Why doesn't Rand ever talk about abolishing the IRS? (split)

[Sola_Fide]

To overcome that potential challenge, Paul said Obama must fire someone from Internal Revenue Service within 30 days.

That's a start, but what about getting to the root of the problem: the existence of the Internal Revenue Service itself. The nature of the IRS is to punish and coerce. It was merely doing its job when these "scandals" came out. Why do we let the goalposts swing so far away from where we all know they need to be?

[talkingpointes]

That's a start, but what about getting to the root of the problem: the existence of the Internal Revenue Service itself. The nature of the IRS is to punish and coerce. It was merely doing its job when these "scandals" came out. Why do we let the goalposts swing so far away from where we all know they need to be?

Yeah, why fire just "someone" we all know who was involved now. Ben Swann should right Rand a letter explaining the matter to him more correctly.

[Warlord]

That's a start, but what about getting to the root of the problem: the existence of the Internal Revenue Service itself. The nature of the IRS is to punish and coerce. It was merely doing its job when these "scandals" came out. Why do we let the goalposts swing so far away from where we all know they need to be?

The IRS is never going to be shut down. There will always be a need for an agency to collect the taxation under the 16 amendment which is also not going to be repealed any time soon.

The best thing to do to the IRS is to gut it and make it a shell of its former self. You do not need 100,000 employees and administrators to collect taxes. This is grossly inefficient.

However we need to also get rid of Obamacare and then we can start chipping away at the nefarious activities of the IRS and the Fed. Rand going on tv calling for them to be abolished is not going to make any sense and he'd come off as "extreme" or at least leave himself open to be branded as such by political opponents. He wants to pose as the moderate savior and his job is just to poke and ask questions one step at a time

[Warlord]

Yeah, why fire just "someone" we all know who was involved now. Ben Swann should right Rand a letter explaining the matter to him more correctly.

He's called for criminal investigations and for those responsible to be imprisoned:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfV_WKJfd50
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfV_WKJfd50

[Sola_Fide]

The IRS is never going to be shut down. There will always be a need for an agency to collect the taxation under the 16 amendment which is also not going to be repealed any time soon.


Yes it can, easily. End withholding, and watch the whole thing crumble:

Restoring Liberty With Three Short Laws
http://lewrockwell.com/north/north1004.html

[Warlord]

Yes it can, easily. End withholding, and watch the whole thing crumble:

Restoring Liberty With Three Short Laws
http://lewrockwell.com/north/north1004.html

While I want it all shut down, starved etc. I dont see it happening. USG has obligations and Ron Paul (who you claim to support and use continually to drive a wedge) always supported a transitional approach and that's exactly what Rand will likely do if in a position to do it. He also would have to deal with Congress.

[Sola_Fide]

While I want it all shut down, starved etc. I dont see it happening. USG has obligations and Ron Paul (who you claim to support and use continually to drive a wedge) always supported a transitional approach and that's exactly what Rand will likely do if in a position to do it. He also would have to deal with Congress.

Why wouldn't this be a strategy that could be employed though? I'll tell you why: its because this strategy has the end goal in mind of changing the coercive nature of this evil government. Rand doesn't seem to want to try to change this coercion as an end goal, which to me is scary.

[erowe1]

The best thing to do to the IRS is to gut it and make it a shell of its former self. You do not need 100,000 employees and administrators to collect taxes. This is grossly inefficient.

You actually want the IRS to collect taxes more efficiently?

[LibertyEagle]

Here we go again. :(

[amy31416]

You actually want the IRS to collect taxes more efficiently?

I doubt that's what he means.

[Warlord]

You actually want the IRS to collect taxes more efficiently?

In the short term to pay current obligations and support transitional arrangements. This is what Ron Paul advocated too.

[Warlord]

Why wouldn't this be a strategy that could be employed though? I'll tell you why: its because this strategy has the end goal in mind of changing the coercive nature of this evil government. Rand doesn't seem to want to try to change this coercion as an end goal, which to me is scary.

He does want to change the coercive nature but don't forget if you're president you have to deal with Congress and you need some form of consensus to change direction. I think there would be huge support for major reforms at the IRS including cutting it down to size and who knows it may have to shut down/renamed after this scandal ruins it nd exposes it. Under the guise of this "reform" much can be achieved but the job right now is to keep chipping away, keep asking questions, keep exposing etc.

The public will never accept/support a radical shut down approach even though that's the goal you need to bring them along with you by posing as the moderate savior, stoking the anger at every junction and then presenting the radical policy as a solution to the crisis. This is called incrementalism.

[Sola_Fide]

He does want to change the coercive nature but don't forget if you're president you have to deal with Congress and you need some form of consensus the change direction. I think there would be huge support for major reforms at the IRS including cutting it down to size and who knows it may have to shut down/renamed after this scandal ruins it nd exposes it. Under the guise of this "reform" much can be achieved but the job right now is to keep chipping away, keep asking questions, keep exposing etc.

I get all that, but why isn't Rand throwing these things out in the public consciousness? I mean, come on Rand, at least throw in a little sentence in the end of your speech or something that at least questions the existence of the IRS.

It's not inspiring to never hear anything really and truly radical coming from Rand's campaign. I will most likely vote and maybe even campaign for Rand, but my inspiration level is at zero. I know I'm not the only one.

[Warlord]

I get all that, but why isn't Rand throwing these things out in the public consciousness? I mean, come on Rand, at least throw in a little sentence in the end of your speech or something that at least questions the existence of the IRS.

It's not inspiring to never hear anything really and truly radical coming from Rand's campaign. I will most likely vote and maybe even campaign for Rand, but my inspiration level is at zero. I know I'm not the only one.

Because he's doing it one step at time. Look at the drones for example. He limits it to a specific example of US citizens being executed in the US which is the logical conclusion of an expansive interpretation of the AUMF where the war is 'everywhere' without geographical limits. Ask the question in a poll and a huge majority will be Rand on this specific, limited example. Rand then takes this and hammers the president with it and it makes him look like a fascist/out of touch. Ask them if they want to kill foreign "terrorists" and most Americans are like "hell yeah, kill them filthy ragheads!" so if Rand advocated on behalf of the filthy raghead like Warlord the criticism wouldn't be as nearly as effective.

On the IRS ask in a poll if there should be criminal charges and 70% will say yes but since Obama is a tool of Federal employee unions and the fact that it's near impossible to even just fire them he's not going to do this so Rand is going out there and making him look like an incompetent leader who is out of touch.

This is what he's doing. He's going after the president and Clinton on things where huge majorities are with him in specific and limited circumstances. Like it or not but the public dont want the Fed and IRS shut down (at least not yet). Getting an audit of the Fed will expose them and stoke further anger. This is also a tailored policy where the public agree hugely with him (and formerly Ron) and allows him to make great headway in the argument even though we're well past them needing just an audit.

[LibertyEagle]

You explained that well, Warlord. :)

[erowe1]

In the short term to pay current obligations and support transitional arrangements. This is what Ron Paul advocated too.

Not me.

The worse they are at robbing us, the better.

[Warlord]

Not me.

The worse they are at robbing us, the better.

You need to bring the public with you, that's the political reality. Hitler didn't win elections promising to gas jews.

Extreme example maybe but it's the truth.

[erowe1]

Regarding the OP.

It is hard to lose something you never had.

Plus, if he did have it and lose it, that would be a good thing.

[Sola_Fide]

Because he's doing it one step at time. Look at the drones for example. He limits it to a specific example of US citizens being executed in the US which is the logical conclusion of an expansive interpretation of the AUMF where the war is 'everywhere' without geographical limits. Ask the question in a poll and a huge majority will be Rand on this specific, limited example. Rand then takes this and hammers the president with it and it makes him look like a fascist/out of touch. Ask them if they want to kill foreign "terrorists" and most Americans are like "hell yeah, kill them filthy ragheads!" so if Rand advocated on behalf of the filthy raghead like Warlord the criticism wouldn't be as nearly as effective.

On the IRS ask in a poll if there should be criminal charges and 70% will say yes but since Obama is a tool of Federal employee unions and the fact that it's near impossible to even just fire them he's not going to do this so Rand is going out there and making him look like an incompetent leader who is out of touch.

This is what he's doing. He's going after the president and Clinton on things where huge majorities are with him in specific and limited circumstances. Like it or not but the public dont want the Fed and IRS shut down (at least not yet). Getting an audit of the Fed will expose them and stoke further anger. This is also a tailored policy where the public agree hugely with him (and formerly Ron) and allows him to make great headway in the argument even though we're well past them needing just an audit.


I get that there is an incremental thing that some people here think Rand is doing. If this is his thing, AT BEST, this may possibly slow some of the rate of growth of government.

But what is missing from Rand's campaign (maybe he never intends for it to be there) is a truly philosphical argument against government that is meant to change the nature of our relationship to government.

I was listening to a podcast that had a bunch of Rand's recent Iowa interviews on it, and in one interview Rand said emphatically that he is NOT for ending the Federal Reserve. Why??? Why say that? Why not, at least present the incremental crap that will pacify all the statists out there and mix in a little revolutionary tid bit by saying that the FED is the cause of our current economic woes and it needs to be ended? Why not do both?

[Warlord]

I get that there is an incremental thing that some people here think Rand is doing. If this is his thing, AT BEST, this may possibly slow some of the rate of growth of government.

But what is missing from Rand's campaign (maybe he never intends for it to be there) is a truly philosphical argument against government that is meant to change the nature of our relationship to government.

I was listening to a podcast that had a bunch of Rand's recent Iowa interviews on it, and in one interview Rand said emphatically that he is NOT for ending the Federal Reserve. Why??? Why say that? Why not, at least present the incremental crap that will pacify all the statists out there and mix in a little revolutionary tid bit by saying that the FED is the cause of our current economic woes and it needs to be ended? Why not do both?

Once he has power - and be sworn in - he can do a lot more than simply 'slow the rate down' (as long as he can bring congressional leaders with him)

As for philosophy did you see his CPAC speech?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNcmdYly3oM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNcmdYly3oM

As for Fed and saying "emphatically" he would not end it. Either give me sourced quotes or stop being a god damn troll and telling me what you think he said.

[Christian Liberty]

While I want it all shut down, starved etc. I dont see it happening. USG has obligations and Ron Paul (who you claim to support and use continually to drive a wedge) always supported a transitional approach and that's exactly what Rand will likely do if in a position to do it. He also would have to deal with Congress.

Ron Paul is incorrect: Compassionate, but simply wrong. You need to pull the plug NOW. If you don't do it now, the next guy won't do it in 4/8 years.


Why wouldn't this be a strategy that could be employed though? I'll tell you why: its because this strategy has the end goal in mind of changing the coercive nature of this evil government. Rand doesn't seem to want to try to change this coercion as an end goal, which to me is scary.

I can say the same about "Raising the retirement age." Its just silly, its actually making the program last LONGER. If I wanted to be politically savvy, rather than simply honest, I'd try to convince liberals to work with me to drive entitlement ages DOWN, as low as I could, and watch the programs crumble. But "Raising the age" just keeps them around.


I get all that, but why isn't Rand throwing these things out in the public consciousness? I mean, come on Rand, at least throw in a little sentence in the end of your speech or something that at least questions the existence of the IRS.

It's not inspiring to never hear anything really and truly radical coming from Rand's campaign. I will most likely vote and maybe even campaign for Rand, but my inspiration level is at zero. I know I'm not the only one.

Rand is the lesser of the evils but there's a lot I don't like about what he's saying right now. I honestly don't know if I'll vote for him, right now he doesn't have mine because of the Iran vote but he can earn it back between now and '16. I honestly don't think he cares though. He'll keep courting the neocons until he gets into office. Rand is a smart guy, he'll know how many people like me he's losing. I can only do what I feel is right at the time, and leave the strategic calculations to others.

Rand is absolutely the best senator we have, but that's really not saying a ton.

Not me.

The worse they are at robbing us, the better.
'
I don't advocate an incremental approach either.


I get that there is an incremental thing that some people here think Rand is doing. If this is his thing, AT BEST, this may possibly slow some of the rate of growth of government.

But what is missing from Rand's campaign (maybe he never intends for it to be there) is a truly philosphical argument against government

Ron Paul never ran as an anarchist either. Then again, minarchists and anarchists really do agree with each other about 99% of the time, but Ron Paul never said we shouldn't have any government.

[familydog]

It's mind boggling that Rand Paul thinks that any one person has the moral authority to tell me what to do in the first place.

[Sola_Fide]

Once he has power - and be sworn in - he can do a lot more than simply 'slow the rate down' (as long as he can bring congressional leaders with him)

As for philosophy did you see his CPAC speech?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNcmdYly3oM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNcmdYly3oM

As for Fed and saying "emphatically" he would not end it. Either give me sourced quotes or stop being a god damn troll and telling me what you think he said.


Rand's CPAC speech was not inspiring to me...I'm sorry. Just not bold enough. As far as the podcast, I don't know if I can link to it because I downloaded it from my Iphone on Itunes, but it was from when he was campaigning in Iowa a couple weeks ago, and a guy from the audience specifically asked him if Rand's position was to end the FED, and Rand specifically said that it was not his position to end the FED.

[WhistlinDave]

I thought Ron Paul had named several Federal agencies he would abolish as President, and the IRS was one of them. Maybe I'm not remembering it correctly. But either way, couldn't the president abolish the IRS without any action from Congress if he wanted to just by issuing an EO, since it's an agency of the Executive branch of the government?

[emazur]

He said during the 2010 Senate campaign that he wouldn't attempt to abolish the IRS or income tax. I posted it here (I think it was a yahoo article) but a mod either deleted or locked it

[Feeding the Abscess]

What do people think of Rand's proposed 5% tax on overseas profits, with the funds gathered from that new tax to be put in an infrastructure fund?

[Warlord]

Rand's CPAC speech was not inspiring to me...I'm sorry. Just not bold enough. As far as the podcast, I don't know if I can link to it because I downloaded it from my Iphone on Itunes, but it was from when he was campaigning in Iowa a couple weeks ago, and a guy from the audience specifically asked him if Rand's position was to end the FED, and Rand specifically said that it was not his position to end the FED.

I've said before if you're going to tell us what you think Rand said provide the god damn quotes otherwise your probably misrepresenting him to suit your pathetic, vile, tiring, old agenda.

[Warlord]

He said during the 2010 Senate campaign that he wouldn't attempt to abolish the IRS or income tax. I posted it here (I think it was a yahoo article) but a mod either deleted or locked it

He also said a whole other bunch of stuff that I can't remember and i'm not going to source but i'm just going to say anyway

[Warlord]

Sola Fide said:

"What's missing from Rand's campaign (maybe he never intends for it to be there) is a truly philosphical argument against government "

I then provide him with one presenting a philosophical argument against government and Sola Fide says:

"Rand's CPAC speech was not inspiring to me...I'm sorry. Just not bold enough.".

Wow, it's pretty clear whatever Rand Paul says/does is NOT good enough for dear old troll Sola Fide.

[Sola_Fide]

Sola Fide said:

"What's missing from Rand's campaign (maybe he never intends for it to be there) is a truly philosphical argument against government "

I then provide him with one presenting a philosophical argument against government and Sola Fide says:

"Rand's CPAC speech was not inspiring to me...I'm sorry. Just not bold enough.".

Wow, it's pretty clear whatever Rand Paul says/does is NOT good enough for dear old troll Sola Fide.

I'm sorry, but what Rand said at CPAC was not philosophically grounded argument against government itself. It might have been an argument to cut government back a little bit, but that was about it.

This was a philosophical presentation against government:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg

[Warlord]

I'm sorry, but what Rand said at CPAC was not philosophically grounded argument against government itself. It might have been an argument to cut government back a little bit, but that was about it.

This was a philosophical presentation against government:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg

Yes and what did Ron say? Me and my son agree on 99% of things and anyone who says otherwise is trying to drive a wedge.

Do you agree with that statement?

[Christian Liberty]

Yes and what did Ron say? Me and my son agree on 99% of things and anyone who says otherwise is trying to drive a wedge.

Do you agree with that statement?

No, I don't. I honestly do not.

The funny thing is that the people who seem to deny that Ron Paul can ever be wrong on this sort of thing are the first to jump on his electoral strategy, make fun of him for a poor electoral showing, saying Rand is more electable, exc.

Yes, Ron is a bit biased towards his own son. Call him (Or me) crazy. How many people wouldn't be? Seriously.


What do people think of Rand's proposed 5% tax on overseas profits, with the funds gathered from that new tax to be put in an infrastructure fund?

I oppose any new taxes.

Sola Fide said:

"What's missing from Rand's campaign (maybe he never intends for it to be there) is a truly philosphical argument against government "

I then provide him with one presenting a philosophical argument against government and Sola Fide says:

"Rand's CPAC speech was not inspiring to me...I'm sorry. Just not bold enough.".

Wow, it's pretty clear whatever Rand Paul says/does is NOT good enough for dear old troll Sola Fide.

What do you know, everyone's a troll in Warlord's mind. Stay in Pakistan and leave us alone...


I'm sorry, but what Rand said at CPAC was not philosophically grounded argument against government itself. It might have been an argument to cut government back a little bit, but that was about it.

This was a philosophical presentation against government:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg
I will have to watch this. But not tonight.

[anaconda]

The best thing to do to the IRS is to gut it and make it a shell of its former self. You do not need 100,000 employees and administrators to collect taxes. This is grossly inefficient.


Could a sitting President issue an executive order to cease and desist with IRS collections and paycheck deductions until the IRS "shows the law?"

Also, does the President have the authority to direct the Treasury to "return" sizable refunds to taxpayers before other obligations are paid out of the treasury?

[Warlord]

Could a sitting President issue an executive order to cease and desist with IRS collections and paycheck deductions until the IRS "shows the law?"

He could but I doubt he would because the USG has obligations and they need the money. A proper, non-bought off president who had good intentions would probably want a flat tax immediately though he would need Congress to pass it then he would want to "reform" the entitlements and completely shut down large parts of the Federal government to at least try and balance the books.

There's so much to do it's difficult to know where to start.

[sailingaway]

Ron Paul is incorrect: Compassionate, but simply wrong. You need to pull the plug NOW. If you don't do it now, the next guy won't do it in 4/8 years.





Ron pulled the plug NOW in that he NOW would have let those under 25 opt out and not pay into the program so it would be gone, while funding those who already paid in by cutting elsewhere. In 8 years there would be a generation who had been working 8 years without paying into it and with other plans in place, while those who were getting benefits would NOT rely on their payments and would not be putting pressure on making them pay in for government to mismanage their money.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

He also said unequivocally during his 2010 Senate campaign that he would abolish the Department of Education:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?264105-Rand-Paul-says-unequivocally-he-d-abolish-federal-dept-of-education

[ClydeCoulter]

I'm sorry, but what Rand said at CPAC was not philosophically grounded argument against government itself. It might have been an argument to cut government back a little bit, but that was about it.

This was a philosophical presentation against government:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg

Wow that was worth the watch, thanks for posting that video link. I was glued to it, even though I have heard all of that form him over the years, I couldn't stop watching :)

[RonPaulFanInGA]

He said during the 2010 Senate campaign that he wouldn't attempt to abolish the IRS or income tax. I posted it here (I think it was a yahoo article) but a mod either deleted or locked it

"The federal tax code is a disaster no one would come up with if we were starting from scratch. I support making taxes flatter and simpler. I would vote for the Fair Tax to get rid of the 16th Amendment, the IRS and a lot of the control the federal government exerts over us."

-Rand Paul, October 12, 2010 (Source (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/oct/19/jack-conway/jack-conway-says-rand-paul-would-end-faith-based-i/))

See also: http://www.wkyt.com/news/headlines/104797179.html

[Sola_Fide]

Wow that was worth the watch, thanks for posting that video link. I was glued to it, even though I have heard all of that form him over the years, I couldn't stop watching :)

It's a great one.

[anaconda]

The income tax is one of those issues that is so crucial for the lifeblood of the establishment that they have invested copious amounts of time and money making sure that anyone who raises the issue is a kooky, tin foil hat wearing, follower of reptilian shape shifters. I think Rand has decided it's unproductive to navigate that mine field right now, and is exploiting the plethora of other gaping vulnerabilities in the establishment system through which to build voter support.

[talkingpointes]

He's called for criminal investigations and for those responsible to be imprisoned:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfV_WKJfd50
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfV_WKJfd50

It wasn't a dig, I'm just saying becuase they had someone snitching to them from the IRS.

[Anti-Neocon]

Why doesn't Rand go out like Adam Kokesh saying taxation is theft? Please do it, please.

Signed,
The Democratic Party

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Why doesn't Rand go out like Adam Kokesh saying taxation is theft? Please do it, please.

Signed,
The Democratic Party

http://i44.tinypic.com/20gkt4.jpg

[Sola_Fide]

Why doesn't Rand go out like Adam Kokesh saying taxation is theft? Please do it, please.

Signed,
The Democratic Party

He doesn't have to take that position to advocate ending virtually all federal spending.

[jtstellar]

ya, why? why not answer the question yourself, as you ask it?

[ctiger2]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3l1FMJFKflo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3l1FMJFKflo