Huckabee wants to drop the IRS

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: Capitalizt
I prefer Ron Paul's idea of dropping the IRS and replacing it with nothing.

We need to cut the size and power of government. Any other plan just rearranges the chairs on the Titanic..

Replace the IRS with nothing? So 100% of funding comes from the Chinese?

No. Our government receives revenue via other means.

If we dropped the IRS and replaced it with nothing, it would only take us back to revenues of 10 years ago.

OK, it's about time I saw some real numbers to back up this RP "plan" for the IRS.

If we did as you suggest, using real numbers, please demonstrate the amount of revenue generated in 2008 dollars; then, given that number, please give us a total amount in required spending cuts that would give us a zero balance.

Then, if you're REALLY motivated, I'd like you to use real numbers to show us how we'd achieve those cuts...

Let's see just how much fat you're planning to trim. Without the real 2008 numbers, it's impossible to decide just how realistic RP's plan would be.

Thanks ahead of time!

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ainarm
So you are saying you are more economically trained than all the independent economists that worked on the Fair Tax? Actually the 23% has been highly researched and confirmed by many very educated people. They only way you get to 30% is if you change the rules on how the tax is figured. And what there isn't tax evasion and black markets out there currently? Just because we change how the tax is collected won't change that at all one way or another. The Fair Tax is a wonderful idea whose time is here and hopefully we will manage to get a president who can understand this. Already supported by many of our Congressmen and Senators. Read, educate yourself and do it without changing the rules on how it is written and you might be surprised.

The reason there isn't a significant black market now is because most sales taxes end up being in the realm of 5% or so. The savings in that case just isn't worth it. Now if you say... increase that tax 600% or so, suddenly you're talking about saving a lot of money. That fancy new $400 video card you might buy costs you and extra $20 in tax now. Is $20 worth getting it from somewhere shady? Probably not. Under the new system you're paying $120 (or so). Is that $120 worth you getting it from someone who is playing under the radar? For a lot of people the answer will be yes.

As far as it not being disputed maybe you should check what the nonpartisan Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform said about the fair tax. (I'll give you a hint: they said the fair tax people were full of $hit.) The Fair Tax panel used the 23% rate assuming there would be NO TAX EVASION. That's a laughable assumption. Better yet, check what Factcheck.org had to say about the fair tax. They are one of the most reputable sites I know of when it comes to objective analysis of information.

So if you like the Fair Tax, great. Don't try to act like I'm some lone idiot who is disputing FairTax's wonderful proposal without any good reason. Maybe the 'fair tax' would be a better system then the one we have now, it just seems that the 23% number isn't going to fly.

 

[Vic]

I haven't read the thread, I just wanted to comment that Huckabee's "FairTax" national sales tax system is even more unwieldly and complicated than the existing income tax. So not only is it a bad idea, but he wouldn't be getting rid of the IRS either.

The best ways to cut spending at this time would be to (1) stop the stupid expensive war, and (2) get the states of the federal teat. Then the Fed can begin to balance the budget, pay down the debt, the states can start paying their own way, and we can finally begin to realistically discuss an expansion of social services that doesn't involve the impoverishment of our children and grandchildren.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: Capitalizt
I prefer Ron Paul's idea of dropping the IRS and replacing it with nothing.

We need to cut the size and power of government. Any other plan just rearranges the chairs on the Titanic..

Replace the IRS with nothing? So 100% of funding comes from the Chinese?

No. Our government receives revenue via other means.

If we dropped the IRS and replaced it with nothing, it would only take us back to revenues of 10 years ago.

OK, it's about time I saw some real numbers to back up this RP "plan" for the IRS.

If we did as you suggest, using real numbers, please demonstrate the amount of revenue generated in 2008 dollars; then, given that number, please give us a total amount in required spending cuts that would give us a zero balance.

Then, if you're REALLY motivated, I'd like you to use real numbers to show us how we'd achieve those cuts...

Let's see just how much fat you're planning to trim. Without the real 2008 numbers, it's impossible to decide just how realistic RP's plan would be.

Thanks ahead of time!

http://www.fairtax.org

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: ainarm
So you are saying you are more economically trained than all the independent economists that worked on the Fair Tax? Actually the 23% has been highly researched and confirmed by many very educated people. They only way you get to 30% is if you change the rules on how the tax is figured. And what there isn't tax evasion and black markets out there currently? Just because we change how the tax is collected won't change that at all one way or another. The Fair Tax is a wonderful idea whose time is here and hopefully we will manage to get a president who can understand this. Already supported by many of our Congressmen and Senators. Read, educate yourself and do it without changing the rules on how it is written and you might be surprised.

The reason there isn't a significant black market now is because most sales taxes end up being in the realm of 5% or so. The savings in that case just isn't worth it. Now if you say... increase that tax 600% or so, suddenly you're talking about saving a lot of money. That fancy new $400 video card you might buy costs you and extra $20 in tax now. Is $20 worth getting it from somewhere shady? Probably not. Under the new system you're paying $120 (or so). Is that $120 worth you getting it from someone who is playing under the radar? For a lot of people the answer will be yes.

As far as it not being disputed maybe you should check what the nonpartisan Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform said about the fair tax. (I'll give you a hint: they said the fair tax people were full of $hit.) The Fair Tax panel used the 23% rate assuming there would be NO TAX EVASION. That's a laughable assumption. Better yet, check what Factcheck.org had to say about the fair tax. They are one of the most reputable sites I know of when it comes to objective analysis of information.

So if you like the Fair Tax, great. Don't try to act like I'm some lone idiot who is disputing FairTax's wonderful proposal without any good reason. Maybe the 'fair tax' would be a better system then the one we have now, it just seems that the 23% number isn't going to fly.

Speaking of what flies, our loyal Californian, Governor Schwarzeneggar, when he wanted to buy an expensive plane, chose to avoid paying CA the sales tax even at today's rates, by setting up a front company in Nevada. People use all kinds of schemes to avoid sales tax even at today's rates, and it would indeed shoot up if the rates increased.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ainarm
So you are saying you are more economically trained than all the independent economists that worked on the Fair Tax? Actually the 23% has been highly researched and confirmed by many very educated people. They only way you get to 30% is if you change the rules on how the tax is figured. And what there isn't tax evasion and black markets out there currently? Just because we change how the tax is collected won't change that at all one way or another. The Fair Tax is a wonderful idea whose time is here and hopefully we will manage to get a president who can understand this. Already supported by many of our Congressmen and Senators. Read, educate yourself and do it without changing the rules on how it is written and you might be surprised.

Wrong. The 23% is a very dishonest manipulation of the figures.

As one author explains:

Oh, about that 23% rate. It's not really 23%--at least, not if you calculate it the way we ordinarily calculate sales taxes. We think of the price without taxes ($100) and the tax that must be added on as a percentage of that price( a 23% tax-exclusive rate yields a $23 tax), giving a total cost of $123. But that's not what proponents of the Fair Tax are talking about. They are looking at a $30 add-on tax on a $100 price. 30/130 = 23%. So we can describe the rate as a 23% "tax inclusive" rate or a 30% "tax exclusive" rate. We ordinarily talk about sales taxes as tax exclusive rates. We pay $10 for the item, we pay a 7% sales tax which will be 70 cents on the $10 price. Most Americans would not be very happy with a sales tax of 30% on every item purchased (and every service purchased), especially when applied to doctors' and hospitals' bills, health and car insurance, and other big ticket items (like large appliances, cars, even houses). So FairTaxers disguise the negative impact of their proposal by using a tax-inclusive rate.

 

[Jhhnn]

"Scuse me palehorse-

Dems didn't promise smaller govt- Repubs did, and delivered exactly the opposite.

Dems didn't promise a stay at home foreign policy- Repubs did, and then charged full force behind the neocon delusion.

Dems didn't promise to make govt less intrusive- Repubs did, the exploited 9/11 to pass the patriot act and all that entails- the TSA, wiretapping, surveillance, and the rest... not to mention the whole family rights vs terri schiavo song and dance...

Dems didn't promise to cut taxes- Repubs did, then forgot to cut spending while they were at- actually increased spending and debt to new levels...

Dems offered up a pay-go plan all along wrt spending and taxes- Repubs rejected it....

When History recalls the Bush and Reagan eras, it'll be referred to as the greatest looting spree in the history of the world- with the perps wearing Brooks Bros, saying one thing while doing exactly the opposite, their mesmerized fanbois cheering them on...

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: Capitalizt
I prefer Ron Paul's idea of dropping the IRS and replacing it with nothing.

We need to cut the size and power of government. Any other plan just rearranges the chairs on the Titanic..

Replace the IRS with nothing? So 100% of funding comes from the Chinese?

No. Our government receives revenue via other means.

If we dropped the IRS and replaced it with nothing, it would only take us back to revenues of 10 years ago.

OK, it's about time I saw some real numbers to back up this RP "plan" for the IRS.

If we did as you suggest, using real numbers, please demonstrate the amount of revenue generated in 2008 dollars; then, given that number, please give us a total amount in required spending cuts that would give us a zero balance.

Then, if you're REALLY motivated, I'd like you to use real numbers to show us how we'd achieve those cuts...

Let's see just how much fat you're planning to trim. Without the real 2008 numbers, it's impossible to decide just how realistic RP's plan would be.

Thanks ahead of time!

:laugh:

Tell ya what, I'll consider doing all that if you show me another Republican candidate who is as serious about cutting government spending as Paul is.

Oh, and, thanks ahead of time!

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Vic
I haven't read the thread, I just wanted to comment that Huckabee's "FairTax" national sales tax system is even more unwieldly and complicated than the existing income tax. So not only is it a bad idea, but he wouldn't be getting rid of the IRS either.

The best ways to cut spending at this time would be to (1) stop the stupid expensive war, and (2) get the states of the federal teat. Then the Fed can begin to balance the budget, pay down the debt, the states can start paying their own way, and we can finally begin to realistically discuss an expansion of social services that doesn't involve the impoverishment of our children and grandchildren.

:thumbsup:

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: Capitalizt
I prefer Ron Paul's idea of dropping the IRS and replacing it with nothing.

We need to cut the size and power of government. Any other plan just rearranges the chairs on the Titanic..

Replace the IRS with nothing? So 100% of funding comes from the Chinese?

No. Our government receives revenue via other means.

If we dropped the IRS and replaced it with nothing, it would only take us back to revenues of 10 years ago.

OK, it's about time I saw some real numbers to back up this RP "plan" for the IRS.

If we did as you suggest, using real numbers, please demonstrate the amount of revenue generated in 2008 dollars; then, given that number, please give us a total amount in required spending cuts that would give us a zero balance.

Then, if you're REALLY motivated, I'd like you to use real numbers to show us how we'd achieve those cuts...

Let's see just how much fat you're planning to trim. Without the real 2008 numbers, it's impossible to decide just how realistic RP's plan would be.

Thanks ahead of time!

:laugh:

Tell ya what, I'll consider doing all that if you show me another Republican candidate who is as serious about cutting government spending as Paul is.

Oh, and, thanks ahead of time!

What? Do you mean RP hasn't already posted the details of this plan to do away with the IRS completely? He hasn't given those details to everyone to review? You mean it's just a fvcking pipedream that makes for good soundbites?!

*gasp* say it ain't so!

but don't worry folks, he's "serious about it"... I hear everyone gets a free smile too!

ya... great... thanks for playin'...

 

[bamacre]

So the rest of the Conservative Republicans aren't really conservative?

That's what I thought.

 

[FoBoT]

Huckabee can suck it

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: bamacre
So the rest of the Conservative Republicans aren't really conservative?

That's what I thought.

That is your rebuttal?!

You essentially just stuck a finger in each ear and ran around the room shouting "LA LA LA LA I CANT HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA!"

I'll ask you one more time. Where are the financial details and analysis for RP's plan to do away with the IRS? I mean, someone, somewhere, has already done the math... right?!

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: bamacre
So the rest of the Conservative Republicans aren't really conservative?

That's what I thought.

That is your rebuttal?!

You essentially just stuck a finger in each ear and ran around the room shouting "LA LA LA LA I CANT HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA!"

I'll ask you one more time. Where are the financial details and analysis for RP's plan to do away with the IRS? I mean, someone, somewhere, has already done the math... right?!

:laugh:

Of course I don't have the details. The fact that this is so entirely complicated, especially when you consider existing debt, and interest, is just further proof we need to put our government on a serious diet.

It doesn't matter. Even if Paul could reduce the income tax burden by, say, 75% instead of %100, that's a HUGE difference.

And there are TONS of ways we can cut spending, and reducing the power of our federal government and giving it back to the people and the states.

And you can't do this without setting goals, high goals, and having a vision. Paul has that vision, and the rest of the candidates lack it.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: bamacre
So the rest of the Conservative Republicans aren't really conservative?

That's what I thought.

That is your rebuttal?!

You essentially just stuck a finger in each ear and ran around the room shouting "LA LA LA LA I CANT HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA!"

I'll ask you one more time. Where are the financial details and analysis for RP's plan to do away with the IRS? I mean, someone, somewhere, has already done the math... right?!

Read up

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: bamacre
So the rest of the Conservative Republicans aren't really conservative?

That's what I thought.

That is your rebuttal?!

You essentially just stuck a finger in each ear and ran around the room shouting "LA LA LA LA I CANT HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA!"

I'll ask you one more time. Where are the financial details and analysis for RP's plan to do away with the IRS? I mean, someone, somewhere, has already done the math... right?!

Read up

http://blog.washingtonpost.com...s_11_trillion_bud.html

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: bamacre
So the rest of the Conservative Republicans aren't really conservative?

That's what I thought.

That is your rebuttal?!

You essentially just stuck a finger in each ear and ran around the room shouting "LA LA LA LA I CANT HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA!"

I'll ask you one more time. Where are the financial details and analysis for RP's plan to do away with the IRS? I mean, someone, somewhere, has already done the math... right?!

:laugh:

Of course I don't have the details. The fact that this is so entirely complicated, especially when you consider existing debt, and interest, is just further proof we need to put our government on a serious diet.

It doesn't matter. Even if Paul could reduce the income tax burden by, say, 75% instead of %100, that's a HUGE difference.

And there are TONS of ways we can cut spending, and reducing the power of our federal government and giving it back to the people and the states.

And you can't do this without setting goals, high goals, and having a vision. Paul has that vision, and the rest of the candidates lack it.

How do you propose states get the funding to make up for the lack of federal activity? By printing Confederate money? The anti-federal sentiments are old and tired.

What public services do you want delegated to state governments?

Off the top of my head, here are tasks that I will refuse to accept can be executed by states:
Counter terrorism- This is an issue of antional security. A terrorist attack affects the whole country and too much is at stake.

The military- We also wouldn't want Kansas using its militia as a tool of foreign policy, would we? Also, too many resources and power are required for individual states to have just their own militias. There may have been no such thing as GPS or the internet without a well funded federal military.

The interstate highway system- It crisscrosses a hell of a lot of states.

The Park Service- A Yellowstone managed by Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho would have no wolves because of public pressure from a few "stakeholders", but in actuality all Americans are stakeholders.

Resource offices like the Forest Service and BLM- Did the federal government buy the West to give its mineral and biological resources away to a few million ranchers and farmers? No, those resources belong to all of us. "This land is my land". Under state control, I could almost gaurantee that there'd be no such thing as conservation in national forests.

FDA and other regulatory bodies- Do you trust port cities with monitoring imports? Or can every state afford to independently regulate food, drugs, etc?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: bamacre
So the rest of the Conservative Republicans aren't really conservative?

That's what I thought.

That is your rebuttal?!

You essentially just stuck a finger in each ear and ran around the room shouting "LA LA LA LA I CANT HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA!"

I'll ask you one more time. Where are the financial details and analysis for RP's plan to do away with the IRS? I mean, someone, somewhere, has already done the math... right?!

:laugh:

Of course I don't have the details. The fact that this is so entirely complicated, especially when you consider existing debt, and interest, is just further proof we need to put our government on a serious diet.

It doesn't matter. Even if Paul could reduce the income tax burden by, say, 75% instead of %100, that's a HUGE difference.

And there are TONS of ways we can cut spending, and reducing the power of our federal government and giving it back to the people and the states.

And you can't do this without setting goals, high goals, and having a vision. Paul has that vision, and the rest of the candidates lack it.

IOW, it just sounds swell to say, and you really couldn't care less if RP actually follows through on his lofty promises...

I'm surprised he hasn't promised to get every one of his voters laid on prom night!

I've got a "vision," and I like to call it reality. Let me know if you and yours are ever interested in hearing about it...

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: bamacre
So the rest of the Conservative Republicans aren't really conservative?

That's what I thought.

That is your rebuttal?!

You essentially just stuck a finger in each ear and ran around the room shouting "LA LA LA LA I CANT HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA!"

I'll ask you one more time. Where are the financial details and analysis for RP's plan to do away with the IRS? I mean, someone, somewhere, has already done the math... right?!

:laugh:

Of course I don't have the details. The fact that this is so entirely complicated, especially when you consider existing debt, and interest, is just further proof we need to put our government on a serious diet.

It doesn't matter. Even if Paul could reduce the income tax burden by, say, 75% instead of %100, that's a HUGE difference.

And there are TONS of ways we can cut spending, and reducing the power of our federal government and giving it back to the people and the states.

And you can't do this without setting goals, high goals, and having a vision. Paul has that vision, and the rest of the candidates lack it.

How do you propose states get the funding to make up for the lack of federal activity? By printing Confederate money? The anti-federal sentiments are old and tired.

The states will do the jobs better, and more efficiently. As a constituent, it is easier to change what your state is doing compared to changing what the federal government is doing. The states aught to have the right to do things differently than the others. What works in one state may not be what works best in another.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: bamacre
So the rest of the Conservative Republicans aren't really conservative?

That's what I thought.

That is your rebuttal?!

You essentially just stuck a finger in each ear and ran around the room shouting "LA LA LA LA I CANT HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA!"

I'll ask you one more time. Where are the financial details and analysis for RP's plan to do away with the IRS? I mean, someone, somewhere, has already done the math... right?!

Read up

I'm not looking for individual essays on government spending habits... I want to see the specifics as to how the dude plans to completely eliminate the IRS.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
IOW, it just sounds swell to say, and you really couldn't care less if RP actually followed through on his lofty promises...

I'm surprised he hasn't promised to get every one of his voters laid on prom night!

I've got a "vision," and I like to call it reality. Let me know if you and yours are ever interested in hearing about it...

The foreign policy alone of your side's "vision" has damaged this country in so many ways.

You've stated your "reality," permanent bases and troops in Iraq, invasion of other countries, and it sounds more like a neo-con's fantasy than reality.

We'd go broke, and AQ's recruitment would skyrocket. That's some "reality" you got there. :thumbsdown:

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: bamacre
So the rest of the Conservative Republicans aren't really conservative?

That's what I thought.

That is your rebuttal?!

You essentially just stuck a finger in each ear and ran around the room shouting "LA LA LA LA I CANT HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA!"

I'll ask you one more time. Where are the financial details and analysis for RP's plan to do away with the IRS? I mean, someone, somewhere, has already done the math... right?!

:laugh:

Of course I don't have the details. The fact that this is so entirely complicated, especially when you consider existing debt, and interest, is just further proof we need to put our government on a serious diet.

It doesn't matter. Even if Paul could reduce the income tax burden by, say, 75% instead of %100, that's a HUGE difference.

And there are TONS of ways we can cut spending, and reducing the power of our federal government and giving it back to the people and the states.

And you can't do this without setting goals, high goals, and having a vision. Paul has that vision, and the rest of the candidates lack it.

How do you propose states get the funding to make up for the lack of federal activity? By printing Confederate money? The anti-federal sentiments are old and tired.

States can easily raise state taxes once their citizens aren't being fleeced by the federal government which wastes hundreds of billions of dollars.

What public services do you want delegated to state governments?

Everything not outlined in the constitution as being an area of federal control.

Off the top of my head, here are tasks that I will refuse to accept can be executed by states:
Counter terrorism- This is an issue of antional security. A terrorist attack affects the whole country and too much is at stake.

Oh noes! Not the terrorists! Our bloated and out of control federal government is what created Muslim terrorists. It certainly won't be what saves us from them.

The military- We also wouldn't want Kansas using its militia as a tool of foreign policy, would we? Also, too many resources and power are required for individual states to have just their own militias. There may have been no such thing as GPS or the internet without a well funded federal military.

We could get by with a fraction of our current military if it was used defensively instead of offensively, which includes not having bases around the world.

The interstate highway system- It crisscrosses a hell of a lot of states.

You don't think states can maintain their own roads? It's in each states interest to make sure they can trade with other states.

The Park Service- A Yellowstone managed by Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho would have no wolves because of public pressure from a few "stakeholders", but in actuality all Americans are stakeholders.

Stakeholders? Why would they suddenly be privately held just because the feds were no longer involved?

Resource offices like the Forest Service and BLM- Did the federal government buy the West to give its mineral and biological resources away to a few million ranchers and farmers? No, those resources belong to all of us. "This land is my land". Under state control, I could almost gaurantee that there'd be no such thing as conservation in national forests.

Sounds like you believe that nobody truly owns their land, that we all just live here because our government is gracious enough to let us remain there. In other words you're a peon, a sharecropper, a slave.

FDA and other regulatory bodies- Do you trust port cities with monitoring imports? Or can every state afford to independently regulate food, drugs, etc?

States already band together to come up with regulatory systems like the UCC. Why do you think that couldn't happen in other areas such as food and drug testing?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: palehorse74
IOW, it just sounds swell to say, and you really couldn't care less if RP actually followed through on his lofty promises...

I'm surprised he hasn't promised to get every one of his voters laid on prom night!

I've got a "vision," and I like to call it reality. Let me know if you and yours are ever interested in hearing about it...

The foreign policy alone of your side's "vision" has damaged this country in so many ways.

You've stated your "reality," permanent bases and troops in Iraq, invasion of other countries, and it sounds more like a neo-con's fantasy than reality.

We'd go broke, and AQ's recruitment would skyrocket. That's some "reality" you got there. :thumbsdown:

what exactly is my "side"?! I'm not a member of either party... and even if I was, wtf does that have to do with RP promising to dismantle the IRS without a fvcking plan to do so?!

But hey... RP said it, right? And he was reallllly passionate about it when he said it, right? And he's a Doctor, and stuff, right? So we should just believe him... right?

On the other hand, who cares if he actually follows through with any of his lofty promises?! It's the thought that counts, and I like the way it souuunds!

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I actually like a lot of what RP has to say, but I just doubt any of it is actually doable - especially given his lack of any specific plans.

Get this through your thick skull: Reality is a motherfvcker.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

The interstate highway system- It crisscrosses a hell of a lot of states.

You don't think states can maintain their own roads? It's in each states interest to make sure they can trade with other states.

States require federal funding to help maintain interstates and roadways. Especially in more rural states. Unless you drastically raise taxes.

Resource offices like the Forest Service and BLM- Did the federal government buy the West to give its mineral and biological resources away to a few million ranchers and farmers? No, those resources belong to all of us. "This land is my land". Under state control, I could almost gaurantee that there'd be no such thing as conservation in national forests.

Sounds like you believe that nobody truly owns their land, that we all just live here because our government is gracious enough to let us remain there. In other words you're a peon, a sharecropper, a slave.

That point went so far over your head it left a vapor trail. How much public land would be left if it wasn't for the government?

FDA and other regulatory bodies- Do you trust port cities with monitoring imports? Or can every state afford to independently regulate food, drugs, etc?

States already band together to come up with regulatory systems like the UCC. Why do you think that couldn't happen in other areas such as food and drug testing?

[/quote]

What makes you think there would be? How would multiple competing agencies actually make things better? Would the agency thats owned by GSK be better then the one under Merck? Which one is owned by people like Kevin Trudeau or the Homeopathy nuts?

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: BoberFett

The interstate highway system- It crisscrosses a hell of a lot of states.

You don't think states can maintain their own roads? It's in each states interest to make sure they can trade with other states.

States require federal funding to help maintain interstates and roadways. Especially in more rural states. Unless you drastically raise taxes.

Where exactly do you think "federal funding" comes from? The federal fund fairy?

Resource offices like the Forest Service and BLM- Did the federal government buy the West to give its mineral and biological resources away to a few million ranchers and farmers? No, those resources belong to all of us. "This land is my land". Under state control, I could almost gaurantee that there'd be no such thing as conservation in national forests.

Sounds like you believe that nobody truly owns their land, that we all just live here because our government is gracious enough to let us remain there. In other words you're a peon, a sharecropper, a slave.

That point went so far over your head it left a vapor trail. How much public land would be left if it wasn't for the government?

What makes you think public land is necessary or even desired?

FDA and other regulatory bodies- Do you trust port cities with monitoring imports? Or can every state afford to independently regulate food, drugs, etc?

States already band together to come up with regulatory systems like the UCC. Why do you think that couldn't happen in other areas such as food and drug testing?

What makes you think there would be? How would multiple competing agencies actually make things better? Would the agency thats owned by GSK be better then the one under Merck? Which one is owned by people like Kevin Trudeau or the Homeopathy nuts?

[/quote]
I didn't realize that GSK and Merck were states.


Really? That's the best you've got? It warms my heart to see a Paul basher prove how monumentally stupid he is.