Ron Paul and State Authority/Responsibility (Representatives, vote, representation, million)

[bily4]

(Note to Mod - I wanted to post this in the Politics Section..can you move when oyou get chance, thanks...)

I borrowed this link from Roseba in another forum. It relates to a topics which was kind of bothering me intuitively. From what I understand the Ron Paul message is to phase out all Federal spending and taxes and concentrate everything back at the state level.

Today states with fewer inhabitants benefit obviously from the current system, because there are not enough inhabitants in those areas to maintain their funding. I can see the Ron Paul appeal to states with high populations because they end up paying more than their "fair share" today, and could pay less if they just concentrated on their own state.

So does Ron Paul say anything about what states especially like the Dakotas, Missouri, Virginia, West Virginia, Alabama, Alaska, Montana, New Mexico should do once this federal sharing of taxes is removed? Is there any proposal, or is it just sink or swim?

It seems like residents of these states would get hit very hard with a higher individual burden to maintain the same level of services and functions they benefit from today for their states.


The Tax Foundation - Why Do Some States Feast on Federal Spending, Not Others?

[Yeledaf]

Thanks for bringing this up, bily4.

This would seem to provide yet more proof that Ron Paul is a crackpot with poorly-conceived ideas.

[KantLockeMeIn]

Originally Posted by Yeledaf

Thanks for bringing this up, bily4.

This would seem to provide yet more proof that Ron Paul is a crackpot with poorly-conceived ideas.

I'd hardly attribute the ideas to Ron Paul, rather to Jefferson, Madison, Henry, Mason, and enough of a majority of our founders to ratify our Constitution.

[Yeledaf]

Originally Posted by twojciac

I'd hardly attribute the ideas to Ron Paul, rather to Jefferson, Madison, Henry, Mason, and enough of a majority of our founders to ratify our Constitution.

So now Paul wants to father children with his slaves?

[paperhouse]

With fewer taxes going to the feds, the states will increase taxes to cover things that the feds were doing. It puts you in control of your money on the local level. Do you have any control over Federal spending "on your behalf"?

If you have a problem with this form of government, you should consider rewriting the Constitution.

[Yeledaf]

Originally Posted by paperhouse

With fewer taxes going to the feds, the states will increase taxes to cover things that the feds were doing. It puts you in control of your money on the local level. Do you have any control over Federal spending "on your behalf"?

If you have a problem with this form of government, you should consider rewriting the Constitution.

I wondered where those long lines of millions of people came from who were outside my window today. They were alll lined up to vault Dr. Paul into the White House and eliminate the federal government, bring back the golod standard, reinstitute slavery, and sell the Louisiana purchase back to France as an usurpation of state authority.

Bon jour, Broncos de Denvair! Vous etes un equipe sportif formidable!

[KantLockeMeIn]

Originally Posted by bily4

(Note to Mod - I wanted to post this in the Politics Section..can you move when oyou get chance, thanks...)

I borrowed this link from Roseba in another forum. It relates to a topics which was kind of bothering me intuitively. From what I understand the Ron Paul message is to phase out all Federal spending and taxes and concentrate everything back at the state level.

Today states with fewer inhabitants benefit obviously from the current system, because there are not enough inhabitants in those areas to maintain their funding. I can see the Ron Paul appeal to states with high populations because they end up paying more than their "fair share" today, and could pay less if they just concentrated on their own state.

So does Ron Paul say anything about what states especially like the Dakotas, Missouri, Virginia, West Virginia, Alabama, Alaska, Montana, New Mexico should do once this federal sharing of taxes is removed? Is there any proposal, or is it just sink or swim?

It seems like residents of these states would get hit very hard with a higher individual burden to maintain the same level of services and functions they benefit from today for their states.


The Tax Foundation - Why Do Some States Feast on Federal Spending, Not Others?

When the federal sharing of taxes is removed the states would be forced to closely examine their spending. Being a resident of Texas I was not able to vote for any state representatives of Virginia, nor was I able to vote on any spending bills... yet I am forced to fund those programs indirectly. Sounds pretty close to taxation without representation to me...

Apply this to my household. If I were able to rely on my neighbors to fund my household expenses beyond my income, I would be less concerned about keeping any budgets because I knew that I could eat out at a steakhouse every night and still know that I'll keep my lights on because I can rely on neighbors to pay my bills.

[paperhouse]

Originally Posted by Yeledaf

I wondered where those long lines of millions of people came from who were outside my window today. They were alll lined up to vault Dr. Paul into the White House and eliminate the federal government, bring back the golod standard, reinstitute slavery, and sell the Louisiana purchase back to France as an usurpation of state authority.

Bon jour, Broncos de Denvair! Vous etes un equipe sportif formidable!

Slavery was eliminated by the 14th amendment. Did you forget that?

All states that were part of the purchase have been ratified as called for in the Constitution. I have never once heard of Paul wanting to return those to France.

While I don't speak French, I have a solid base of Latin based languages to agree with that statement.

Hasta luego!

[paperhouse]

I have to say, if nothing else, Ron Paul has forced a lot of people to reexamine the basic principles this country was founded on. Even if he doesn't win the Presidency, I've learned a lot from the readings I've had to do to argue his positions. I'm happy I agree with most of them.

[KantLockeMeIn]

Originally Posted by Yeledaf

So now Paul wants to father children with his slaves?

Man... you make my life much easier when you continue to spout off nonsense.