I must admit that I don’t know for a fact the details of Ron’s plan for the returning troops. I know that securing the borders is one of his priorities, so I suppose that many of them would be employed there. The rest would do the same thing that they do now, when they’re not in combat. (Not sure what that is.)

It seems that you envision 1/2 million troops being “dumped” onto the streets in a short period of time, but I don’t think this is a realistic expectation. Closing down bases, relocating hundreds of thousands of troops, moving their families, and recovering tons of government assets are things that take significant time and effort. As I said before, I think the reductions will be accomplished over several years by normal attrition, through expiring contracts and reduced recruiting. What will they do after being discharged? The same thing they do now: get a job or go to school.

I assume you refer to the economic effect, and I certainly am no expert in this area. However, I suppose that 1/2 million people contributing to a productive economy, instead of draining it, will have positive results.

Well… How? Other politicians bid for your vote with tax schemes that attempt to shift the taxes to “the other guy.” Ultimately, we all still feel the weight of the tax burden, even if it’s not coming directly out of our paycheck. The only way to reduce the tax burden is to reduce spending. The only way to reduce spending is to shrink the government where we can and make it more efficient where we cannot. One way of improving efficiency is to return control to the source of the revenue. Smaller, more localized governments do this better than their larger, broader-reaching counterparts.

This is not what we are selling, this is the way things are NOW. The DOE can’t cure the problems in our schools–it created them! Consider why it is that private schools are so much better than public ones. At first one might jump to the conclusion that it’s because they have more money, but this is demonstrably false. First, some private schools have tighter budgets than public ones and still produce better results. Second, over the last century, public school performance has fallen while the money spent per student has steadily risen, even after adjusting for inflation.

So if money is not the answer, then what is? Control. The private schools are not controlled by centralized government; they are controlled by the parents. Competition. If performance falters, the kids and the money will go elsewhere. Contrast this with public education where politicians in Washington historically reward poor performance with more money. Discipline. Without DOE at the reins, private schools have much more latitude in this area.

Why should we prefer the one-size-fits-all model of centralized government? What inherent advantages does it possess? Shouldn’t we try to move toward the exact opposite–the decentralized “private school” model? Shouldn’t we move toward the things that are working and have worked in the past–while shying away from the thing that does not seem to be working?

I’m glad that, in your last paragraph, we’ve found some common ground! I agree that we need a strong military and we need whatever secret weapons they are probably working on right now. But the strength of our military and the associated spending must be modulated by the strength of our economy. As sure as the laws of physics are the laws of economics. We can not continue forever to spend beyond our means and devalue our currency. From Rome to the Soviet Union, history is full of great nations and empires that collapsed, not from a lack of military power, but by financial disaster. This danger is just as real as terrorists and rogue nuclear powers. If we are not prudent, we might find ourselves auctioning off those stealth bombers to our enemies–just like the Soviets did with their once-prized military hardware.

I’d like to remind you that we are not a democracy, but a constitutional republic – and law no longer stands in the way of these people having control – because they are now making the law. And they are creating the money.
Our law is no longer for the protection of the people and their property, which is the reason laws are created in a free society. Our laws are now weapons of plunder to effectively remove our property and our rights. The interest we pay on every loan is essentially a tax. In every way, these people are now in control.

We must abolish every bit of socialist legislation which takes from one person or group and gives to another by force of law, as well as abolish the Fed, the IRS and the income tax. I also think personally, we should send these people to the guillotine for the ruination and despair they have caused this country and the world with their greed and inhumanity.

I suggest reading or listening to Frederic Bastiat’s ‘The Law’, written in 1850 – and amazingly relevant today – http://www.hearliberty.com/thelaw.mp3
and then pass it along.

Thanks for your lengthy discussion.

If we start with the simple fact that Ron Paul would like to bring everybody in the military home. This is a great thing. What do we do with the half million men and women when they get here? Are you going to honorably discharge all of them into the work force? What effect is this going to have?

I would disagree with the thought that we can’t have tax reform without reducing the size of government. Of course, we can.

Everyone talks about cutting spending but the only thing that ever gets cut are programs that help the poor. Ron Paul has talked about eliminating the department of education. This is a non-starter for me. I would prefer to cut everything else and improve the department of education. I reject the argument that states should handle their own education. Look at Mississippi and anywhere in the northeast. In Mississippi the rich send their kids to private school and allow everyone else to wallow in stupidity. If this is what you are selling, I ain’t buying it.

Cutting military spending is a great idea but the average joe ain’t buying it either. I have long conversations with doctors and nurses on stealth planes. I have explained that no one in the world has a radar that can detect our first generation stealth planes. So, do we need to spend billions developing a second generation? The answer is always – yes. So, then I mention that not one stealth plane has ever been shot down by radar. Then I ask do we need to develop a third generation of stealth planes? Everyone says yes. I ask why. Here’s the meat of the problem – We can never be too safe. With that kind of mentality you can’t significantly cut defense spending. Without that, you are dead in the water.

Thanks again for your comments.

“What are you going to do with a half-million troops that you bring home from abroad? Honorable discharge?”

The military uses 2-6 year contracts; the necessary troop reductions could be accomplished within a single Presidential term simply by reducing our recruitment efforts.

19% goes to social programs, 12% to “physical, human, and community development.” In my opinion, most of these programs don’t belong in our federal budget at all, but even modest reductions would balance the budget (when combined with the defense cuts.)
8% goes to net interest on the debt. In the long term, this could be eliminated by paying off the debt.
The remaining 36% goes to Social Security, Medicare, and other retirement programs–that nobody in there right mind would pay for if they had a choice. However, these are mostly funded by their own taxes (not income tax) so I’ll leave them alone here.

“The fact that the United States existed for over 150 years without income tax, is not the issue.”

Certainly, past precedence alone should not determine our future course, but I think that by way of reason (and math) it’s shown that eliminating the income tax is both feasible and desirable.

“This simple logic seems to make sense on the surface but if you look over the last 50 years at the problems that have divided our nation like civil rights.”
Ron Paul and I advocate reducing the size of the government not it’s power to enforce the law. Protecting the rights of individuals, without regard to the state in which they reside, is the primary responsibility of the federal government. Only 2% of current spending is used for this purpose, so eliminating the income tax would not interfere with the governments ability to attend these important duties.

“He is fighting a battle that Thomas Jefferson lost to Alexander Hamilton and George Washington over 200 years ago.”

This doesn’t seem accurate. Ron Paul whole-heartedly supports the Constitution. In fact, one might say that this single quality defines him. Alexander Hamilton was one of the most vocal advocates for the same Constitution. He wrote the majority of 85 articles (The Federalist Papers) urging the people of the several states to ratify the Constitution. If Hamilton were alive today, I suppose that he and Ron Paul would be in total agreement on these issues.

“Maybe I missed it but nowhere in the constitution have I been able to find any mention of the size of government.”

True, but neither do I find mention of Social Security, Medicare, community/social development programs, (non-general) welfare, farm subsidies, rail subsidies, corporate bail-outs, DEA, FDA, DOE, undeclared wars, and a host of other federal activities that currently consume our hard-earned wages and increase our debt. The “Constitutional size” of the federal government is the size which is necessary for exercising the powers given to it by the people and specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
Despite all the healthy discourse about cutting/eliminating/overhauling taxes, many people fail to realize the importance of cutting spending. Many politicians talk of cutting taxes, but few want to address the underlying problem, which is out-of-control spending. True tax reform is impossible without significantly reducing the size of the government. Fortunately, most of the spending that needs to be cut will never be missed by you and me.

Thanks for the links. I have seen these videos. There is no doubt that some elites want complete control of money and power. Democracy stands in their way.

I’m not sure about your statement that the constitution and the internet are 2 different things. I guess I don’t know what you mean.

thanks for your comments.

America: Freedom to Fascism

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173

ENDGAME

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1070329053600562261

I seriously think that the internet and constitution are two VERY different things..