NH paper: Paul: Bring troops home

[Bradley in DC]

http://www.unionleader.com/article.a...b-bd5f1041c1bc

Paul: Bring troops home

By GARRY RAYNO
New Hampshire Union Leader Staff
54 minutes ago

MANCHESTER – Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul said the United States does not face any real threats to its national security and does not need to extend itself militarily around the world.

In an interview at the New Hampshire Union Leader yesterday, Paul said military spending could be reduced. "There's no threat that anybody is going to invade us," he said.

The Cuban missile crisis was the biggest threat to national security this country has experienced in the nuclear age, he said, but that was resolved through diplomacy, he said.

?Paul raises $5 million for campaign


He downplayed concerns about Iran developing nuclear weapons. "That's not the end of the world. . . . We ought to put this in prospective, if we handled the Soviets, we ought to be able to handle the Iranians."

Paul said Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has no political power; the radical mulars have the political power in that country. "We should not have anxiety over some third world country that might get a weapon some day," he said.

The United States does not need to guarantee Israel's national security, Paul said. By restraining Israel and treating it like a third world country dependent on American handouts, the United States has "done so much harm to Israel."

America does have interests in countries like Vietnam and Iraq, Paul said, but not by forcing itself on these countries militarily. Look what happened in Iraq when "we went to war for oil," he said, noting the price of oil has gone from $25 to more than $80 a barrel.

He said the troops should be brought home, including troops currently in South Korea. "We don't need a major military presence (in the Pacific), no one will come after us," he said.

The Texas congressman, who ran for president in 1988 as the Libertarian Party's nominee, said he sees little need for military bases on foreign soil.

He said that since World War II, the military conflicts the country has been involved in have not been constitutionally legal or worthwhile.

"One generation should not make promises the next generation will have to pay and die for," Paul said.

Young people have been particularly receptive to his message that the country can't afford to continue doing what it's doing, he said. "We can't do this without borrowing $3 billion a day from China. The younger people see we can't pay. They see the burden being placed on them," Paul said.

"We're going broke," he said, as the government tries to extend social welfarism and the country's military presence around the world. "The dollar will be undermined just as it was with so many other great nations."

In the 1970s there was a similar crisis that took 21 percent interest rates to correct, he said. Historically, the economy would crash, there would be a depression and then it would bounce back, Paul said, but instead the economy is going down at a slow rate but is not bouncing back.

"We need to get control of the size of government and return to the concepts of individual freedom and self reliance," Paul said. "We're on the verge of becoming less free and less prosperous."

He said the country would not have these problems if government stuck to the Constitution across the board. "Personal and economic freedom are all one and the same," Paul said.

When asked if the income tax was constitutional, Paul said it was because of the 16th Amendment which allows taxing income. "What is unconstitutional is the collection of the income tax," he said.

Asked if he would pardon convicted income tax evaders Edward and Elaine Brown of Plainfield, who have refused to turn themselves in to federal marshals, Paul said "I don't know the answer."

Paul, a physician specializing in obstetrics/gynecology, has delivered more than 4,000 babies. He and his wife, Carol, live in Lake Jackson, Texas.

He served in Congress in the late 1970s and early 1980s, leaving in 1984. He ran for Congress again in 1997 and has been serving since then.

[Geronimo]

I'm very glad to see this. The more good press that Ron gets in NH the better.

[oldpaths1611]

When asked if the income tax was constitutional, Paul said it was because of the 16th Amendment which allows taxing income. "What is unconstitutional is the collection of the income tax," he said.

Asked if he would pardon convicted income tax evaders Edward and Elaine Brown of Plainfield, who have refused to turn themselves in to federal marshals, Paul said "I don't know the answer."



I'm confused. Why does Dr. Paul say the income tax is constitutional when we know that the 16th amendment was never ratified. He himself appeared in Aaron Russo's documentary which proved that. Why would he say the income tax is constitutional but the collection of it is not? What's the difference?

Also, while I appreciate his honest "I don't know" answer concerning the Browns, why doesn't he know? If the 16th amendment was never ratified, then the income tax is an illegal tax. If that's true, then the Brown's are guilty of nothing but standing up for what's right.

It doesn't sound very good when a candidate running for president responds to a question such as this with an "I don't know." It could be interpreted as a cop out.

Dr. Paul has my vote, no questions asked. I am a bit puzzled and dissapointed by his answers here though.

[margomaps]

It doesn't sound very good when a candidate running for president responds to a question such as this with an "I don't know." It could be interpreted as a cop out..

Perhaps because he doesn't know the intimate details of the Brown's situation? It would be foolish and irresponsible for him to make a definitive statement about a situation he's not familiar with.

[aksmith]

When asked if the income tax was constitutional, Paul said it was because of the 16th Amendment which allows taxing income. "What is unconstitutional is the collection of the income tax," he said.

Asked if he would pardon convicted income tax evaders Edward and Elaine Brown of Plainfield, who have refused to turn themselves in to federal marshals, Paul said "I don't know the answer."



I'm confused. Why does Dr. Paul say the income tax is constitutional when we know that the 16th amendment was never ratified. He himself appeared in Aaron Russo's documentary which proved that. Why would he say the income tax is constitutional but the collection of it is not? What's the difference?

Also, while I appreciate his honest "I don't know" answer concerning the Browns, why doesn't he know? If the 16th amendment was never ratified, then the income tax is an illegal tax. If that's true, then the Brown's are guilty of nothing but standing up for what's right.

It doesn't sound very good when a candidate running for president responds to a question such as this with an "I don't know." It could be interpreted as a cop out.

Dr. Paul has my vote, no questions asked. I am a bit puzzled and dissapointed by his answers here though.

The argument that the 16th amendment was not properly ratified is one of the many things in life that can't be proven. A bunch of yellowed, dogeared documents from almost 100 years ago aren't going to convince many people. While it may be true, it's a hard argument to make to most people. (Yes, I've read the book.) Some Supreme Court cases saying the 16th imposed no new taxing authority are a bit more persuasive because they can be verified. But I think what he was saying is the enforcement of the tax is "illegal" not really unconstitutional. He may be considering the fact that you're "guilty until proven innocent" under the code to be unconstitutional, and that would be correct. As for the Browns, they may actually be guilty. What is unconstitutional is the "personal" income tax. I'm not sure of this, but I read somewhere recently that they have refused to pay the tax for their corporation. That's a different kind of animal if it's true and may be why he says he doesn't know. And also, he cannot be supportive of someone who threatens violence to federal agents (I don't know if the Browns have done that but some of their supporters have) if he want to be taken seriously as a candidate. Just a few thoughts.

[DrNoZone]

Perhaps because he doesn't know the intimate details of the Brown's situation? It would be foolish and irresponsible for him to make a definitive statement about a situation he's not familiar with.

Yes, I've heard him say in an interview that he isn't all that familiar with the particulars of the case. So an "I don't know" answer is an honest answer from him at this point in time.

[1000-points-of-fright]

Whenever a candidate has an answer for everything, they're lying. It's refreshing to hear one say they don't know. That's one of RP's platforms... he doesn't know how to run your life, the economy, or the world and neither do any of the other candidates. That's why he wants to leave it up to you.

I think he needs to hammer that point home. "Don't believe anyone when they tell you they know how to fix your life. When I'm President I promise to leave you alone."

[isrow]

The 16th amendment was ratified. Because the Secretary of State signed off on the amendment it became law. Sorry. All the laws are in order to make us pay taxes. I watched freedom to fascism and there are a lot of interesting part but I did deeper research into it and I'm sorry to say it looks like Aaron Russo misrepresented a lot of issues. Instead of focusing on this conspiracy that we're all paying an illegal tax lets try to change those laws.

I know I'll probably get flamed for this but go ahead.

[Daveforliberty]

Whenever a candidate has an answer for everything, they're lying. It's refreshing to hear one say they don't know.

Of course. A few "I don't knows' are refreshing, because nobody can know the details on everything happening everywhere.

A lot of "I don't knows" are... er... is... Fred Thompson.

[Paulitician]

"I don't know the answer" isn't that great of an answer. It does make him look somewhat bad. He should have said that he was unfamiliar with the case to make that decision. At least most people don't know about the case either, unlike Terry Schiavo. That was a really bad moment for Fred Thompson.

[bdmarti]

The 16th amendment was ratified. Because the Secretary of State signed off on the amendment it became law. Sorry. All the laws are in order to make us pay taxes. I watched freedom to fascism and there are a lot of interesting part but I did deeper research into it and I'm sorry to say it looks like Aaron Russo misrepresented a lot of issues. Instead of focusing on this conspiracy that we're all paying an illegal tax lets try to change those laws.

I don't care for Paul's answer as listed above, and perhaps it was heavily paraphrased.

I agree that Russo's movie misrepresented or misinterpreted some things, but I disagree with you that all the laws are in order to make us pay a personal income tax on labor and wages.

I think this for 2 reasons: a tax on labor is akin to involuntary servitude and second, and more importantly a tax on labor is a direct tax and is subject to apportionment.

Examine, in principle, what it means if the legislature can at a whim take 100% of your income on labor. What if they only take 99%? Or if they leave you with just enough to eat and have shelter, are you free yet? What if you can even have some comforts like cable and a car, then are you freely working for the first 3 months of the year?

Second, all things are taxable with a few listed exceptions, including a tax on labor and wages like our existing income tax. The problem is that a tax on labor and wages must be apportioned as it is a direct tax. The issue is the defintion of "income" as applied to labor and wages.

Income, in a corporate sense, is equated to profit, but for an individual every single cent (with some arbitrary exemptions) is counted as "income" prior to the individual paying any expenses. The government can not possibly know what it costs you as an individual to function properly in order to go work and earn your wages. Not that it matters because the government doesn't give individuals the same courtesy of paying their expenses prior to announcing their profits.

Income, in a sales sense, is equated to profit. Buy a widget for $1 and sell it for $2 and you pay tax on only the $1 of profit. In contrast, the government delcares that your labor has a starting value of ZERO dollars and that all money or items recieved in exchanged for said labor are income and are taxable. This is absurd.

Why is it that income, when applied to labor and wages, means "gross income" instead of profits as it does in all other situations?

The income tax when conceived was to be applied to "unearned" income, such as from interest or dividends that the very rich made. It wasn't supposed to apply to wages and labor. There is a huge difference.

If I dig a ditch for $100 I spend many calories, risk my health, and spend unrecoverable time on the project all in exchange for some money.

Why are my time, health, and energy worth nothing? The answer is they aren't worth nothing. They have a market value, and that market value is reflected in my wages. The excehnge of labor for wages is an EQUAL exchange as far as the market is concerned, and no "profit" is made by the laborer. Instead, the laborer generally get's currency which allows him to turn his labor into other things he.she might not otherwise be able to do. For instance, not everyone can build a house, but if I work and earn some money, I can pay someone else to build my house. Not everyone can farm, but if I earn some money, I can pay someone else to grow my food. Specilization in a job should allow the market to produce goods better and cheaper than if everyone tried to do everything for themselves. At the end of the day though, I've exchanged what are percieved to be equivalent goods in the market....it's as if I've traded 1 widget for another identical widget. The idea that every time you trade widgets the government should get some portion of the widgets involved is crazy talk, and it becomes even worse when you try to single out wages and labor as being subject to such a tax.

[torchbearer]

I don't care for Paul's answer as listed above, and perhaps it was heavily paraphrased.

I agree that Russo's movie misrepresented or misinterpreted some things, but I disagree with you that all the laws are in order to make us pay a personal income tax on labor and wages.

I think this for 2 reasons: a tax on labor is akin to involuntary servitude and second, and more importantly a tax on labor is a direct tax and is subject to apportionment.

Examine, in principle, what it means if the legislature can at a whim take 100% of your income on labor. What if they only take 99%? Or if they leave you with just enough to eat and have shelter, are you free yet? What if you can even have some comforts like cable and a car, then are you freely working for the first 3 months of the year?

Second, all things are taxable with a few listed exceptions, including a tax on labor and wages like our existing income tax. The problem is that a tax on labor and wages must be apportioned as it is a direct tax. The issue is the defintion of "income" as applied to labor and wages.

Income, in a corporate sense, is equated to profit, but for an individual every single cent (with some arbitrary exemptions) is counted as "income" prior to the individual paying any expenses. The government can not possibly know what it costs you as an individual to function properly in order to go work and earn your wages. Not that it matters because the government doesn't give individuals the same courtesy of paying their expenses prior to announcing their profits.

Income, in a sales sense, is equated to profit. Buy a widget for $1 and sell it for $2 and you pay tax on only the $1 of profit. In contrast, the government delcares that your labor has a starting value of ZERO dollars and that all money or items recieved in exchanged for said labor are income and are taxable. This is absurd.

Why is it that income, when applied to labor and wages, means "gross income" instead of profits as it does in all other situations?

The income tax when conceived was to be applied to "unearned" income, such as from interest or dividends that the very rich made. It wasn't supposed to apply to wages and labor. There is a huge difference.

If I dig a ditch for $100 I spend many calories, risk my health, and spend unrecoverable time on the project all in exchange for some money.

Why are my time, health, and energy worth nothing? The answer is they aren't worth nothing. They have a market value, and that market value is reflected in my wages. The excehnge of labor for wages is an EQUAL exchange as far as the market is concerned, and no "profit" is made by the laborer. Instead, the laborer generally get's currency which allows him to turn his labor into other things he.she might not otherwise be able to do. For instance, not everyone can build a house, but if I work and earn some money, I can pay someone else to build my house. Not everyone can farm, but if I earn some money, I can pay someone else to grow my food. Specilization in a job should allow the market to produce goods better and cheaper than if everyone tried to do everything for themselves. At the end of the day though, I've exchanged what are percieved to be equivalent goods in the market....it's as if I've traded 1 widget for another identical widget. The idea that every time you trade widgets the government should get some portion of the widgets involved is crazy talk, and it becomes even worse when you try to single out wages and labor as being subject to such a tax.

If you ever wanted an example of an absolute truth... read the above statement. Notice that feeling you get when you read it? That's the feeling of absolute truth.

Very well written, I saved it in a word doc, will spread.