Who is for small government?
No Planned Parenthood, no gay marriage talk, no rant against black genocide, oops, already covered that with PP.
Rand Paul was asked about the fact that his tax plan won't either increase revenue, or be revenue neutral. His response was that he hoped it wouldn't be either. He wants less money coming in, because he wants to spend less. This is the core of his values, his beliefs, and what his campaign is built around. One problem. I am not sure that there is a push to reduce government size, or even a desire to reduce by the American people.
This is the problem of a libertarian Republican, or a Libertarian. How do you campaign on what you are not going to do? How do you sell that to the 49.99999% who are either receiving some sort of needs based assistance, or are paying no income tax? Do you go to them and say "Hey, vote for me, I am going to take away your subsidized housing, your foodstamps, and your welfare checks!" And to businesses, "I am going to make the corporate rate 14.5% (same as individual rate). In exchange, GE, you are going to have to actually pay taxes instead of all the corporate welfare, disguised as tax credits, subsidies, and other benefits that you have been receiving."
Do you understand the dilemma? Dr. Paul has rightly seen that the Social Security thing is a mess, and a sham. So much money is coming out of the general fund that he has proposed to eliminate the individual paying in, which would be a HUGE tax break for anyone that has a job. Even those that pay no income tax, if they are working, are paying that tax.
The Democrats feel that FDR saved the country from the Great Depression. If you would read any analysis of the Great Depression you would find that they point out that the homeless, and jobless numbers really hadn't changed between 1932 and 1940. They still embrace the New Deal like it is the King James Version of the Holy Bible. (Yes, I do think that those on the left embrace the ideology as a theology) The same could be said for the Great Society, or the War on Poverty. Maybe we should declare that one a loss, and move on.
The Republicans point out the Great Depression stats, and say it was WWII that brought the economy out of the depression. It certainly did put everyone to work. but to say the economy was thriving when there were shortages of basic staples, goods to be consumed by the citizens were in short supply. In short, we were like Cuba for the war years. Not prosperous.
Both parties were leery about the post war situation. As it turns out, the public was actually anxious for goods that hadn't been available for years.
So the odds of even a libertarian changing DC? On the left, welfare both for cronies (rich) and the poor. On the right, welfare for the rich, and ignoring the poor. If we think about the adage "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", we realize that it is playing out right now, and would only get worse if a genuine small government conservative was elected President.
Rand's ideas are great, he is taking stands for the people. He is reaching out to all communities. He may not be his father, but could you imagine a President Paul appointing Ron Paul as Secretary of the Treasury? What a dream that would be.
Foreign policy is a whole other issue, another time.
Rand Paul was asked about the fact that his tax plan won't either increase revenue, or be revenue neutral. His response was that he hoped it wouldn't be either. He wants less money coming in, because he wants to spend less. This is the core of his values, his beliefs, and what his campaign is built around. One problem. I am not sure that there is a push to reduce government size, or even a desire to reduce by the American people.
This is the problem of a libertarian Republican, or a Libertarian. How do you campaign on what you are not going to do? How do you sell that to the 49.99999% who are either receiving some sort of needs based assistance, or are paying no income tax? Do you go to them and say "Hey, vote for me, I am going to take away your subsidized housing, your foodstamps, and your welfare checks!" And to businesses, "I am going to make the corporate rate 14.5% (same as individual rate). In exchange, GE, you are going to have to actually pay taxes instead of all the corporate welfare, disguised as tax credits, subsidies, and other benefits that you have been receiving."
Do you understand the dilemma? Dr. Paul has rightly seen that the Social Security thing is a mess, and a sham. So much money is coming out of the general fund that he has proposed to eliminate the individual paying in, which would be a HUGE tax break for anyone that has a job. Even those that pay no income tax, if they are working, are paying that tax.
The Democrats feel that FDR saved the country from the Great Depression. If you would read any analysis of the Great Depression you would find that they point out that the homeless, and jobless numbers really hadn't changed between 1932 and 1940. They still embrace the New Deal like it is the King James Version of the Holy Bible. (Yes, I do think that those on the left embrace the ideology as a theology) The same could be said for the Great Society, or the War on Poverty. Maybe we should declare that one a loss, and move on.
The Republicans point out the Great Depression stats, and say it was WWII that brought the economy out of the depression. It certainly did put everyone to work. but to say the economy was thriving when there were shortages of basic staples, goods to be consumed by the citizens were in short supply. In short, we were like Cuba for the war years. Not prosperous.
Both parties were leery about the post war situation. As it turns out, the public was actually anxious for goods that hadn't been available for years.
So the odds of even a libertarian changing DC? On the left, welfare both for cronies (rich) and the poor. On the right, welfare for the rich, and ignoring the poor. If we think about the adage "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", we realize that it is playing out right now, and would only get worse if a genuine small government conservative was elected President.
Rand's ideas are great, he is taking stands for the people. He is reaching out to all communities. He may not be his father, but could you imagine a President Paul appointing Ron Paul as Secretary of the Treasury? What a dream that would be.
Foreign policy is a whole other issue, another time.
Comments
Post a Comment