the Progressive Era.

We've tried Ron Pauls policies in the past, like the Washington presidency, the Jefferson presidency, the madison presidency, the monroe presidency, the Coolidge presidency(not a complete list, just the high notes). We have tried the big government solution far more, Adams, Adams, Lincoln, Grant, Teddy, Woodrow, Hoover, FDR, Eisenhower, Reagan, Bush's, Obama(Again not a complete list). I will take the formers results over the latters any day.

I find it rather amusing when people who consider themselves conservative, claim their lineage is Hamilton, Lincoln and Teddy. One was a well known Nationalist, the second concreted the idea of one nation through a bloody war fought against their neighbors, as well as implementing the income tax. He was a Radical Republican, Imo, one is either a radical or a conservative but can never be both. The last, the father of the modern progressive movement(ever read the promise of american life by herbert crowly?), who's crowning achievement was confiscation of land from western states, land which they had settled. Imo, these beliefs are an indictment of the public school system, which instead of teaching history, teach progressive water downed pollitically correct half truths as fact. A republican should be for state rights, Ron Paul is the only Republican with a complete faith in a republic.

Edit: Some of the faulty (anti-american ideals)history being taught(IMO)(again not a complete list):
A non-interventionist = an isolationist, the civil war was fought to end slavery, that our founders founded a nation, that the US is a Democracy and not a reprentative constitutional republic. That the Federalists were right, since we now have over two hundred years of history which prove most of the anti-federalist claims were spot on. That our government is not a voluntary agreement, one which can be negated at any time by any member for reasons of non-compliance by other members of the federal government itself. That our government can do anything the people want, without ammending the constitution. That the constitution controls what the people may do instead of controlling what the government may do. That anyone supporting state rights is a racist. That the constitution is our founding document, instead of the Declaration of Independence. That a strong imperialistic posture, was what our founders wanted, when they mentioned national defense(a huge faux paux, since it was the imperialistic policies of the british government our founders revolted against,imo).

 

[Angry Citizen]

We've tried Ron Pauls policies in the past, like the Washington presidency, the Jefferson presidency, the madison presidency, the monroe presidency, the Coolidge presidency(not a complete list, just the high notes). We have tried the big government solution far more, Adams, Adams, Lincoln, Grant, Teddy, Woodrow, Hoover, FDR, Eisenhower, Reagan, Bush's, Obama(Again not a complete list). I will take the formers results over the latters any day.

Misconceptions everywhere. For "big government" you are seriously considering Hoover to be a big government guy? He did nothing when the economy started collapsing.

As for Thomas Jefferson, this man made a purchase of territory without consent of Congress for a very large sum of money.

I would urge you to reexamine your history and note that the "small government folks" had enormous problems of their own, and that most of them participated in a decentralized, agrarian economy that hasn't existed in America for well over a century. Back in Monroe's days, we didn't have companies wanting to pour toxic contaminants into our soil. But we did have absurdly rich people, and the level of income inequality back then showed its effects in many ways. The populace was kept ignorant and relatively destitute for a very long time until government began to intervene. No, my friend, government has a huge role to play, and its positive effects have been shown throughout history.

He was a Radical Republican, Imo, one is either a radical or a conservative but can never be both.

Just so you're aware, the Republicans were once the party of Big Government Solutions. There's a distinct reason why the Democrats once ruled the south and the Republicans once ruled the north, and civil rights doesn't explain half of it. The parties have essentially switched themselves on the ideological spectrum since their creation.

Ron Paul is the only Republican with a complete faith in a republic.

In a confederacy, you mean. Even when I was a libertarian, I couldn't stand the notion of states' rights. It is such a meaningless distinction, and from an efficiency standpoint is incredibly poor. Federalism/devolution is for the birds.

Some of the faulty (anti-american ideals)history being taught(IMO)

I'm glad you represent this position as "IMO", given that it is essentially false to the letter.

 

[Jasongreat]

=Angry Citizen]Misconceptions everywhere. For "big government" you are seriously considering Hoover to be a big government guy? He did nothing when the economy started collapsing.

Yes, Hoover was a big spending Republican, There were quite a few times, IIRC, that FDR stated that what he was doing was no differnt than hoover did, so he didnt understand why conservatives were upset about his policies. Calvin Coolidge made a statement to the effect that I have never been a spender, if you want a spender I am not your man, Hoover was then elected.

As for Thomas Jefferson, this man made a purchase of territory without consent of Congress for a very large sum of money.

So true, he was also wanting to get a constitutional ammendment passed to make it constitutional, however Madison urged him that it was alright to do without the ammendment, and that by the time an ammendment was passed it may be too late as they were getting quite the deal. I wonder what is a better unconstutional use of government, buying a huge track of land that our country has profited off ever since, or FDRs policies, we have been paying for ever since, I will take an asset over a liability any day of the week.

I would urge you to reexamine your history and note that the "small government folks" had enormous problems of their own, and that most of them participated in a decentralized, agrarian economy that hasn't existed in America for well over a century. Back in Monroe's days, we didn't have companies wanting to pour toxic contaminants into our soil. But we did have absurdly rich people, and the level of income inequality back then showed its effects in many ways. The populace was kept ignorant and relatively destitute for a very long time until government began to intervene. No, my friend, government has a huge role to play, and its positive effects have been shown throughout history.

I agree government has a role to play, Paul and his supporters are not anarchists, it has a role well defined in a thing called the constitution and it doesn't matter wether we are in an agrarian society or a manufacturing society, a technical society, or a service society.

Just so you're aware, the Republicans were once the party of Big Government Solutions. There's a distinct reason why the Democrats once ruled the south and the Republicans once ruled the north, and civil rights doesn't explain half of it. The parties have essentially switched themselves on the ideological spectrum since their creation.

I am well aware, that what was once called a classical liberal is now called a libertarian or anarchist, and that those who support larger government are called Republicans and Democrats.

In a confederacy, you mean. Even when I was a libertarian, I couldn't stand the notion of states' rights. It is such a meaningless distinction, and from an efficiency standpoint is incredibly poor. Federalism/devolution is for the birds.

State rights was the base of our government, and I believe can be again. In a federlist/republican system each state is free to do whatever they want, except for those things enumerated to the federal government in the constitution such as defense, treaties, etc;. In doing so we would have fifty different tries at solving our problems, if one state becomes oppressive we are free to move to another state where we may find a better fit, if one state finds a solution others are free to follow or to tweak it to their beliefs. When we are formed as a nation, and everything gets settled at the national level, we get one try to solve a problem, if we don't like the outcome we are stuck with it since how are we going to vote with our feet? Where else is there to go? I like how some think that it is more efficient to take money from the states, send it to washington, pay the beaurocrats, than send what's left back to the state. Wouldnt it be more efficient to leave the whole amount in the state, for those citizens to do as they will. The only thing a national government is more efficient at is force.

I'm glad you represent this position as "IMO", given that it is essentially false to the letter

.

Just because it is my opinion doesn't mean it is wrong. However since you stated(and not an IMO) that it was essentially false I would like to see some support of that. Perhaps you can change my opinion, it is definitely not the same one I started with 30 years ago, and I am sure it will still be modified again before I die, please help me with that, if you will.