If you’re ready to get more involved, we’d love to have you aboard: http://www.ronpaulde.com

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Cuban

And Social Security is in good shape at least until we’re long gone, unless the Treasury can’t honor the bonds it issued…or so I’ve read.

My problem is with things like Social Security not being means-tested. I mean give me a break…it should be social SECURITY, not an entitlement. But the system of one-size-fits-all pie-splitting inevitably bankrupts the middle class and leaves the poor still in need as the wealthy game the big monolithic system, which is removed from real, direct citizen influence.

As far as Gates or Buffett, I don’t give free passes to those who decide to come off some of their beyond-justifiable wealth after they have already accumulated it. These guys only have consciences after they realize they can’t take it with them. The fact that they hoarded and pirated that much wealth for themselves in the first place is enough for me to have no mercy on their souls.

Who the heck is Mark Cuban?

Does that go for Mark Cuban too?

I know Buffett and Gates give away more money than the sum of Africa’s GDP, so I have to give them some cred. At least they make an effort to give back. Rupert on the other hand is what you said….a sociopath. And one who thinks everything is available to him, by any means necessary, to further his personal agenda/empire without any regard for the common good, present or future.

I do agree with you somewhat that there is a socialist tendency as it pertains to our gov’t, but it doesn’t benefit the people. It benefits corporations instead.

If you want to talk about welfare, the Corporations/Special Interests are the largest recipients, and in more ways then most can imagine. Exorbitant tax breaks and code (hell, just look at the off-shore tax loopholes for Big Oil and the likes of Halliburton), Fed buy-outs, subsidies (be it for Pharma or Agra), take a massive toll on the average Joe, as well as the companies that try to follow a true, honest capitalistic model.

I am all for revamping the Personal/Individual tax code. Progressive and fair, based on real-life capabilities and consumption of ‘tax-provided resources’, i.e. – 20% of 50k is not 20% of 500k; and if you’re making 500k, you’re certainly using more ‘tax-provided resources’ than the person making 50k…..if you know what I’m saying…

If you look at a greedy megalomaniacal bastard like Rupert Murdoch and his NewsCorp’s mass evasion of taxes to our government, the term organized treason takes on new meaning. Ditto Warren Buffett, Bill Gates.

Show me a billionaire and I will show you a greedy, despicable sociopath.

I just don’t buy that sending money to Washington to dole out back to us through the likes of Ted Stevens and Robert Byrd is or ever has been the answer. It is a recipe for corruption on the level we have, in which national power elites redistribute our national resources based on service to their political power base and powerful constituencies able to manipulate these few.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_triangle

Certain things must be done nationally, just not on the absurd, wasteful, unaccountable scale as the national socialists have brought us with this creeping big brother/nanny.

I use the term national socialist in all seriousness. If the definition fits, wear it. I am not intending to imply this term in the sense of the Germany 1930’s variety, but after 6 years of Bush does it seem we are far off?

If you want every aspect of society (health, welfare, education) uniformly nationalized through a central collective power you are a national socialist. Plain and simple.

The only way to end the likes of Bush and his ilk, for goos, is not to elect their bipolar twins who only spout different rhetoric, dancing around the same corrupt system. It is to remove any partisan or special interests’ ability to control and manipulate our national fate with such ease and impunity, bought and paid-for with the monetary influences of concentrated wealth. The only way to ensure against abuse of power is never to give it in the first place.

“We can have a democratic society or we can have great concentrated wealth in the hands of a few. We cannot have both.” – Louis Brandeis

Like it or not, the federal government as it has evolved is concentrated wealth in the hands of a few — almost exclusively controlled by those few who personally possess concentrated wealth, and in service to the interests of their own wealth.

As far as taxes, you have to be kidding you can defend the IRS any more than the abominable tax code that is haven for the wealthy and a leach upon the working masses.

FAIR TAX – progressive, universal, simple, unintrusive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax

With that said, I completely understand the term “Federalism”, as it pertains to what it meant to our Founding Fathers, Hamilton’s and Jefferson’s interpretations of it. Paul is clearly on the Jeffersonian side of the argument, which would be anti-Federalism (or a weak central government). The Hamiltonian way would place the States as an occasional “check and balance” (such as providing additional protections not provided by the Constitution) to the FG, but not as the driving forces of our nation.

I understand his wanting to “streamline” the Federal Gov; but given his druthers, such as stripping essential programs, or agencies (that most Americans want), his policies will certainly cause many citizens to rely on the States to provide remedies.

What would happen to the people of Mississippi and Louisiana, compared to people of California and New York? Things we now share (nationally) will eventually become inequitable. And the worst case, after years of a “Libertarian” rule, would be 50 decentralized city-states, with extremely strong local governments.

Paul lost me (as a serious candidate) was when he said he’s dissolve the IRS. The system can most definitely be better than it is now, but please, come on! But I’ll always respect his truth to party-power ways!

….to my Freedom Ain’t Free compatriots, that’s f’ing right! So pay your damn taxes!”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9N6BW7SjIw

I beg to differ. He opposes what it has become in the hands of national socialists and wants government to devolve as closely to the people as possible – especially when it comes to control of their money and resources. It is a little thing called FEDERALISM, something our founders envisioned. But don’t think for a second that Paul believes a massive sprawling federal government is any better when bought and paid-for by corporate interests. If anything he knows the only way to remove corporate power over government is to remove government power over every minutiae of human existence.

If our founders saw the lumbering, wasteful, manipulated, manipulative, out-of-control leviathan that is the United States Government in the year 2007, I am certain they too would be working for Ron Paul.

Either way, I would sooner take a RE-establishment of serious limits on national government than accept the fantasy that it can beneficent and omnipotent at the same time.

“Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning, but without understanding.” – Louis Brandeis (not exactly a raging right-winger).