Knightskye
05-31-2010, 10:57 PM
I did a search for old transcripts involving Ron Paul.
COLMES: Welcome back to HANNITY & COLMES. I'm Alan Colmes.
Still to come, should the attorney general bring God into the office?
But, first, have you recovered yet from paying your taxes this year? Well, if our next guest had his way, we'd repeal the 16th Amendment and change the whole tax system.
Joining us now from Houston, Texas, Republican Congressman Ron Paul.
Congressman, I interviewed you once...
REP. RON PAUL (R), TEXAS: Hi.
COLMES: Good to have you with us, sir.
PAUL: Good to see you.
COLMES: ... when you were running and I was on NBC Radio. You were running for president, the Libertarian Party.
PAUL: Right.
COLMES: This comes from your Libertarian roots. You are less a Republican on this issue than you are a Libertarian. Tell us what you...
PAUL: Well...
COLMES: ... want to do.
PAUL: Well, no. I think I'm more of a constitutionalist. You know, the Constitution did not provide for the income tax up until 1913, and we did quite well. The country grew and was prosperous, and we were free. But now that we want to run a welfare/warfare state, we need a lot of money. So that's why they have the -- the income tax. I'd like to get rid of the income tax. I think the -- the government and the people would do quite fine.
COLMES: But how do we then pay -- of course, you -- this the obvious next question. How do we then pay for whatever services the government has? I now you want to do away with a lot of those, too, but what do you do in the interim?
PAUL: Well, I'd -- I'd work on getting rid of them. As a matter of fact, my bill gives everybody three years to get rid of the unconstitutional programs. Then you get rid of the income tax, and -- and that's what we should do. We should cut the spending. But, you know, even if you froze spending, if we had the income tax -- if we had the amount of spending we had in 1990, we wouldn't need the income tax this year. We...
COLMES: But things cost a little more now, sir, than they did then. But you would also get us out of NATO. You'd greatly reduce our military involvement. You would greatly reduce the amount of money that goes to defense. So I think Republicans might com -- might part company from your...
PAUL: Oh, Alan -- Alan, it's not so much defense. Now I'm for defense. But you should never equate defense spending with military spending. Just think of all the money we spend policing...
COLMES: Good point.
PAUL: ... the world and all those police actions under the U.N. Yeah, I'd like to get rid of...
COLMES: Would you be building the missile system?
PAUL: ... all those.
COLMES: Would you be building the Aegis? Would you be building the - - the missile-defense system?
PAUL: Well, you should look at those individually, if it's necessary for defense, but I don't think we need to police the world. We have troops in 121 countries. I don't think that even a good liberal would want all that.
COLMES: I agree with you on that.
PAUL: I think we should have a constitutional national defense, and we could do it with a lot less money, and we shouldn't have a welfare state. That part, of course, you...
COLMES: But if you're going to start -- but if you're going to start building missile-defense systems -- and now Donald Rumsfeld is talking about space is the next frontier, being prepared to fight a space battle, you can't do that with the amount we have coming in now in income tax.
PAUL: Well, some of that doesn't make a lot of sense. You know, if they can blow up the USS Cole with a little dinghy, I don't know how this space-based defense is going to do very much to stop that. So I think we should use a lot of common sense on how many weapons we buy.
You know the old story about the military industrial complex and the warning that Eisenhower gave us. So we shouldn't just spend money to spend money, and we should never equate military spending with defense. We should...
HANNITY: I...
PAUL: ... have a strong national defense but not just spend military money just to spend it.
HANNITY: I'm a big supporter of SDI, Mr. Paul. Good to see you again.
PAUL: Hi, Sean.
HANNITY: How are you?
PAUL: Good. Thank you.
HANNITY: Look, I -- I'd love to see -- first of all, let's stop withholding. Let everybody get a full check, and at the end of every month, everybody write their check right out of their checking account to the federal government. Then they may realize exactly the enormous burden that is placed on them by the federal government, and that would move us far in the direction you want to go.
PAUL: Well, Sean, that's a great idea, and it just happens I have that bill in, too.
HANNITY: I know you do. That's why I asked that...
PAUL: I have that bill in, and that would be -- that would satisfy Alan because that would be a good interim solution. This would teach the people in what they're paying.
HANNITY: Absolutely.
PAUL: You would write the check at the end of the month, and we would know, and I think the people would be upset about how much they're sending the government.
HANNITY: Hey, let me ask you this politically in terms of this being viable. Do you really believe one day you might be able to get something like this passed?
PAUL: Not under today's circumstances, but the numbers are growing. There's a growing resentment in this country, much bigger the number of people than anybody in Washington realizes. So, yes, it will come, but it might not -- it might take another 10 years or so. We'll finally get rid of this tax, and we'll decide whether we want to live in a free country, whether we want a republic or whether we want this...
HANNITY: If...
PAUL: ... pure socialist democracy that we have where spending is dictated by 51 percent.
HANNITY: I've got to tell you something. It is impressive and it is amazing how -- how there's been a cultural shift in our thinking. You remember the country -- you know, we fought a revolution over 3-percent tax or 1-percent tax, you know, but...
PAUL: Right.
HANNITY: ... prior to 1913, as you pointed out in an article, the government operated on revenues raised through tariffs, excise taxes, and property taxes. The Supreme Court once ruled the income tax unconstitutional. And you point out -- you just mentioned earlier when you look at the figures 10 years ago, the federal -- our income tax only accounts for approximately one-third of federal revenue. So we go back...
PAUL: That's right.
HANNITY: ... 10 years ago and try and live within that budget we had 10 years ago, that one-third's wiped out.
PAUL: You know, that would mean essentially $1...
HANNITY: It seems impossible.
PAUL: ... $1 trillion -- we're collecting a trillion dollars without the income tax, and I think the world and the country would be happier for it. Just think of all thee misery that we go through, the involuntary servitude that happens that -- we fill out all these forms. We self- incriminate. The IRS is the most vicious violator of civil liberties and invasion of our financial privacy. People don't like invasion of their financial privacy. Well, the main reason is they want to know where your money is.
COLMES: Congressman...
PAUL: If you like financial privacy, you'll vote to get rid of the income tax.
COLMES: ... thank you for being with us tonight. Have a safe trip home on government-paved roads. We thank you.
PAUL: Thank you. I'll be careful.
COLMES: ... very much for being with us.
And coming up, should you be able to smoke pot to ease your pain? The Supreme Court weighed in on that today. We'll tell you what they said all about it when we get back on HANNITY & COLMES.
Dr. Paul's consistency just hits you on the head when you read this stuff. :D
COLMES: Welcome back to HANNITY & COLMES. I'm Alan Colmes.
Still to come, should the attorney general bring God into the office?
But, first, have you recovered yet from paying your taxes this year? Well, if our next guest had his way, we'd repeal the 16th Amendment and change the whole tax system.
Joining us now from Houston, Texas, Republican Congressman Ron Paul.
Congressman, I interviewed you once...
REP. RON PAUL (R), TEXAS: Hi.
COLMES: Good to have you with us, sir.
PAUL: Good to see you.
COLMES: ... when you were running and I was on NBC Radio. You were running for president, the Libertarian Party.
PAUL: Right.
COLMES: This comes from your Libertarian roots. You are less a Republican on this issue than you are a Libertarian. Tell us what you...
PAUL: Well...
COLMES: ... want to do.
PAUL: Well, no. I think I'm more of a constitutionalist. You know, the Constitution did not provide for the income tax up until 1913, and we did quite well. The country grew and was prosperous, and we were free. But now that we want to run a welfare/warfare state, we need a lot of money. So that's why they have the -- the income tax. I'd like to get rid of the income tax. I think the -- the government and the people would do quite fine.
COLMES: But how do we then pay -- of course, you -- this the obvious next question. How do we then pay for whatever services the government has? I now you want to do away with a lot of those, too, but what do you do in the interim?
PAUL: Well, I'd -- I'd work on getting rid of them. As a matter of fact, my bill gives everybody three years to get rid of the unconstitutional programs. Then you get rid of the income tax, and -- and that's what we should do. We should cut the spending. But, you know, even if you froze spending, if we had the income tax -- if we had the amount of spending we had in 1990, we wouldn't need the income tax this year. We...
COLMES: But things cost a little more now, sir, than they did then. But you would also get us out of NATO. You'd greatly reduce our military involvement. You would greatly reduce the amount of money that goes to defense. So I think Republicans might com -- might part company from your...
PAUL: Oh, Alan -- Alan, it's not so much defense. Now I'm for defense. But you should never equate defense spending with military spending. Just think of all the money we spend policing...
COLMES: Good point.
PAUL: ... the world and all those police actions under the U.N. Yeah, I'd like to get rid of...
COLMES: Would you be building the missile system?
PAUL: ... all those.
COLMES: Would you be building the Aegis? Would you be building the - - the missile-defense system?
PAUL: Well, you should look at those individually, if it's necessary for defense, but I don't think we need to police the world. We have troops in 121 countries. I don't think that even a good liberal would want all that.
COLMES: I agree with you on that.
PAUL: I think we should have a constitutional national defense, and we could do it with a lot less money, and we shouldn't have a welfare state. That part, of course, you...
COLMES: But if you're going to start -- but if you're going to start building missile-defense systems -- and now Donald Rumsfeld is talking about space is the next frontier, being prepared to fight a space battle, you can't do that with the amount we have coming in now in income tax.
PAUL: Well, some of that doesn't make a lot of sense. You know, if they can blow up the USS Cole with a little dinghy, I don't know how this space-based defense is going to do very much to stop that. So I think we should use a lot of common sense on how many weapons we buy.
You know the old story about the military industrial complex and the warning that Eisenhower gave us. So we shouldn't just spend money to spend money, and we should never equate military spending with defense. We should...
HANNITY: I...
PAUL: ... have a strong national defense but not just spend military money just to spend it.
HANNITY: I'm a big supporter of SDI, Mr. Paul. Good to see you again.
PAUL: Hi, Sean.
HANNITY: How are you?
PAUL: Good. Thank you.
HANNITY: Look, I -- I'd love to see -- first of all, let's stop withholding. Let everybody get a full check, and at the end of every month, everybody write their check right out of their checking account to the federal government. Then they may realize exactly the enormous burden that is placed on them by the federal government, and that would move us far in the direction you want to go.
PAUL: Well, Sean, that's a great idea, and it just happens I have that bill in, too.
HANNITY: I know you do. That's why I asked that...
PAUL: I have that bill in, and that would be -- that would satisfy Alan because that would be a good interim solution. This would teach the people in what they're paying.
HANNITY: Absolutely.
PAUL: You would write the check at the end of the month, and we would know, and I think the people would be upset about how much they're sending the government.
HANNITY: Hey, let me ask you this politically in terms of this being viable. Do you really believe one day you might be able to get something like this passed?
PAUL: Not under today's circumstances, but the numbers are growing. There's a growing resentment in this country, much bigger the number of people than anybody in Washington realizes. So, yes, it will come, but it might not -- it might take another 10 years or so. We'll finally get rid of this tax, and we'll decide whether we want to live in a free country, whether we want a republic or whether we want this...
HANNITY: If...
PAUL: ... pure socialist democracy that we have where spending is dictated by 51 percent.
HANNITY: I've got to tell you something. It is impressive and it is amazing how -- how there's been a cultural shift in our thinking. You remember the country -- you know, we fought a revolution over 3-percent tax or 1-percent tax, you know, but...
PAUL: Right.
HANNITY: ... prior to 1913, as you pointed out in an article, the government operated on revenues raised through tariffs, excise taxes, and property taxes. The Supreme Court once ruled the income tax unconstitutional. And you point out -- you just mentioned earlier when you look at the figures 10 years ago, the federal -- our income tax only accounts for approximately one-third of federal revenue. So we go back...
PAUL: That's right.
HANNITY: ... 10 years ago and try and live within that budget we had 10 years ago, that one-third's wiped out.
PAUL: You know, that would mean essentially $1...
HANNITY: It seems impossible.
PAUL: ... $1 trillion -- we're collecting a trillion dollars without the income tax, and I think the world and the country would be happier for it. Just think of all thee misery that we go through, the involuntary servitude that happens that -- we fill out all these forms. We self- incriminate. The IRS is the most vicious violator of civil liberties and invasion of our financial privacy. People don't like invasion of their financial privacy. Well, the main reason is they want to know where your money is.
COLMES: Congressman...
PAUL: If you like financial privacy, you'll vote to get rid of the income tax.
COLMES: ... thank you for being with us tonight. Have a safe trip home on government-paved roads. We thank you.
PAUL: Thank you. I'll be careful.
COLMES: ... very much for being with us.
And coming up, should you be able to smoke pot to ease your pain? The Supreme Court weighed in on that today. We'll tell you what they said all about it when we get back on HANNITY & COLMES.
Dr. Paul's consistency just hits you on the head when you read this stuff. :D