Ron Paul: Tax Rates Should be Zero

Ron Paul supports the elimination of the income tax and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). He asserts that Congress had no power to impose a direct income tax and has introduced legislation to repeal of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified on February 3, 1913.

An income tax is the most degrading and totalitarian of all possible taxes. Its implementation wrongly suggests that the government owns the lives and labor of the citizens it is supposed to represent. Tellingly, “a heavy progressive or graduated income tax” is Plank #2 of the Communist Manifesto , which was written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and first published in 1848.

To provide funding for the federal government, Ron Paul supports excise taxes, non-protectionist tariffs, massive cuts in spending.

Ron Paul discusses the income tax and the “FAIR Tax” in May 2007:

Post Continues on

Posted in 2012 Election, Constitution, Taxes Tagged with:
196 comments on “Ron Paul: Tax Rates Should be Zero
  1. dingbat36 says:

    Excuse me Mr Libertarian……….if you are truly a Constitutionalist, you must know that the government is charged with raising and funding a military for the purpose of protecting her citizens and the borders. There are several other Constitution requirements but the military is the most expensive…………….no taxes indeed, and just who is going to pay for the military if not we the people!

    I would happily agree to do without almost all the existing governmental agencies, which have absolutely NO basis in the Constitution but operating without a strong military (which Obama is trying to gut) is absolutely suicidal in today's world.

    • Looking4Sanity says:

      A fine point. I would add that they are also entrusted with maintaining the Federal highway system to facilitate freedom of movement and commerce. Also…while less relevant these days…they are charged with maintaining our postal system.

      Between your comment and mine, that is all they were ever originally intended to do as far as spending considerations go. Everything else could be stripped away.

      • PepperdotNet says:

        There is no Federal highway system. All road maintenance is done by states, counties and municipalities.

        • Looking4Sanity says:

          You should really get an education.

        • PepperdotNet says:

          What are you, six? Give the computer back to mommy and tell her you need a spanking.

        • PepperdotNet says:

          Despite the insult I will do further research of this. Yes, I am not stupid, I know full well about the US highways and the Eisenhower Interstates, I use them every day. To the best of my knowledge I believe they are funded by highway money from the feds which they first took from state revenues before apportioning it back, and the actual work is done by or contracted by the states. More accurate? My point being that states are eminently capable of handling the roads.

      • DrInColorado says:

        And all of these can be funded with sales taxes and cutting out generational welfare families. The military can be funded by general sales taxes, highway improvements can be funded with gas tax and sales taxes on vehicles, the post office, although it's probably on it's way out anyway, can be funded with postage rates. All of this can be done by cutting big government to the bone, requiring that anyone running for public office must have had a REAL job in the REAL world, or served time in the military for at least 4 years–then put term limits on EVERYONE! Wow, we grammas of the country could run it a lot better than what's living in OUR White House at this time.

        • Looking4Sanity says:

          You can not fund today's military with something as unpredictable as a sales tax. Also, I am not in favor of any form of national sales tax at all.

        • Captain America says:

          Sorry, but sales tax is illegal in Oregon, have you ever heard of states rights? However a high import tax would take care of everything, and naturally all state and federal employees would still pay taxes just like it says in the constitution that includes BO and Michelle.

        • John says:

          Drin , you are right , for one , the postage is SUPPOSED to take care of the postal service , and would if the corruption in the system wouldn't be so high up … 40+cents for an ENVELOPE ? FIGURE HOW MUCH THAT AN AIR PLANE CAN HOLD … 53' TRUCK FOR GROUND ? And gas tax ? If we can't figure out what the heck to do , to decrease the size of the WORTHLESS GOVERNMENT , then the WHOLE COUNTRY WILL WORK FOR THEM ! Kinda makes you wonder how many are working for them right now doesn't it ?…

    • mojo66 says:

      excuse me dumbass… it will be paid by excise taxes.

    • pleadnthe5th says:

      Income tax "ratified" in 1913, same year the "Federal Reserve came into being…just thought you would like to know, or as Holmes would say "Food for Thought!"

      • PepperdotNet says:

        Fantastic plan really. Sell all future generations into oppressive debt, and be sure to create the collection agency with which to exact usury from them while you're at it.

      • C.Davis says:

        Not to mention the plan put into motion to get us invested in WW1 to give us a nice debt to get the ball rollin'. I mean they had it all scoped out from the git-go.

    • Yes, gov’t is charged to raise taxes in a way that spreads the cost of the Federal Gov’t according to a State’s population.

      You need to read Article 1 Section 2 and 9. The Feds are allowed to tax individuals directly based upon capitation of their state. That means all people, including illegals, so the amount of Federal Taxes owed by a State increases as their population grows.

      The 16th does not repeal Art 1 Sec 2, but Progressives (including the many with R's beside their names) argue that the 16th simply clarifies Art 1 Sec 2. Wrong. Progressive income tax is an indirect tax and is at odds with Personal Property rights as it is an uneven tax on one’s Labor that ignores one’s State’s capitation.

      “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

    • joe says:

      The government already collects in hidden taxes from each and every single person including children between 16% and 23% in everything that is purchased not including state sales taxes. So tell me you dingbat how much more does the government need?

      • C.Davis says:

        We wish it was that low.there are pages of taxes you never see 'cause they're added in to the prices we pay for stuff, that the retailers and wholesalers and producers have to pay, not to mention hunting licences, fishin' licences, auto licences boat licences,telephone and tv licence fees,and on and on. I would estimate more like 70-85% depending on your income bracket.

    • Captain America says:

      Originally, in the constitution only government officials and government employees paid taxes. So, the military itself, Congress, the president, governors, state agencies paid for the military, and if extra money was needed for the military then we simply printed to money ourselves on our own printing presses without bernakie's help [don't borrow it], and that slight inflation from the extra printed money for the military would present itself as a slight yearly inflation, and that would be how we would pay for the military by an inflation in the form of a tax, but with stronger import taxes we could eliminate that, and imports would pay for the military, but BO in the white house would have to pay taxes still.!

    • OGmudbone says:

      well maybe you forgot that every citizen of the U.S.A. is a member of the national militia. this is why we have the right to bear arms, and that right shall not be infringed upon. it is the duty of the citizen soldier to secure his homeland. and the limited military we would need to secure our borders is all we would need then. we would still have a coast guard and navy and those would be funded as they were in the past through tariffs.

    • Col Ben says:


    • Richard Partridge says:

      The Constitution (Art.I, Sec.8) "To raise and support Armies-" and "To provide and maintain a Navy." Then provides for "calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions." there is nothing about invading other countries, nation-building or otherwise interfering in the internal affairs of other nations.

      Teddy Roosevelt was, I think, our first imperial president as he pushed for war with Spain and, after helping the Filipinos free their country, made war against the Filipinos. (He also helped free the Cubans, but let them govern themselves.)

      Calvin Cooledge was a model president who took over when Warren Harding died, and was proud of the fact that he did nothing. His presidency was a prosperous period we now know as the "Roaring 20s."

  2. PepperdotNet says:

    We did not have an income tax prior to 1913, you think the government wasn't paying its bills then?

    Import duties and user fees. No need to tax the productivity of American workers.

    • Looking4Sanity says:

      WRONG!!!! We had an income tax in 1862! We have had several income taxes since that time. The 16th Amendment put the question to bed once and for all. The ONLY way you'd ever get rid of it is by amending the Constitution. The SCOTUS considers the matter settled…and so would most likely reject any further hearing on the matter.

      • PepperdotNet says:

        OK, fine. There were some instances but until the 16th amendment it was not a permanent thing, i.e., people actually were not considered insane for thinking the government could be run without it.

        • Looking4Sanity says:

          You should really learn to engage brain before opening mouth. You got caught in a lie, you're embarrassed, and so you retreat into your moral relativist BS. It just makes you look pettier and stupider.

        • PepperdotNet says:

          lol, you really seem to have a foul attitude. I left out some details previously unknown to me. At least I know that the IRS hasn't existed since day one like most people think. What the heck is morally relativist about: "OK, fine. There were some instances but until the 16th amendment it was not a permanent thing, i.e., people actually were not considered insane for thinking the government could be run without it."

        • Looking4Sanity says:

          I bet you don't even know when the IRS was first founded! Here's a hint…it was WAY before 1913.

        • PepperdotNet says:

          Wow, I miss a technical detail or two and you go ballistic. Who looks petty and stupid?

        • C. Davis says:

          The 16th amendment has never been properly ratified. Read 'em and weep. We are forced to comply with an unconstitutional act at the point of a gun

        • Looking4Sanity says:

          If it's so "illegal", why has every Supreme Court since 1913 refused to hear the case? Are you prepared to argue that the SCOTUS has been continually corrupt for 100 years?

        • Steven says:

          If they REFUSED to hear such a case, they have NEVER ruled it IS Constitutional. It would not be the only issue on which the Court has been accused of refusing a case because they don't WANT to rule the only way they CAN rule.

          Yes, I AM prepared to argue then ALL branches of the Federal government have been opposed to the Constitution for MORE than 100 years.

          Note: I believe the 16th amendment was properly ratified, and does authorize the income tax. I also support repealing the 16th amendment, which would make income tax unconstitutional.

        • Looking4Sanity says:

          I can see YOU'D never pass the Bar exam!

          It's called "The 16th Amendment to The Constitution"! Since it IS part of the Constitution, it is legally presumed to be de facto "Constitutional"! The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove otherwise! So far, no one has made a compelling enough argument (in a hundred years!) to persuade them to hear the case.

          As for your willingness to argue…that much is obvious. That certainly is no indication at all that you are, or ever will be, correct.

        • Looking4Sanity says:

          "Note: I believe the 16th amendment was properly ratified, and does authorize the income tax."

          So you just like to argue for the "fun of it"? Honestly, your time would be better spent pleasuring yourself in a corner somewhere.

        • stillmoral says:

          Be careful of this pepper guy. He is viscious. He has already threatened me and I reported him for it. So now he is resorting to calling me names like whore. He is a typical paulbot. When people disagree wit nutjob Paul they go on a rampage. Watch out. Keep fighting trash that tries to intimidate you.

        • PepperdotNet says:

          I was not the one that referred to you as "whore" but based upon your lies I've seen, there might be some truth in it.

          So you calling me viscious (sic), typical paulbot, trash and accusing me of going on a rampage is acceptable behavior, but me pointing out instances where someone made no substantive argument other than spewing ad hominem attacks is viscious. Allrighty then. That makes you a big lying hypocrite. Go ahead and report me again, idiot.

        • Looking4Sanity says:

          What do you expect from someone who's AVI is a dog? I've been dealing with these moon bats for three years. Nothing they say surprises me any more. My greatest satisfaction is knowing that they will be hibernating soon. Ron Paul is not going to see the end of this race unless he watches it from the sidelines.

        • You are arguing with a Progressive Keynesian about an income tax. Need more to be said?

        • PepperdotNet says:

          Point taken. I think I need to engage the ignore response on this dude from here on out.

        • Looking4Sanity says:

          Oh, look! The sock puppet is talking to himself again! How cute.

        • I will take my own advice as well. Machiavelli 'The Prince'

        • Looking4Sanity says:

          Your mother is a proglib, poindexter. I know the law. I know economics. I know history. And I know you're full of crap as a Christmas goose. In fact…I've forgotten more than you'll ever learn.

        • :) Ad hominem, how surprising . . . We so often heat about how much you know, yet you're quite incapable of expressing it. Why is that? If you feel it is my own ignorance and a waste of your obvious precious time, then show off to your advocates here, I'm certain they would give you the Thumbs Up you pine for.

          When you have mustered an actual reply (to any of the dozen or so questions posed to you) or the guts to say your clueless, please respond. Until then, pretend you matter as you cast aspersions.

        • Looking4Sanity says:

          "I will take my own advice as well. Machiavelli 'The Prince' "?

          Lying to yourself again?

        • When you have mustered an actual reply . . .

        • Looking4Sanity says:

          Mat the Force be up yours, my little ewok.

        • stillmoral says:

          Give them some facts, like Pauls record on how much pork he brings home He is #4 on the list. I have to look where I stored the totals and post it. It is absolutely outrageous. How do you think the nut keeps getting reelected? He brings home the bacon. You should find those racist antisemitic rants he calls newsletters that he is trying to lie his way out of. The guy is toast. It's just taking a little longer this time.

        • Looking4Sanity says:

          Facts roll off them like water off a duck's back. It's a waste of time. Sadly, I find ridicule to be more effective. It's their native language.

        • Chuck says:

          Pepper: I agree with two points made here, on opposite sides of the issue. First, the federal government is charged by the Constitution to perform specific functions, among which is national defense. It takes a lot of money to fight a war, so there must be SOME form of revenue collection to support this and other Constitutionally mandated federal functions.

          Second: Taxes were initially imposed on foreign commerce and collected on imported goods and services. This was, essentially, a CONSUMPTION tax as opposed to a PRODUCTION tax. It served two purposes – it put the tax burden on foreign suppliers and domestic importers, not on domestic production; and the burden did not fall upon domestic workers.

          I think we need to remove the tax burden from domestic production and workers. Taxing production penalizes producers and discourages domestic production. Domestic production provides jobs for our citizens and encourages our economy to support itself. To the extent that we keep this an internal process, we have a brisk domestic economy that's not dependent on foreign sources and that's not vulnerable to foreign influence.

          I think you can agree that the IRS has become an abusive, intrusive and oppressive agency, and that even IRS personnel don't fully understand our convoluted tax laws. It's become difficult, if not impossible, for common folks to pursue their own disputes with the IRS, and a huge cottage industry has emerged – firms that, for a fee, represent citizens in such disputes. It's also undeniable that the IRS, in its current form, is a political tool that's too often used to control both businesses and individual citizens. This was never intended, but is a natural result of a federal agency increasing its power until it's unaccountable to anyone but the very top government officials.

          I like some of the alternative tax plans because they reduce the size and power of the IRS and simplify the revenue collection system – both of which cost our domestic industry and our citizen-taxpayers. A fringe benefit would be the reduction of abuse by both our own government and foreign interests. I don't think it requires a Constitutional amendment to REPLACE the current production-based income tax with a consumption-based sales tax. The latter would put more power in the hands of consumers, and would take a huge burden off the employers who actually create jobs. It would also allow the reduction – and possible dismantling – of several federal agencies that feed off the production end of our economy and actually DISCOURAGE producers and reduce jobs.

          In the economy envisioned by our current pretend president, government controls the economy. In a free economy, government can't create jobs – only a free enterprise system can do this, and only when given the freedom to make profits and create jobs. When a free enterprise makes profits, it expands, hires more workers, and grows the economy. When GOVERNMENT controls the economy, it can create jobs, but only within itself. To create more jobs, government must expand. As government expands, personal freedom shrinks. The name we give to this kind of society and economy is socialism, with the ultimate result being communism.

          The Constitution gives Congress the power to impose taxes. Exactly what kind of taxes? If you read carefully, emphasis was originally on foreign commerce – the consumption end of things. Income tax was a temporary scheme to finance a war, and should have faded away when the war ended. That it did not is testimony to the fact that, once government gets power, it keeps it. Income tax, imposed on both employers and workers, quickly became a means to control much of the economy for political purposes. Congress should do its job and create an effective alternative – consumption based – to provide the revenues needed to finance the essential, Constitutionally required functions of government while returning the fruits of labor to the producers.

    • TOO INFORMED says:

      Prez. Lincoln imposed an INCOME TAX to help pay for the Civil War; the tax was repealed after the war ended. (BTW- out of 37 million people (then), only 300,000 actually paid their income tax).

  3. Punchy says:

    Why didn't we vote Dr. Paul in last time? Just think, we could have been working our way out of this mess by now. Let's not make the same mistake twice.

    • Looking4Sanity says:

      I'm not convinced we wouldn't be even worse off than we are had that disaster been thrust upon us! And that is precisely why he won't get nominated…much less elected…THIS time!

      • stillmoral says:

        Hi looking. Agree with you, the man is nuts beyond belief. I loved it when he got booed for his antiAmerican stance.

        • PepperdotNet says:

          Nothing anti American about it. It is impossible to explain the intricacies of a century of foreign policy blunders in a 90-second debate format, especially when people start booing and moderators interrupt whenever they hear something they don't like. He should have told them to shut up and listen. Our foreign policy is an ugly mess and people don't want to hear about it.

          The fact that those supposed pro-life evangelicals were booing a man for suggesting we follow the Golden Rule is astounding and speaks volumes. Enjoy your empire, hope the boot on your neck doesn't get too heavy.

        • awakenow says:

          PepperdotNet …ditto.

        • stillmoral says:

          They were booing him because he is even to the left of Obama on this. His foreign policy is total suicide. I am glad you are such a scholar on the "intricacies of a centure of foreign policy blunders". Maybe you can be Secretary of State in some far off land. Ron Paul is a delusional old fool. He is one step away from his Alzheimer's meds. He is an embarassment to this country. It shows how low this country had gone. First a Communist and now a total screwball that some idiots support. God save us from the fools this country has now.

        • PepperdotNet says:

          Ad hominem = your argument is delusional, old fool

        • Dagny says:

          It's Millicent, the vile, worthless old whore, trolling again under another name.

        • stillmoral says:

          You are resorting to calling me names like worthless old whore. You are a very lowdown individual and typical of the trash that support this nutjob. The only one's who are trolls are th Paul supporters. They invade every blog going nonstop. The public is getting wise to the fact that many of you are OWS and part of Obama's plant to disrupt the Republican nominatiing process. Ron Paul is a vicious vile America hater. He is constantly bashing America. When I first heard him I thought he was just a nut, but now I see how dangerous he and people like you are to this country.

        • PepperdotNet says:

          "You are resorting to calling me names" LOL Millicent, what the hell have you been doing in every single post?

          I looked up "hypocrite" on Wikipedia. It said: This article is a disambiguation of "Millicent"

        • Punchy says:

          Well said! Right on! Keep it up!

      • stillmoral says:

        Because we knew he was nuts then and we know he is nuts now.

  4. mojo66 says:

    sure is strange all the morons that think RP is for no taxes, if they had a brain cell they would know he is for constitutional excise taxes, if the government needs more funding, then raise the excise tax, simple, yet the morons are still brain dead

    • Al.k says:

      No, they are not brain dead, we the people are brain dead to believe that any politician or the controlled media are telling the truth, look at all the preachers that talk about tax cheats, when JFK started taking the excise tax off telephone calls that was put on to fund the war, it created jobs that the media never wanted the public to be aware of, that was just one of the reasons for his assassination, along with US currency that was being implemented, that stopped as soon as Kennedy died, it got finished under Reagan's administration. They are way too big now and only an act of God could change it, but as long as our society are concerned about making illegal's rights and abortion and gay rights and teaching gay lifestyle to kids as small as kindergarten, there is no way I expect God to intervene.

  5. stillmoral says:

    Once again Ron Paul showed his stupidity and got rightfully booed in last night's debates. I enjoyed his idiotic comments and spluttering usual rants. Good riddance soon to bad trash. Anti America=Ron Paul

  6. Dusty1 says:

    It's a very popular stand to make, cut out all income taxes. But it's a realistic as cutting our military down and leaving us open to outside threats and attack. I can definitely see eliminated many gov't agencies and ALL which have been created by Obama. Let's start with EPA, NLRB and Planned Parenthood.

    • PepperdotNet says:

      OK, your cuts amounted to about 0.001%, what's next?

      • Dusty1 says:

        You obviously have NO CLUE as to how much Obama has grown the federal government since he took office. We can start with Obamacare and go from there.

        • PepperdotNet says:

          I have some clue but not the exact numbers. I will concede that the actual percentage is probably bigger than 0.001 but it is not a very big number (yet) but growing every day that man is allowed to continue Occupying the oval office.

          Obama is the latest in a long line of people who continued growing the government bigger and enacting unconstitutional things.

        • Dusty1 says:

          Not a big number YET??? A billion is a big number, but a TRILLION is in outer space! Saying Obama is the "latest in a long line" is being WAY TOO GENEROUS to this Marxist who's out to destroy America and bankrupt her as fast as he can. What I find most disgusting about Obama is that he is a big hypocrite. He wants to condemn Wall Street AFTER he makes his own deals. Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and Obama all voted for against George Bush when he called for reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They all got rich from Fannie & Freddie and the taxpayers are left holding a bag of **** and some are homelss. On his way out, Chris Dodd figured he hadn't done enough damage, so he crafted and the Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Act, which makes it almost impossible for small businesses to get loans. These bums are ALL CRIMINALS and deserve indictments and prison.

        • awakenow says:

          Dusty … it may be of interest for you to learn that the debt was very bad when Bush Jr. … no doubt due to little things like fighting unpaid for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq but also through the creation of the Medicare Prescription Drug Program which was a Republican bill.

          The other thing to keep in mind, is that our UNFUNDED LIABILITIES AND OBLIGATIONS on Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid, was 100 TRILLION back in 2008 … according to a red flag warning letter written back in 2008 by the one, quasi-good guy member of the Federal Reserve (if that can actually be said).

          Please note that Obombya was not in office until January, 2009. He had zero to do with this massive, black hole, 100 TRILLION debt created by years and years of massive, bloated, enablers of Fed printing Monopoly Money money out the wazoo backed by no commodity, federal governance in Washington.

          Sure. Obama has spent like a madman, and we all know the BOTH the Republicans and the Democrats have voted to keep increasing the debt ceiling. This is how we are approaching a 16 TRILLION debt and likely to over 16 TRILLION when the new debt ceiling is passed, again by member of both parties.

          Here is the Dallas Federal Reserve Board Chairman, Richard Fishers, warning letter "Storms on the Horizon" about DEFICIT SPENDING and our UNFUNDED LIABILITIES AND OBLIGATIONS to We The People.….

        • ForConstitution says:


          Dems spend more the Republicans.

        • PepperdotNet says:

          "These bums are ALL CRIMINALS and deserve indictments and prison" – you'll get no argument from me on that point.

        • ForConstitution says:

          Ron Paul deserves prison for lying about taking all that porker he's been voting for for 35 years.

          Good call!

          May his cellie rape him every day and night for his hypocrisy.

        • stillmoral says:

          Yes you are correct. The whole DNC should be tried for treason. They knowingly put a foreigner on the ballot. The MSM is giving them a pass because they are as far to the left as the Kenyan. Holder, one of Obama's boyfriends, is also a big time criminal. Refusing to prosecute for voter fraud and doing his best to make sure he will impede states from instituting voter id laws. I hope Issa hurries up and gets this evil man out for Fast & Furious and proves it goes all the way up to the man from Mombassa illegally squatting in the WH.

    • Thomas says:

      Now you have it right. dingbat36

    • Looking4Sanity says:

      Add the Department of Education to that list, Dusty!

  7. Texas001 says:

    Ron Paul, mister double talk. He raved on for about a minute and a half and when he quit talking my first thought was "what the hell did he say?" He has some really great ideas but then he has some of the dumbest. I thought Perry (I am not a Perry fan) said it best when he said that they don't need a bell to control times allotted but in Paul case they need a gong.

    • PepperdotNet says:

      Just because you are incapable of comprehending something does not make it less true.

    • Frank says:

      I'll admit, Ron Paul might not be the best messenger at times… but it's the message that counts, not the messenger.
      Bottom line: If we end our out-of-control welfare/warfare state & go back to our Founding Principles, we don't need an income tax & we can balance the budget on other taxes being collected like we did for over 100 years.

      But: if you want Empire America & cradle-to-grave socialism, then you need even more taxes as our budget deficit keeps getting bigger.

    • ForConstitution says:

      Well said.

      Mr. Porker and Mr. Obama. Two sides of the same anti-Semitic coin.

  8. wayne says:

    We need to cut a hell of a lot of federal agencies, like the EPA, that has run almost all of the industry out of the USA the bunny hugging tree kissers , are what is most of the problem now. Get rid of them, & there will be a lot of extra money to use for things that are really needed.

  9. Guest says:

    Zero tax = Zero government. Typical Ron Paul stance. He is a Libertarian and does not believe in any government, never has. He is now being framed as a Constitutionalist, whixh has no real meaning, even though his position on taxes and many other issues are clearly unconstitutional.

    • PepperdotNet says:

      Typical anti-Paul rant. You are obviously unaware of the many other sources of revenue for this government. If the government stays within its Constitutionally defined size and functions, income tax is not needed at all.

      • BOTK says:

        With the 16th amendment, the gov't IS staying within its constitutional boundaries by charging an income tax.

    • stillmoral says:

      Now I know why he is not running again. I just got a survey from my Congression District. One of the questions asked was do I support an amendment to eliminate earmarks. I laughed. How would this fraud ever hold his seat without being able to bring home the pork.

  10. James S says:

    How did this man find him self in out of the rain.

    • PepperdotNet says:

      You must be talking about yourself, because Ron Paul has a much better understanding of the way things work than somebody who shows up and types 12 words on a political blog site.

  11. Robert Lebischak says:

    I for one would love to pay no tax. But I realize that it is necessary to have tax. We may not like it, but there are things that must be paid for, the military, without one there is no USA as the military gives us the protection to be free, the men and women in uniform keep us free, as a vet who is married to another vet I realize this, the world is not a safe place that is happy and friendly even if Ron says it is. Ron is as far to the right as Obama is to the left, either direction as they see it is dangerous to the USA.

    • ladykroft says:

      Billions are going to the middle east to build mosques and finance the military of our enemies. Trillions are wasted in this country to keep the fat cats and the unions in money, automatic raises for the congress, wasteful spending on jaunts, the finance of illegal aliens in the trillions, and the list is a mile long. Getting rid of all these and more errant spending would would greatly reduce the need for taxing taxing taxing…because taxes are what make it possible to pay for all these unAmerican handouts.

    • Frank says:

      The cold war is over, we won. We don't need 800+ bases in 120+ nations around the world. That is not silly on the face of it. Neither do we need more undeclared, Unconstitutional wars. Bring the troops home & close the foreign bases & make sure we have enough modernized & trained troops/ships/planes to win a war if we are attacked… which is what Ron Paul would do. By ending the warfare state, we'd save hundreds of billions of dollars a year & be safer.

      But we would also have to dismantle the welfare state, or at least greatly reduce its size & scope (including repealing ObamaCare). Then, yes, we could get rid of the income tax & balance the budget.

      If we don't balance the budget soon, we'll have an economic collapse & be forced to downsize everything anyways. the sooner the better!

    • stillmoral says:

      Actually Ron Paul is considered a Progressive/Leftist, especially on this. He is left of the Marxist Obama. That's pretty bad.

  12. GDC says:

    Ron Paul IS psychotic and should be on massive dosages of anti-psychotic medication and locked you in a psychiatric hospital.

  13. azwayne says:

    It is amazing to me, every comment of Paul haters Like paul phylosophies. Talk about propaganda sonsored favoritism. Too bad all can't admit needed laws and system changes but sure easy to hate personalities. That's what reality tv american idol mentality has done for us./

    • PepperdotNet says:

      You are right.

      Words used by Paul adherents: fiscal responsibility, freedom, liberty, honest, integrity, humble, servant [descriptive, regarding the actual issues]

      Words used by Paul detractors: loon, kook, psychotic, offal, anti-American, traitor, stupid, deranged, nuts [personal, against Paul and those who support him]

      Freedom and liberty bring diverse people together. Those who hate freedom just want to divide everybody into groups that hate and despise each other.

    • Looking4Sanity says:

      So you agree that no one likes him. Now we're just quibbling over the reasons. That's the most honest admission I've ever seen from a moon bat!

  14. Jason Ross says:

    Paul said no INCOME tax, not NO taxes (so, yes, excise and tariffs would be emphasized). Also, he was clear about decreasing so-called DEFENSE spending (that can be twisted to include virtually anything, including the largest fortress 'embassy' in the world in Iraq), not MILITARY spending or reducing the military.

    He also said he would have certainly had Bin Laden pursued and killed as ASAP, rather than going into countries to try to alter their cultures (and yes, he would have encouraged bounty hunters to have sought out and killed Bin Laden for a very large monetary reward, so that competition by individuals or groups would have taken on the risks and likely gotten the job done sooner without wasting so many of our military's lives and so much treasure on intruding into the sovereign territories of other nations).

  15. richard says:

    The problem with presidential candidate Ron Paul is that #1he is way ahead of the belt curve,#2he is by far THE most honest presidential candidate we have, I for one am very pleased to have someone like him running for the office. And for those of you who don`t feel that way, maybe you should take note of some of the younger voters.

    • JDH says:

      First it is bell curve, not belt curve. Second as a young lad I supported Goldwater, and he got exactly what he deserved, Then I got older and smarter and supported Reagan,nd that worked out pretty well. The young voters who suppot Paul are even dumber than those of us who supported gold old AuH2O. All Paul can guarantee us is four more years of Obama or four years of something even sillier. I think Paul is a good man, but not presidential material

    • Virginia says:

      You mean the brainwashed youth of today, educated in our democrat run factories? The only reason they are voting for Paul is because he promises to legalize pot! It has nothing to do about making America great again.

    • stillmoral says:

      He's a deranged imbecile. If that pile of garbage runs third party and insures Obama's reelection he will be reviled by hte whole nation. It will just prove my point of how vile, evil and corrupt this racist, antisemitic, liar is.

      • PepperdotNet says:

        There you go again, Millicent. Ad hominem = failed to convince anyone.

        • C. Davis says:

          What he is trying to tell you with his handle is that he gets his morals from a still.They used to call it Dutch courage.

        • stillmoral says:

          You are really one obsessed invidual. You actually go around trying to determine who I actually might be. There are plenty of people who despise Ron Paul. I will no longer reply to you because you are very sick and in need of much help. If you threaten me again, I will take the necessary actions beyond this website. Your mental stability is really in question. Get help. You are severely disturbed.

        • C,Davis says:

          Well, that settles it, Pepper. stillmoral said you're a poopie pants, so that discredits everything you might say from here on out

        • C.Davis says:

          Oooooh you're in trouble now, Pepper ! I think he's going to tell the nice man about your being a poopie pants!

        • PepperdotNet says:

          Oh crap. What will I do now. I am so scared!

          Really, any idiot could figure out that stillmoral (here) and Millicent (patriotupdate) are the same person. Same exact limited vocabulary, same tactless rudeness. If in fact they are not the same person then one should sue the other for impersonation.

        • Cliff J says:

          Convinced me. And I don't even know what she said. All I know if you Paulbots don't like it, it must be good.

        • PepperdotNet says:

          I will give you the benefit of the doubt that maybe you haven't noticed what's going on.

          Indeed, I do not like ad hominem attacks. I do not speak for all Ron Paul supporters but I for one am looking for honest debate of the substantive issues, not arguments based on the premise "but he's a nutcase!"

          If someone brings actual logic and reason to the table, along with, say, some actual factual information, I have no problem considering it.

          Unfortunately, most of the attacks against Ron Paul use no logic, reason or facts. They simply use derogatory slurs. Just read any of the posts by stillmoral and you'll get the idea.