The Paulites Aren't Done Yet

Senator Clinton said: "I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

"There's a pattern emerging here," she said.

Clinton's blunt remarks about race came a day after primaries in Indiana and North Carolina.
The Democratic Party can't win with just "eggheads and African-Americans," Paul Begala added helpfully.

What Hillary and Begala are saying is politically incorrect, but it is also patently true. Hillary was describing what may now fairly be called the Hillary Democrats ? a.k.a. the ex-Reagan Democrats who did not vote for Obama and may defect to John McCain
White people need to support Senator Clinton.

"A racist, anti-semite..."

? the only two non-familial portraits hanging in Ron Paul's congressional office are of Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises.

Care to guess the religious affiliation of these two gentlemen?

"Let's get rid of the IRS and then shoot ourselves when we can't get abortions or pay for child care as we're paying a ridiculous price on basic goods."

It's quite a curious thing. I am forced to wonder what sort of hideous perversion of economics education produced this twice-ventured belief in this running comments section that, in some miraculous way, the imposition of an income tax places a cap on any rise in consumer price levels or, further, the maintenance of abortion-access.

Funny, weren't it so sad.

Trollstein,

It is obvious that you don't have a clue as to the astounding workings of federalism. Federalism, while not perfect, is far better than what we are now being subjected to in this country with the slight-of-hand politics that is sold to the public en masse and passes as "democracy". Ron Paul is not advocating going back, but going forward with a system that will work equally as well today as it did when it was first conceived in the minds of the "founders". Federalism was not just a "response" to despotic regimes, it was far more, it embraced the ideal of the individual and the responsibility that each person should assume for their self-ownership. The "founders", well aware of the dangers of passions within the population, implemented a system of "concurrent majority" to blunt the forces of numerical majorities over the system. Federalism refines democracy into a workable, sustainable system that provides the ultimate protections for the individual while allowing for the society as a whole to advance in relative civility. Under such a system the will of the whole majority must be endorsed by the majorities of the constituent parts within the whole, what balance, what amazing genius.
This country has been subjected to such stratification since federalism was effectively neutralized. Indeed, we are simply following the path of many other societies in history; yet we seem to rarely heed the lessons of history, do we?
Although his writings can be tortuous in the extreme, Toynbee on the warnings of history stated: "Whatever the human faculty, or the sphere of its exercise, may be, the presumption that because of a faculty has proved equal to the accomplishment of a limited task within its proper field it may therefore be counted upon to produce some inordinate effort in a different set of circumstances, is never anything but an intellectual and a moral aberration and never leads to anything but certain disaster."

It is true, that just because the government has assumed a certain power to accomplish certain goals does not mean that it is beneficial, either to the individual or society as a whole. The fact is that the ideology of the "general will" has, in effect, contrived an "intellectual and moral aberration" that has effectively beguiled our federal Republic into a plutocratic empire that will meet the same fate as all other such imperial systems. At the height of the British Empire, one obscure statesman said: "Great Britain has no permanent friends and no permanent enemies, but only permanent interests", the same can now be said of the United States, at least in the minds of those who have assumed power. It is, after all, the need of all empires to create alliances, even if those alliances are not substantially beneficial to the country in any discernable manner.

The "do-gooders", the "social reformers" have actually done little to actually help the people in general, but have given incalculable assistance to the growth of a "democracy of tyranny", a "general will" that is no less dictatorial than any other dictatorship. While it is never the initial objective of these "social reformers" to centralize power, they nevertheless do so in their proclamations that "there oughta be a law". The concentration of power is the least effective solution to the woes of our society. These "false liberals" are, in effect, playing the same game as the "false conservatives"; both end with the same results. They simply lay on one strata of power over another, concentrating that power in ways that eventually become an exercise in absurdity. This is compounded as they call such concentration of power as "democratic" when the fact is that it is far-removed from democratic. Today, in this government, the left hand has no idea what the right hand is doing; there is such a dislocation in policy-making and the resulting policies implemented.

I have pretty much written off the Republican Party as a highly radical Statist vehicle for political and social dominance. The Democratic Party has, over the decades abandoned its Jeffersonian roots, in that, it no longer understands that it once did not believe or advocate that it could place such faith in the ability of the government, through some paternal legislative power or supervision, that such measures can never increase the happiness or social standing of the people, or provide this country with a system that actually benefits society that is sustainable in any discernable manner. Take for instance, the level of poverty in this country, poverty levels were steadily falling until the 60s and Johnson's "Great Society" programs, since it has stagnated and reversed. The government is neither the social worker for this country nor is it capable of being the policeman of the world; it is simply not equipped with either the wisdom or the fiscal support system to provide such utility.

You call Dr. Paul's positions as devolution, look around you?do you call what you see evolution? I see a government that has atrophied, a society that has been muted by the "general will", aimless. You call it a train-wreck, yet you ignore the possibility that a return to a system that offers solutions can provide solutions. The problem with 99% of the politicians, including Obama, Clinton and McCain, in this country is that they can't offer solutions because they are not asking the correct questions to get to those solutions. Those three candidates offer little more than panaceas, looking only at the symptoms and ignoring the diagnosis of the disease and therefore the remedy. So, if there were a solution, one that has been effectively neutralized in this country for the last 150 years, would it not behoove us to restore such solutions? Federalism, in its complex purity is a solution and we ignore it to our own peril. You and I are living in the "devolution", it surrounds us and not a day goes by when we are not affected by the "devolution" of our government from a federalist system of checks and balances to a consolidated centralized monstrosity. You have proven, through your comments, that you offer no actual alternatives to what Dr. Paul is proposing, you offer nothing better, no opinions on which we can base any need for intelligent rebuttal or debate. I have to wonder why you bother? I mean if you offered something of note, some spark of insight that would make me doubt either the character and promise of constitutional federalism, something that could recommend your stance then I would gladly listen, but thus far you have offered nothing of value on this or other subjects.

"Bobby:

You asked:

'What, exactly, would be the consequences, from your perspective, of the abolition of the federal income tax?'

Let's recap?"

Yes. Let's.

"There is a federal deficit approaching 1/2 Trillion dollars annually."

Sure. Our centralized monolith spending money it doesn't have. Go on?

"We can either throw a big party and tell the "T" bondholders to kiss our arses or pay the bills."

What you're positing is that myself and others should be held responsible for the reckless spending of others, in this case, the federal government. I'm pleased you permitted us this glimpse into your conception of ethics.

"Curbing of spending is already lost due to inflation which is mostly out of our control. (Energy prices and rising labor costs from China)."

Thank you, Trollstein, for answering my question regarding whether or not you even knew what inflation was. Here we find you confusing wholly separate phenomena. Fluctuations in price levels ? in this case, aggregating upwards ? and inflation are not one and the same thing. Inflation is a phenomenon of monetary policy and, contrary to your assertion, within the control of the body that assumes responsibility for the prosecution of monetary policy. Price levels are dependent upon many variables and are constantly in flux? in a free market. Where prices are fixed, distortions arise. It's not too melodramatic, methinks, to say that the consequences of these distortions can be severe. In any case, fluctuations in price level or accelerating the printing of currency or issuance of credit or adjustment of interest rates do not necessarily make "curbing of spending" impossible, though, no doubt, they do complicate things.

"The solution is a simple one but it may not be enough?"

Since there is no "third choice" in your mode of analysis, I am not all that surprised your "solution" to the federal deficit is, as you call it, "simple".

"No more billionaires."

Well. You never know. The Federal Reserve may make billionaires of us all in due time.

Joking aside?

"Every individual with more then $50-million in net worth would need to be taxed 100% of the excess."

To what end? To pay off the deficit?

Do you understand the role capital investment plays in wealth generation? The multiplication of productivity? Your mode of analysis is indicative of precisely that mode of policy that has brought us the federal deficit in the first place. That the state knows better what industry to promote and to perpetuate than the market, which is a shorthand way of saying you and I and everyone we know. Not to mention that what you suggest merely lends legitimacy to the process, thus ensuring the likelihood of the perpetuation of deficit spending, not its demise.

What you promote is destruction.

"(Anyone who tells you they have the absolute solution is jerkin' yer chain.)"

Jerking my chain any more than the individual attempting to convince me that there are only two ways to view the problem that he himself has failed to even diagnose?

"The above solution is the one with the best chance of success, not a guarantee of success."

Success at what? It does nothing to arrest spending, which was your thesis, nor did it address my question of you what consequences the abolition of the federal income tax would engender. I'm forced to wonder if you even remember what it was you were writing about.

"At least one of the two Republican candidates who advocated disbanding the IRS did their math and it called for a 23% value-added tax on everything. This is just to replace the IRS revenues, it will NOT balance the budget.

I think I heard Ron Paul say it on Meet the Press."

Ron Paul has maintained, with no interruption obstructing my attention, that he would replace the "shortfalls" from the elimination of the federal income tax with? nothing.

"Poor people who now pay very little income tax would be saddled with at least a 23% price hike on everything."

Once again, you have not established how eliminating the income tax would necessitate a rise in the price level.

"Bank interest charges should be capped at 15% maximum by Federal law."

I'll ask you: have you considered the consequences of the implementation of such a policy?

"Minimum wage for part-time workers higher then full-time."

? and merely expect to see firms juggle the ratios of part-time workers to full-time workers.

"Federal sales tax of 3% on interstate sales of goods (internet). Proceeds go directly to sustainable clean and renewable energy production."

I thought that the issue was the deficit. The beneficiary of the proceeds of your little scheme merely perpetuates the old scheme, changing only the recipient of the aid. And, in time, the same distortions and frictions will manifest themselves, if, and most likely, they aren't apparent from the get-go.

"Collective bargaining by citizens who are guaranteed the same pricing and terms (by law) for their health insurance, as the largest "group plans" such as Wal-Mart pays. Same with dental."

Yeah, well, absent government interference, we already have that. It's called "the market".

"Employers must collect income-taxes for their undocumented aliens. Being busted for non-compliance would bring a HEAVY $$$ penalties. A second such offense has mandatory jail time."

Have you considered the consequences that implementation of such a policy might have on output?

"Establish a task force to prevent citizen's rights to due process of law from being denied by 'networked' judges."

I'd get the government out of dispute-resolution altogether, but that's a whole 'nother argument, isn't it?

"The above are more sensible then the Paulisms I continue to hear."

Is "sensible" really the word you wish to use?

In closing? um, I must be missing something, but your instructions were to reveal something of the consequences of abolishing the income tax.

Were you planning on getting around to that at some later date?

"You wrote:

'Sure. Our centralized monolith spending money it doesn't have. Go on?'

"An over simplification on two fronts: 1) Much of this spending is interest on previous spending and 2) The budget deficit was engineered to benefit the larger Wall Street companies. This explanation is too voluminous to get into just now."

No disagreement brooked here, per the particulars.

However, let us not forget that you have no problem with the spending, per se. You are not interested in nor do you even find it possible to reduce spending. This is interesting. You correctly note that the spending is engineered to benefit the larger politically-connected firms and the tenor of the rest of your convoluted piece attacks a larger "culture of greed". Yet your argument is for the perpetuation of that process. What is your general purpose?

"I ask:
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa?"

You are confusing increases in the price level ? which can arise from any number of causes and inflation ? which is an increase in the supply of money. Is that simple enough for you?

An increase in the supply of money devalues that money, leading in aggregate to higher prices. But the two ? higher prices and inflation ? are not the same.

"Sorry. Me disagree."

I know.
And you're wrong.

"Inflation is inflation. If your basic costs rise from year to year, you have experienced inflation?"

Not necessarily, but more than likely.

"? pretty-much period."

Or a hunger blockade, an embargo, a natural catastrophe, or an active government erecting higher tariff walls? the list goes on. You're confusing two distinct mechanisms.

You really cannot be blamed for it, though. The government-compliant education and media outlets probably deserve their fair share of the credit for your mistaken intuition.

"There are numerous and varied causes of this inflation?"

There is one. Monetary policy. What you are speaking of is increases in price level. Inflation tends to increase the price level but it is not the increase in the price level. Your contention is that the symptom is the disease.

"? but it is all the same mathematics. As of 01-01-2008, the Government of China has instituted new pro-labor laws (which we in the USA have been insisting they do for some time) and the result is higher "FOB" prices. These higher prices directly translate into higher wholesale and ultimately higher retail prices. Many of the items effected are on the "Consumer Price Index" but even if many are not, such could easily be components of higher costs on those items which are on the index. Example: If florescent lights are not on the Index but U.S. industry uses these to conduct its day-to-day business then the effect would be the same because large department stores use these bulbs and they are part of the turn-key costs. Energy is a prime component of daily spending and so, this summer (where I live) there will be a 12% rise in the price of electricity. Therefore, one's money in the bank becomes that much less valuable because it buys exactly so much less.

That's the definition of 'inflation'. I am not sure I understand your definition."

Yes. Evidently.

"Yes in part. Such a tax would balance the budget for about 3-4 years (at current spending levels)."

? current spending levels?

Your arithmetic is illuminating. Levy 100% taxes on the "surplus income" of the beneficiaries of the spending ? as you yourself point out ? in order to? maintain that level of spending, thus, in the absence of any mention of redistribution to other recipients more than likely returning it to the taxed party.

Nice to meet you, Mr. Morgan.

"Or, looked at differently, it would pay off about $1.5 Trillion of debt, while balancing the budget for one year only. As importantly, as a society, we need to grow some better morals and ethics when it comes to super-opulent wealth."

Stealing is moral and ethical?

"This is more of a study on human nature. Here's the short story: I know a guy who spent the 1950s as a communist. The 1960's as a radical leftist. The 70's as a hard-left political candidate and the 80's as a entrepreneur. By the onset of the 1990's he was a millionaire and by the end of the 90's he did a Wall Street IPO and collected about $-250-million. In 2002 he screwed an old friend from the old neighborhood out of a deserved and promised commission of $50,000.00. Normally, I would blame the money for his ethical downfall. Not in this case. In this case, I blame the Bush inspired culture of greed. Simply put, our leaders and their laws dictate what we believe to be socially and morally acceptable. Its ancient human nature which probably dates back to the time when our ancestors lived in trees. Our rules reflect our morals."

And your intention is to preserve theft as a moral force? I almost agree with you here, but I find you to be overwhelmingly part of the problem.

"If Obama were to win, I have no doubt this same guy would be back to his roots of leftist-brain functioning."

The only appropriate response to this is to share with you the fact of its providing me with one of the biggest laughs I'm likely to have this still-nascent week.

"We need to teach our children better. We should NOT be looking up to and admiring these dirt bags like Trump and Gates and Forbes and Cuban and Soros and I don't care how much they choose to give away to charities."

Who we look up to is subjective and varies from individual to individual and, from my own anecdotal perspective, I know absolutely no one who looks up to any of these individuals you cite, with the exception of Soros, whom a few of my leftist friends genuinely admire.

"Now we are back to the real cause of the US Deficit, which I had hoped to avoid for right now because it justly deserves about 20" of blog and I don't have that much jam. I know you (more so others) will probably pick at my short explanation but here it is anyway:

Deficits favor Wall Street over Main Street. Large public companies have no problem borrowing money at very favorable rates and no one need sign any personal guarantees or provide any hard collateral. Private concerns can only borrow under (slightly) favorable conditions if the banks are hungry to lend. Budget deficits end the hunger because the treasury bonds yield high enough that banks take their depositors capitol and make their profit on T-Bills. To service the Public companies loans, Banks borrow from the Fed, which BTW has two sets of separate criteria to evaluate and grade the health of a given loan, one (liberal one) for public companies and another, much stricter for private (Main Street) companies. Thus, a relatively healthy loan to a profitable restaurant may well be rated at lower heath then a very shaky note out to the Enron Corp., or even to the Government of Argentina. Since most decent jobs are created at the "Main St." level, this regressive situation causes a ripple effect which eviscerates our entire economy."

There's hope for you yet.

"But not to worry, the Dow is still around 13,000 (when it was at 650 at the Reagan inauguration.)"

A reflection of an increase in the price level, in this case due to inflation.

"Now yer gettin cranky."

No, just pointing out that you defied your own promise.

"I think I may be able to get the video clip. What would you say to that?"

I would say to that that I've seen it already, that you don't have to look too hard, it's on YouTube, Ron Paul didn't say that, and have fun in your endeavors.

"More importantly, replacing it with "nothing" is even more psychotic a notion."

Yes. If you wish to maintain the current level of spending.

Ron Paul does not. In that same piece you reference (poorly), Ron Paul notes that in the absence of the federal income tax the federal government would still derive enough revenue from all other existing channels to fund the pre-9/11 federal budget, itself grossly-bloated.

In your eagerness to preserve existing spending levels, you've forgotten that other component of Rep. Paul's argument ? cutting spending to match eliminating the income tax?

"We'll just grow the money (revenue) in our toilets using shampoo and Tabasco sauce."

? and the Federal Reserve.

"All told, I find your collection of rhetorical questions un-amusing and non-productive."

I'm pleased. Mention of phrases like "un-amusing" and "non-productive" evokes the feeling that I get when scanning what you've shared with us in this thread. Like your anecdotes about Jerry Brown's father, an Obama inauguration effecting a sea-change in fiscal morality, guts hiding front teeth, and so on and so forth.

"I have considered the consequences of my suggestions as much as anyone can who is NOT a time traveler."

Perhaps. But evidence of such consideration is decidedly lacking in your commentary here.

"You have deliberately overlooked my logic to spark an 'ivy-league' style verbal karate tournament?"

Oh, my?

"? in hopes that other readers might see some merit in your rhetoric without actually committing to any solutions yourself."

Is that what I've done?

"You sound like those frat brothers in "Trading Places" who disparage and humiliate Winthrop (Ackroyd) after he was first ram-rodded out of house and home."

Ah! A fellow cineaste!

"Nowadays, a fast CPU could blog Bobby style, without human intervention."

Could it? I don't keep up with the technological trades, you know.

"I suspect your continued questions are merely an attempt to goat out something more substantial to harpoon. We have already reached this stage with the Ron Paul video clip."

Sir, when you present malformed and contradictory mish-mash, expect someone, if they have the time on their hands, to attempt to compel you to refine your focus so that it approaches something resembling coherence and uniformity of argument.

"You sir are a dog-food machine."

Let's stroll down Memory Lane.

"(Republicans are supposed to be obiedient.)

In 1992, Jerry Brown got to speak about his Dad, (the former CA Governor) at the NY convention. I heckled him and he cried. (Anyone who can locate a video close-up would see his tears). I suppose Paul is entitled to vent his speen, (yet once again) at the podium. Sadly, I won't be there to ruin his day.

You say Ron Paul:
I say 'Monkey Virus'."

"If Ron Paul ever got power, his first order of business would be to create his own official version of (an objectionable) reality, facilitating him to inflame the hearts of the citizenry.
He is the closest thing to a FIT 'Fuehrer in Training' that today exists in the USA."

"Paul sucks way worse then Reagan. Reagan was a "front man". Paul is a 'rear-end' boy."

Senator Clinton said: "I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

"There's a pattern emerging here," she said.

Clinton's blunt remarks about race came a day after primaries in Indiana and North Carolina.
The Democratic Party can't win with just "eggheads and African-Americans," Paul Begala added helpfully.

What Hillary and Begala are saying is politically incorrect, but it is also patently true. Hillary was describing what may now fairly be called the Hillary Democrats ? a.k.a. the ex-Reagan Democrats who did not vote for Obama and may defect to John McCain
White people need to support Senator Clinton.

"A racist, anti-semite..."

? the only two non-familial portraits hanging in Ron Paul's congressional office are of Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises.

Care to guess the religious affiliation of these two gentlemen?

"Let's get rid of the IRS and then shoot ourselves when we can't get abortions or pay for child care as we're paying a ridiculous price on basic goods."

It's quite a curious thing. I am forced to wonder what sort of hideous perversion of economics education produced this twice-ventured belief in this running comments section that, in some miraculous way, the imposition of an income tax places a cap on any rise in consumer price levels or, further, the maintenance of abortion-access.

Funny, weren't it so sad.

Trollstein,

It is obvious that you don't have a clue as to the astounding workings of federalism. Federalism, while not perfect, is far better than what we are now being subjected to in this country with the slight-of-hand politics that is sold to the public en masse and passes as "democracy". Ron Paul is not advocating going back, but going forward with a system that will work equally as well today as it did when it was first conceived in the minds of the "founders". Federalism was not just a "response" to despotic regimes, it was far more, it embraced the ideal of the individual and the responsibility that each person should assume for their self-ownership. The "founders", well aware of the dangers of passions within the population, implemented a system of "concurrent majority" to blunt the forces of numerical majorities over the system. Federalism refines democracy into a workable, sustainable system that provides the ultimate protections for the individual while allowing for the society as a whole to advance in relative civility. Under such a system the will of the whole majority must be endorsed by the majorities of the constituent parts within the whole, what balance, what amazing genius.
This country has been subjected to such stratification since federalism was effectively neutralized. Indeed, we are simply following the path of many other societies in history; yet we seem to rarely heed the lessons of history, do we?
Although his writings can be tortuous in the extreme, Toynbee on the warnings of history stated: "Whatever the human faculty, or the sphere of its exercise, may be, the presumption that because of a faculty has proved equal to the accomplishment of a limited task within its proper field it may therefore be counted upon to produce some inordinate effort in a different set of circumstances, is never anything but an intellectual and a moral aberration and never leads to anything but certain disaster."

It is true, that just because the government has assumed a certain power to accomplish certain goals does not mean that it is beneficial, either to the individual or society as a whole. The fact is that the ideology of the "general will" has, in effect, contrived an "intellectual and moral aberration" that has effectively beguiled our federal Republic into a plutocratic empire that will meet the same fate as all other such imperial systems. At the height of the British Empire, one obscure statesman said: "Great Britain has no permanent friends and no permanent enemies, but only permanent interests", the same can now be said of the United States, at least in the minds of those who have assumed power. It is, after all, the need of all empires to create alliances, even if those alliances are not substantially beneficial to the country in any discernable manner.

The "do-gooders", the "social reformers" have actually done little to actually help the people in general, but have given incalculable assistance to the growth of a "democracy of tyranny", a "general will" that is no less dictatorial than any other dictatorship. While it is never the initial objective of these "social reformers" to centralize power, they nevertheless do so in their proclamations that "there oughta be a law". The concentration of power is the least effective solution to the woes of our society. These "false liberals" are, in effect, playing the same game as the "false conservatives"; both end with the same results. They simply lay on one strata of power over another, concentrating that power in ways that eventually become an exercise in absurdity. This is compounded as they call such concentration of power as "democratic" when the fact is that it is far-removed from democratic. Today, in this government, the left hand has no idea what the right hand is doing; there is such a dislocation in policy-making and the resulting policies implemented.

I have pretty much written off the Republican Party as a highly radical Statist vehicle for political and social dominance. The Democratic Party has, over the decades abandoned its Jeffersonian roots, in that, it no longer understands that it once did not believe or advocate that it could place such faith in the ability of the government, through some paternal legislative power or supervision, that such measures can never increase the happiness or social standing of the people, or provide this country with a system that actually benefits society that is sustainable in any discernable manner. Take for instance, the level of poverty in this country, poverty levels were steadily falling until the 60s and Johnson's "Great Society" programs, since it has stagnated and reversed. The government is neither the social worker for this country nor is it capable of being the policeman of the world; it is simply not equipped with either the wisdom or the fiscal support system to provide such utility.

You call Dr. Paul's positions as devolution, look around you?do you call what you see evolution? I see a government that has atrophied, a society that has been muted by the "general will", aimless. You call it a train-wreck, yet you ignore the possibility that a return to a system that offers solutions can provide solutions. The problem with 99% of the politicians, including Obama, Clinton and McCain, in this country is that they can't offer solutions because they are not asking the correct questions to get to those solutions. Those three candidates offer little more than panaceas, looking only at the symptoms and ignoring the diagnosis of the disease and therefore the remedy. So, if there were a solution, one that has been effectively neutralized in this country for the last 150 years, would it not behoove us to restore such solutions? Federalism, in its complex purity is a solution and we ignore it to our own peril. You and I are living in the "devolution", it surrounds us and not a day goes by when we are not affected by the "devolution" of our government from a federalist system of checks and balances to a consolidated centralized monstrosity. You have proven, through your comments, that you offer no actual alternatives to what Dr. Paul is proposing, you offer nothing better, no opinions on which we can base any need for intelligent rebuttal or debate. I have to wonder why you bother? I mean if you offered something of note, some spark of insight that would make me doubt either the character and promise of constitutional federalism, something that could recommend your stance then I would gladly listen, but thus far you have offered nothing of value on this or other subjects.

"Bobby:

You asked:

'What, exactly, would be the consequences, from your perspective, of the abolition of the federal income tax?'

Let's recap?"

Yes. Let's.

"There is a federal deficit approaching 1/2 Trillion dollars annually."

Sure. Our centralized monolith spending money it doesn't have. Go on?

"We can either throw a big party and tell the "T" bondholders to kiss our arses or pay the bills."

What you're positing is that myself and others should be held responsible for the reckless spending of others, in this case, the federal government. I'm pleased you permitted us this glimpse into your conception of ethics.

"Curbing of spending is already lost due to inflation which is mostly out of our control. (Energy prices and rising labor costs from China)."

Thank you, Trollstein, for answering my question regarding whether or not you even knew what inflation was. Here we find you confusing wholly separate phenomena. Fluctuations in price levels ? in this case, aggregating upwards ? and inflation are not one and the same thing. Inflation is a phenomenon of monetary policy and, contrary to your assertion, within the control of the body that assumes responsibility for the prosecution of monetary policy. Price levels are dependent upon many variables and are constantly in flux? in a free market. Where prices are fixed, distortions arise. It's not too melodramatic, methinks, to say that the consequences of these distortions can be severe. In any case, fluctuations in price level or accelerating the printing of currency or issuance of credit or adjustment of interest rates do not necessarily make "curbing of spending" impossible, though, no doubt, they do complicate things.

"The solution is a simple one but it may not be enough?"

Since there is no "third choice" in your mode of analysis, I am not all that surprised your "solution" to the federal deficit is, as you call it, "simple".

"No more billionaires."

Well. You never know. The Federal Reserve may make billionaires of us all in due time.

Joking aside?

"Every individual with more then $50-million in net worth would need to be taxed 100% of the excess."

To what end? To pay off the deficit?

Do you understand the role capital investment plays in wealth generation? The multiplication of productivity? Your mode of analysis is indicative of precisely that mode of policy that has brought us the federal deficit in the first place. That the state knows better what industry to promote and to perpetuate than the market, which is a shorthand way of saying you and I and everyone we know. Not to mention that what you suggest merely lends legitimacy to the process, thus ensuring the likelihood of the perpetuation of deficit spending, not its demise.

What you promote is destruction.

"(Anyone who tells you they have the absolute solution is jerkin' yer chain.)"

Jerking my chain any more than the individual attempting to convince me that there are only two ways to view the problem that he himself has failed to even diagnose?

"The above solution is the one with the best chance of success, not a guarantee of success."

Success at what? It does nothing to arrest spending, which was your thesis, nor did it address my question of you what consequences the abolition of the federal income tax would engender. I'm forced to wonder if you even remember what it was you were writing about.

"At least one of the two Republican candidates who advocated disbanding the IRS did their math and it called for a 23% value-added tax on everything. This is just to replace the IRS revenues, it will NOT balance the budget.

I think I heard Ron Paul say it on Meet the Press."

Ron Paul has maintained, with no interruption obstructing my attention, that he would replace the "shortfalls" from the elimination of the federal income tax with? nothing.

"Poor people who now pay very little income tax would be saddled with at least a 23% price hike on everything."

Once again, you have not established how eliminating the income tax would necessitate a rise in the price level.

"Bank interest charges should be capped at 15% maximum by Federal law."

I'll ask you: have you considered the consequences of the implementation of such a policy?

"Minimum wage for part-time workers higher then full-time."

? and merely expect to see firms juggle the ratios of part-time workers to full-time workers.

"Federal sales tax of 3% on interstate sales of goods (internet). Proceeds go directly to sustainable clean and renewable energy production."

I thought that the issue was the deficit. The beneficiary of the proceeds of your little scheme merely perpetuates the old scheme, changing only the recipient of the aid. And, in time, the same distortions and frictions will manifest themselves, if, and most likely, they aren't apparent from the get-go.

"Collective bargaining by citizens who are guaranteed the same pricing and terms (by law) for their health insurance, as the largest "group plans" such as Wal-Mart pays. Same with dental."

Yeah, well, absent government interference, we already have that. It's called "the market".

"Employers must collect income-taxes for their undocumented aliens. Being busted for non-compliance would bring a HEAVY $$$ penalties. A second such offense has mandatory jail time."

Have you considered the consequences that implementation of such a policy might have on output?

"Establish a task force to prevent citizen's rights to due process of law from being denied by 'networked' judges."

I'd get the government out of dispute-resolution altogether, but that's a whole 'nother argument, isn't it?

"The above are more sensible then the Paulisms I continue to hear."

Is "sensible" really the word you wish to use?

In closing? um, I must be missing something, but your instructions were to reveal something of the consequences of abolishing the income tax.

Were you planning on getting around to that at some later date?

"You wrote:

'Sure. Our centralized monolith spending money it doesn't have. Go on?'

"An over simplification on two fronts: 1) Much of this spending is interest on previous spending and 2) The budget deficit was engineered to benefit the larger Wall Street companies. This explanation is too voluminous to get into just now."

No disagreement brooked here, per the particulars.

However, let us not forget that you have no problem with the spending, per se. You are not interested in nor do you even find it possible to reduce spending. This is interesting. You correctly note that the spending is engineered to benefit the larger politically-connected firms and the tenor of the rest of your convoluted piece attacks a larger "culture of greed". Yet your argument is for the perpetuation of that process. What is your general purpose?

"I ask:
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa?"

You are confusing increases in the price level ? which can arise from any number of causes and inflation ? which is an increase in the supply of money. Is that simple enough for you?

An increase in the supply of money devalues that money, leading in aggregate to higher prices. But the two ? higher prices and inflation ? are not the same.

"Sorry. Me disagree."

I know.
And you're wrong.

"Inflation is inflation. If your basic costs rise from year to year, you have experienced inflation?"

Not necessarily, but more than likely.

"? pretty-much period."

Or a hunger blockade, an embargo, a natural catastrophe, or an active government erecting higher tariff walls? the list goes on. You're confusing two distinct mechanisms.

You really cannot be blamed for it, though. The government-compliant education and media outlets probably deserve their fair share of the credit for your mistaken intuition.

"There are numerous and varied causes of this inflation?"

There is one. Monetary policy. What you are speaking of is increases in price level. Inflation tends to increase the price level but it is not the increase in the price level. Your contention is that the symptom is the disease.

"? but it is all the same mathematics. As of 01-01-2008, the Government of China has instituted new pro-labor laws (which we in the USA have been insisting they do for some time) and the result is higher "FOB" prices. These higher prices directly translate into higher wholesale and ultimately higher retail prices. Many of the items effected are on the "Consumer Price Index" but even if many are not, such could easily be components of higher costs on those items which are on the index. Example: If florescent lights are not on the Index but U.S. industry uses these to conduct its day-to-day business then the effect would be the same because large department stores use these bulbs and they are part of the turn-key costs. Energy is a prime component of daily spending and so, this summer (where I live) there will be a 12% rise in the price of electricity. Therefore, one's money in the bank becomes that much less valuable because it buys exactly so much less.

That's the definition of 'inflation'. I am not sure I understand your definition."

Yes. Evidently.

"Yes in part. Such a tax would balance the budget for about 3-4 years (at current spending levels)."

? current spending levels?

Your arithmetic is illuminating. Levy 100% taxes on the "surplus income" of the beneficiaries of the spending ? as you yourself point out ? in order to? maintain that level of spending, thus, in the absence of any mention of redistribution to other recipients more than likely returning it to the taxed party.

Nice to meet you, Mr. Morgan.

"Or, looked at differently, it would pay off about $1.5 Trillion of debt, while balancing the budget for one year only. As importantly, as a society, we need to grow some better morals and ethics when it comes to super-opulent wealth."

Stealing is moral and ethical?

"This is more of a study on human nature. Here's the short story: I know a guy who spent the 1950s as a communist. The 1960's as a radical leftist. The 70's as a hard-left political candidate and the 80's as a entrepreneur. By the onset of the 1990's he was a millionaire and by the end of the 90's he did a Wall Street IPO and collected about $-250-million. In 2002 he screwed an old friend from the old neighborhood out of a deserved and promised commission of $50,000.00. Normally, I would blame the money for his ethical downfall. Not in this case. In this case, I blame the Bush inspired culture of greed. Simply put, our leaders and their laws dictate what we believe to be socially and morally acceptable. Its ancient human nature which probably dates back to the time when our ancestors lived in trees. Our rules reflect our morals."

And your intention is to preserve theft as a moral force? I almost agree with you here, but I find you to be overwhelmingly part of the problem.

"If Obama were to win, I have no doubt this same guy would be back to his roots of leftist-brain functioning."

The only appropriate response to this is to share with you the fact of its providing me with one of the biggest laughs I'm likely to have this still-nascent week.

"We need to teach our children better. We should NOT be looking up to and admiring these dirt bags like Trump and Gates and Forbes and Cuban and Soros and I don't care how much they choose to give away to charities."

Who we look up to is subjective and varies from individual to individual and, from my own anecdotal perspective, I know absolutely no one who looks up to any of these individuals you cite, with the exception of Soros, whom a few of my leftist friends genuinely admire.

"Now we are back to the real cause of the US Deficit, which I had hoped to avoid for right now because it justly deserves about 20" of blog and I don't have that much jam. I know you (more so others) will probably pick at my short explanation but here it is anyway:

Deficits favor Wall Street over Main Street. Large public companies have no problem borrowing money at very favorable rates and no one need sign any personal guarantees or provide any hard collateral. Private concerns can only borrow under (slightly) favorable conditions if the banks are hungry to lend. Budget deficits end the hunger because the treasury bonds yield high enough that banks take their depositors capitol and make their profit on T-Bills. To service the Public companies loans, Banks borrow from the Fed, which BTW has two sets of separate criteria to evaluate and grade the health of a given loan, one (liberal one) for public companies and another, much stricter for private (Main Street) companies. Thus, a relatively healthy loan to a profitable restaurant may well be rated at lower heath then a very shaky note out to the Enron Corp., or even to the Government of Argentina. Since most decent jobs are created at the "Main St." level, this regressive situation causes a ripple effect which eviscerates our entire economy."

There's hope for you yet.

"But not to worry, the Dow is still around 13,000 (when it was at 650 at the Reagan inauguration.)"

A reflection of an increase in the price level, in this case due to inflation.

"Now yer gettin cranky."

No, just pointing out that you defied your own promise.

"I think I may be able to get the video clip. What would you say to that?"

I would say to that that I've seen it already, that you don't have to look too hard, it's on YouTube, Ron Paul didn't say that, and have fun in your endeavors.

"More importantly, replacing it with "nothing" is even more psychotic a notion."

Yes. If you wish to maintain the current level of spending.

Ron Paul does not. In that same piece you reference (poorly), Ron Paul notes that in the absence of the federal income tax the federal government would still derive enough revenue from all other existing channels to fund the pre-9/11 federal budget, itself grossly-bloated.

In your eagerness to preserve existing spending levels, you've forgotten that other component of Rep. Paul's argument ? cutting spending to match eliminating the income tax?

"We'll just grow the money (revenue) in our toilets using shampoo and Tabasco sauce."

? and the Federal Reserve.

"All told, I find your collection of rhetorical questions un-amusing and non-productive."

I'm pleased. Mention of phrases like "un-amusing" and "non-productive" evokes the feeling that I get when scanning what you've shared with us in this thread. Like your anecdotes about Jerry Brown's father, an Obama inauguration effecting a sea-change in fiscal morality, guts hiding front teeth, and so on and so forth.

"I have considered the consequences of my suggestions as much as anyone can who is NOT a time traveler."

Perhaps. But evidence of such consideration is decidedly lacking in your commentary here.

"You have deliberately overlooked my logic to spark an 'ivy-league' style verbal karate tournament?"

Oh, my?

"? in hopes that other readers might see some merit in your rhetoric without actually committing to any solutions yourself."

Is that what I've done?

"You sound like those frat brothers in "Trading Places" who disparage and humiliate Winthrop (Ackroyd) after he was first ram-rodded out of house and home."

Ah! A fellow cineaste!

"Nowadays, a fast CPU could blog Bobby style, without human intervention."

Could it? I don't keep up with the technological trades, you know.

"I suspect your continued questions are merely an attempt to goat out something more substantial to harpoon. We have already reached this stage with the Ron Paul video clip."

Sir, when you present malformed and contradictory mish-mash, expect someone, if they have the time on their hands, to attempt to compel you to refine your focus so that it approaches something resembling coherence and uniformity of argument.

"You sir are a dog-food machine."

Let's stroll down Memory Lane.

"(Republicans are supposed to be obiedient.)

In 1992, Jerry Brown got to speak about his Dad, (the former CA Governor) at the NY convention. I heckled him and he cried. (Anyone who can locate a video close-up would see his tears). I suppose Paul is entitled to vent his speen, (yet once again) at the podium. Sadly, I won't be there to ruin his day.

You say Ron Paul:
I say 'Monkey Virus'."

"If Ron Paul ever got power, his first order of business would be to create his own official version of (an objectionable) reality, facilitating him to inflame the hearts of the citizenry.
He is the closest thing to a FIT 'Fuehrer in Training' that today exists in the USA."

"Paul sucks way worse then Reagan. Reagan was a "front man". Paul is a 'rear-end' boy."

Well...I must say I am mildly surprised. But he did raise a lot of money, and he's still getting significant votes in the Primary races.

Sounds like Team McCain has a little challenge on its hands: No comfortable Convention for Old Men.

... and I say the Banker's Puppets cannot match the light of truth. The revolution will continue regardless of who be the next president of this shameful debacle. ~I look very much forward to seeing the army of Israel dwindle away, especially after we stop paying for it :~)

You say:
"... the Banker's Puppets cannot match the light of truth."
Good one~ ... and I say:
Better the Banker then the Butcher's.
There was very limited debate on the factual history of the Palestinian / Israeli conflict, during the life-spans of most of the eye-witnesses. In the past 10 years, to coincide with the onset of old-age of the previous children (of 1947-48), completely new theories have emerged, most noted of which is the institutional denial of the Holocaust.
In the recent past, there is denial that The Children of Israel ever had any separate cultural identity and Jerusalem was merely an 'out-post' on the way to (just about) anywhere else. The Irony is that the Palestinian-Arabs no longer have any separate cultural or religious identity from the greater Arab family of nations. Much of the world has this one backwards. Whether or not Solomon was a petty-anti mayor, the Jews of the 20th century (internationally) were guaranteed a place to settle, free from reminders of anti-Semitism and especially of violence. Instead, they have the longest active war still progress. (Israel is still technically at war with Lebanon under armistice).
Two sets of international treaties were the foundation of the Jewish Independent Homeland movement. In the first set (1918-1924) the land was granted to the Jews of the world, through diplomatic trading between the nation with title (Turkey) and the new recipient(s).
Of the dozens of other National independence actions in the 20th century, most of which were between ethnically or religiously divided populations, Israel may be the only one specifically called for by international charters. There is certainly no other called for by two.
Israel does not need the USA's money. What they need (and coincidentally what we also need) is to wake up and return to proper reasoning. Israel will continue to receive USA money because it would be too embarrassing for the USA to be sending money to: Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Pakistan, the PA, Afghanistan, Iraq and (probably a few more) without sending some to Israel.
Lastly, have you seen Mr. Obama on CNN speaking favorably of Israel? I seriously think--at this point, he is more Jewish then myself.

Trollstein, Washington Post, "on Faith" 1/7/08, Mahatma's grandson, President and co-founder of the M.K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence.
Jewish Identity Can't Depend on Violence
Jewish identity in the past has been locked into the holocaust experience -- a German burden that the Jews have not been able to shed. It is a very good example of a community that can overplay a historic experience to the point that it begins to repulse friends. The holocaust was the result of the warped mind of an individual who was able to influence his followers into doing something dreadful. But, it seems to me that the Jews today not only want the Germans to feel guilty but the whole world must regret what happened to the Jews. The world did feel sorry for the episode but when an individual or a nation refuses to forgive and move on the regret turns into anger.
The Jewish identity in the future appears bleak. Any nation that remains anchored to the past is unable to move ahead and, especially a nation that believes its survival can only be ensured by weapons and bombs. In Tel Aviv in 2004 I had the opportunity to speak to some Members of Parliament and Peace activists all of whom argued that the wall and the military build-up was necessary to protect the nation and the people. In other words, I asked, you believe that you can create a snake pit -- with many deadly snakes in it -- and expect to live in the pit secure and alive? What do you mean? they countered. Well, with your superior weapons and armaments and your attitude towards your neighbors would it not be right to say that you are creating a snake pit? How can anyone live peacefully in such an atmosphere? Would it not be better to befriend those who hate you? Can you not reach out and share your technological advancement with your neighbors and build a relationship?
Apparently, in the modern world, so determined to live by the bomb, this is an alien concept. You don't befriend anyone, you dominate them. We have created a culture of violence (Israel and the Jews are the biggest players) and that Culture of Violence is eventually going to destroy humanity.(Arun Gandhi is the fifth grandson of India's legendary leader, Mohandas K. "Mahatma" Gandhi. He is president and co-founder of the M. K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence, now at the University of Rochester in New York)

MJ, ever hear of Operation Kaos that gave Senator Clinton the recent victory in Indiana? It was payback for the Democrats voting Republican in the Michigan primary that gave McCain the victory.

Mr Phylis:
If Ron Paul ever got power, his first order of business would be to create his own official version of (an objectionable) reality, facilitating him to inflame the hearts of the citizenry.
He is the closest thing to a FIT 'Fuehrer in Training' that today exists in the USA.

Wow Paul a fascist? A fascist would try to centralize power (see Patriot ACT). A fascist would start spying on its own citizens (see Department of Homeland Security). Paul not a real Republican? Was Goldwater not a real Repubilcan? If not Goldwater sure had Reagan fooled. I don't know if you have heard of Barry Goldwater or not but you should read about him. Then you would figure out what a "real" Republican is. That is the source of most of Reagan's ideals. Not that Reagan really lived up to them but he did speak to them. Republicans aren't supposed to be hawks or spenders. That is the Neo Conservative rhetoric you have been hearing(listen to Limbaugh much?).

Scott, don't take the Troll seriously. The fact that the Green Party disassociated themselves from him, has driven him to distraction. He is an old bitter man. On the other hand, we Greens, we are neither left nor right, but out in front leading. We admire Ron Paul for his spunk.

"Scott, don't take the Troll seriously. The fact that the Green Party disassociated themselves from him, has driven him to distraction. He is an old bitter man. On the other hand, we Greens, we are neither left nor right, but out in front leading. We admire Ron Paul for his spunk."
{end of quote}
Speaking for the entire Green movement, Ms Green can't use the same handle twice, although she/he uses the same insults consistantly. Because it irritates her/his ears to hear him/herself rendering true statements.

Why are you even giving publicity to the useless Ru Paul and his ridiculous, wannabe rebel, Paultards? They have nothing remotely new and/or useful to contribute to anything. You're just encouraging them to keep on raving and babbling. Please stop.

The hateful scorn for Ron Paul by the warmongers is unfounded. Reagan, who succeeded Goldwater (2 men THAT GOT THE REPUCLICAN PARTY where it is TODAY)...are more in line with Ron Paul than Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran McCain. Have a look see...

"REASON: Governor Reagan, you have been quoted in the press as saying that you're doing a lot of speaking now on behalf of the philosophy of conservatism and libertarianism. Is there a difference between the two?

REAGAN: If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is."

Senator Clinton said: "I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

"There's a pattern emerging here," she said.

Clinton's blunt remarks about race came a day after primaries in Indiana and North Carolina.
The Democratic Party can't win with just "eggheads and African-Americans," Paul Begala added helpfully.

What Hillary and Begala are saying is politically incorrect, but it is also patently true. Hillary was describing what may now fairly be called the Hillary Democrats — a.k.a. the ex-Reagan Democrats who did not vote for Obama and may defect to John McCain
White people need to support Senator Clinton.

Hey plumber_05....

I don't know if you have heard of the "Real Lincoln" or not but you should read about him. Then you would figure out what a "real" Republican is. That is the source of most of the neocon's ideals. Try DiLorenzo's book and you will learn about mercantilistic proto-empire fascism. Dr. Paul is too good for the Republicans. They deserve to rot into infamy. We need a genuine third party (which will really be a second party to the Republicrats). Sadly the Libertarians are too fractured and the Constitution Party is too obscure. I will still vote by gladly choosing one of them though.

A Republican vote is a wasted vote. A Democrat vote is a wasted vote. If you want to change your government, you must change your vote. Break free from the MSM mind control puppet masters. A revolt is the first step in a revolution.

Ron Paul visa-vis' Ronald Reagan?
Firstly, Reagan sucked. He balloned the National debt x4. Paul is running on a platform to balance the budget, but then again, so did Reagan, thus (maybe) there is one point of similarity.
Paul sucks way worse then Reagan. Reagan was a "front man". Paul is a 'rear-end' boy.
PS} Both Goldwater (as a presidential candidate) and Reagan (as CA Governor) strongly advocated using nukes to win the Vietnam war. During the time-frame, that is what set these guys apart from the rest of humanity and even apart from the balance of the Republican party.

Ron Paul is trying to save the country. One does wonder why he is bothering to do it.