Questions about Ron Paul

[andiWon]

Hello community of Ron Paul Forums. About 14 days ago, after waiting about two weeks for my account to get verified, I posted up some questions I had about Ron Paul on ronpaulforum.com (not forumS). Well, since my questions are still unanswered (there seems to be very little activity on that site), I have decided to post them here in hopes that my questions will be answered. Now while I know that Ron Paul is no longer in the campaign, I am still interested in his views.


Hello community of the Ron Paul Forum (wow never thought my screen name would ever have gotten validated :)).

My name is Andi (no my last name isn't Won; play of words: Andi won/And I won) and I'm currently a junior in high school. I heard about Ron Paul once very early in the year on Nickelodeon http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x19drkJwBjk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x19drkJwBjk)but then I quickly disregarded him (I bet you can guess what my youtube screen name is from the comments). I never heard from him and again and forgot him. It wasn't until the summer (while procrastinating on homework) on the 14th of July that I "re-found" him on the internet. Up until then I simply did not care for the election. I simply knew that Obama, the socialist, would likely win (since it's cool to vote for the black guy, who's half white (something people disregard), even if you don't know what he stands for; seriously, I bet if Obama looked more white, or was full white, he wouldn’t have gotten this far) over McCain, the warmonger. So I guess I can say like many others: "Ron Paul cured my apathy." I spent the majority of my summer trying to find out more about Ron Paul while becoming more and more engrossed with what he stood for. Unfortunately, he apparently suspended his campaign about a month and a day before I found out about him. However, I still want to understand more about what he stood for and what he was going to do.

So here are some questions I have for what Ron Paul says he’ll do.He says he will abolish the IRS and income tax. I don’t know much about taxes, but I’ve heard income tax makes about half of the federal revenues. How will the government pay for all of its services to the public like creating/fixing roads and the like? He says he’ll do this by cutting the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, Department of Homeland Security.

Now, I understand the Department of Homeland Security and I’m not exactly sure what the Department of Energy is (does it regulate electrical energy or is it about nuclear safety?), but the Department of Education? Does that mean all of the public schools and the teachers will be fired? Or is he planning on getting rid of it as a “federal” agency and making only state government regulate education. If so, how will he do that?

Back to income tax. Is that the same as social security tax? If it is then if Ron Paul gets rid of it, how will the retired people get their pensions? I quote Mr. Paul, “Most Americans already know that Social Security is in trouble. Demographic shifts and an aging population have undermined the unspoken foundation of the system, which is the practice of taxing younger generations to pay benefits for current retirees.” So if the younger generations suddenly stop paying social security, the senior citizens will get nothing? And what happened to the people that aren’t yet retired but already paid social security tax? I mean I understand that if there was no social security in the first place, everything would be a lot better (people would pay for a retirement insurance which will be much better), but we already have one. What would he do to get us out?

On his sound money: I heard that he wants to introduce back a gold standard. How will he do this, will he hand out gold and silver coins? What will happen to the paper money that people have saved? How will he back it up if America is so in debt? And until right now—while writing this—I was fully for the gold standard if the prior mentioned issues were given a good answer. But then as a I just found from a site http://www.mcn.org/e/iii/blog/2007/08/blog_08_22_2007.html
“Ron Paul proposes to fix the problem of gold by allowing the value of gold relative to silver to float in value as determined by markets shows how far his mind has wandered from reality. This was a real issue in the U.S. in the 1880's. The Democratic Party, having lost the Civil War (it was the party of Slavery), tried to get back in power at a national level by changing the official silver-to-gold exchange ratio, as exemplified in (losing) presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan's famous Cross of Gold speech. The problem with gold and silver used as money lies not in their exchange ratio, but in the fact that the supply from mining varies over time and does not match the variation in economic activity.

So forget the gold standard.

Ron Paul does remind us that the U.S. Constitution does not clearly allow for paper money, much less authorize the Federal Reserve System. It specifically states in Article I, Section 10 "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts." However, here "state" is specifically one of the states, not the federal government. In Section 8 it had already given Congress the power "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;" which seems to give it the power to issue securities, which could be bonds, but has been interpreted as the ability to issue paper money. Why allow issuance of federal paper money and then prohibit the states from accepting it for the payment of debts? This issue was got around for a time by issuing paper money backed by gold or silver. As in so many cases, when the Constitution should have been amended, it was simply re-interpreted." So I’m not as sure about it. I’m definitely not for the Federal Reserve though.

I’m sure that I have a lot more questions about Ron Paul, but when I remember then I’ll ask again. I’m sorry if I wrongly assumed anything. Thanks to anyone who replies.

Also, I’m really sorry if my grammar is off (English is my second language).
Extra background info about myself:

My parents are independents (they voted for our republican governor for her 2 terms—Hawaii, yet they wanted Clinton over Obama and the republicans; right now they are unsure)

My parents were Vietnamese immigrants who are now citizens.

When I was younger (elementary-middle) I liked democrats simply because I was idealistic (before I understood the economy and how horrible the majority of the lower class were).

I guess I consider myself an independent but if the true Republican Party is really as Ron Paul said it is, I guess I’m republican. But just because I’m republican, doesn’t mean I’ll follow it blindly.

Before I found out about Ron Paul, I was already a supporter of a laissez-faire type market. I was also influenced by the works of the philosopher Ayn Rand.

The works of Ayn Rand changed me radically (no, I’m not a complete Randoid or Objectivist; they’re a bit extreme). I guess you can say that’s why Ron Paul appealed to me (they share similar ideals but he’s more libertarian, another term I didn’t know of before I found out about Ron Paul).

Thanks again!:)

Thanks for any answers.
Extra info:
I've recently turned 16. Still too young to vote :(
Sorry for my horrendous grammar. That post at ronpaulforums.com was partly rushed.

EDIT: Holy crap, I've just realized there's an issue thread here. Sorry if I broke any rules.

[Kotin]

some short answers for a couple..


he wants to get rid of the Federal Department of Education which is a failed bureaucracy that dictates what all schools can teach and how they do things, he will do this so local school districts get the power back to make decisions instead of politicians. no teachers will be fired or anything. teachers want this to and it used to be a huge plank of the Republican Party and still is I think..

on the income tax.. if we repeal the income tax the Government will get as much revenue as they did 10 years ago. so its completely feasible to do. the trick is to also reduce spending when abolishing the income tax.


and as the Gold Standard.. it would not be possible to go back to a complete gold standard and certainly not right away, but what Dr.Paul wants to do and really is the only major step he would take right away is to introduce competing currencies, which means you can use gold or silver etc.. and arent bound to the dollar. so he wont do anything radical like some would have you believe. he just wants to get rid of the stranglehold the Federal Reserve has on our country.

[heavenlyboy34]

some short answers for a couple..


and as the Gold Standard.. it would not be possible to go back to a complete gold standard and certainly not right away, but what Dr.Paul wants to do and really is the only major step he would take right away is to introduce competing currencies, which means you can use gold or silver etc.. and arent bound to the dollar. so he wont do anything radical like some would have you believe. he just wants to get rid of the stranglehold the Federal Reserve has on our country.

He has said that the current spending policies make a gold standard impractical. He has also said that a return to sound money and fiscal policy is ideal. Remember also that RP wrote a book on this-"The Case For Gold"-in addition to many essays. (See the Ron Paul Library on lewrockwell.com and the Mises Institute's site)

[berrybunches]

Hi welcome to the forums! I will attempt to address your concerns below.


So here are some questions I have for what Ron Paul says he’ll do.He says he will abolish the IRS and income tax. I don’t know much about taxes, but I’ve heard income tax makes about half of the federal revenues. How will the government pay for all of its services to the public like creating/fixing roads and the like? He says he’ll do this by cutting the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, Department of Homeland Security.

Now, I understand the Department of Homeland Security and I’m not exactly sure what the Department of Energy is (does it regulate electrical energy or is it about nuclear safety?), but the Department of Education? Does that mean all of the public schools and the teachers will be fired? Or is he planning on getting rid of it as a “federal” agency and making only state government regulate education. If so, how will he do that?

Roads are mostly paid for by the states already. The federal government pays for some and they do so with the "gas tax". The FEDERAL income tax does not pay for roads.
The department of energy is a bureaucracy that serves the interest of big business, just like the department of commerce.
The federal department of education is a department that mandates what kids throughout the country should learn - in general it does mandate that much. Schools get some funding by it but its less than 20%. You local taxes pay for your schools. In my city our property taxes pay for them and the state gives some money. Its different everywhere. Schools all have their own local departments of education, which, of course, Ron Paul is fine with - he isn't interested in telling states how to run their schools. Since the Federal Department of education was invented in the 70's grade standards have been lowered and grades have gone down. You don't need a department in order to have education. That's an absurd notion.
Taxes in general - The federal government does not pay for most things that you think. Your state/city pays for transportation, schools, libraries, roads and so on. If you got rid of the federal income tax today the government would still have the same amount of money coming in as it did 10 years ago. We CAN cut spending back to 2000 levels...it would not be hard.


Back to income tax. Is that the same as social security tax? If it is then if Ron Paul gets rid of it, how will the retired people get their pensions? I quote Mr. Paul, “Most Americans already know that Social Security is in trouble. Demographic shifts and an aging population have undermined the unspoken foundation of the system, which is the practice of taxing younger generations to pay benefits for current retirees.” So if the younger generations suddenly stop paying social security, the senior citizens will get nothing? And what happened to the people that aren’t yet retired but already paid social security tax? I mean I understand that if there was no social security in the first place, everything would be a lot better (people would pay for a retirement insurance which will be much better), but we already have one. What would he do to get us out?


Social security tax and income tax are 2 separate taxes taken out so you don't have to worry there. Ask to look at your parents pay stub. The federal income tax is an actual name of a tax, it is not a general term to describe taxes as some think. A plan would be made to phase social security out by allowing young people to opt out and privatize. The people who paid in would get theirs and seniors would continue to be dependents getting checks from the general funds. It would take awhile to work out but if we do not do something now, RIGHT NOW, NO ONE is going to have it, not even the people who are dependent on it. Some people could lose out a little bit, like you expressed concern about, but if we all take a small hit now it will prevent total a huge hit, that is eminent if we don't change, in the future.


On his sound money: I heard that he wants to introduce back a gold standard. How will he do this, will he hand out gold and silver coins? What will happen to the paper money that people have saved? How will he back it up if America is so in debt? And until right now—while writing this—I was fully for the gold standard if the prior mentioned issues were given a good answer. But then as a I just found from a site http://www.mcn.org/e/iii/blog/2007/0...8_22_2007.html

Returning to a gold standard would take a LONG TIME. One way he wants to do this is by allowing competing currencies. In a truly free society we should be able to trade in whatever we want but with the current tax and monetary policy the only thing we are legally allowed to trade with is fiat paper. So with his "Competition in Currency Act" http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2007/cr121307h.htm
it would greatly help the switch by making the fed compete with other trading commodities like gold or whatever. Ever hear of liberty dollars? Maybe I want to start a store online and only take liberty dollars, what if a bunch of people started doing this? Then slowly liberty dollars would be put into the system.

Gold and silver do fluctuate in price and can cause market instability but can never collapse. There is no perfect system. A system where anyone can trade anything may be bad for elitist bankers and big business who want to swindle/borrow against the rest of us regular folks but it is very good for most people, it promotes freedom and actually prevents these large corporations and things from popping up and becoming all powerful by evening the playing field for everyone. The great depression happened after we left the gold standard.