Social Programs: Question about government taxes and entitlement programs

[writers delight]

I recently began listening to the writings and speeches of ron paul and he has some very refreshing things to say about the current state of our country, government spending and taxes. I love the simplicity of the forefathers and thats what ron paul seems to represent and it would appear our country has lost its way. I read a comment that a user posted on facebook; and I am not educated enough on his policies to respond fully. I dont agree with the comment but dont have an educated understanding enough to answer fully. I know that these entitlement programs are relatively new; but i dont know specifically what government taxes go to what and how long they have been around for, and need the aid of a true libertarian for advice. I am not out to prove a person wrong, but help their understanding of the sensibility of what ron paul believes in and possibly convince him as well. Here is the statement:

"Interesting... Bear in mind, those taxes pay for the ambulances, police, fire department, paved roads, hospital and emergency room care for the uninsured, welfare, food stamps, and unemployment checks for the unemployed. It would be interesting to see what would happen to all of those things and those people without taxes... no ambulances, police, and fire departments to help those in need, people dying en masse in the street or committing crimes to try to feed themselves with no welfare, food stamps, or unemployment checks. While there are great flaws in the system, the alternative is far far worse.... There are always many ways to look at an issue. Be wary of those who become so myopic and fixated on their specific view that they fail to see all that is around them..."

 

[The Gold Standard]

"Interesting... Bear in mind, those taxes pay for the ambulances, police, fire department, paved roads, hospital and emergency room care for the uninsured, welfare, food stamps, and unemployment checks for the unemployed. It would be interesting to see what would happen to all of those things and those people without taxes... no ambulances, police, and fire departments to help those in need, people dying en masse in the street or committing crimes to try to feed themselves with no welfare, food stamps, or unemployment checks. While there are great flaws in the system, the alternative is far far worse.... There are always many ways to look at an issue. Be wary of those who become so myopic and fixated on their specific view that they fail to see all that is around them..."

There is nothing that says the federal government has to provide those services, and they would all exist without federal involvement. Local and state government can tax you to pay for ambulances and police and fire and to fix the roads. They can even have their own safety net entitlements if they want, or back when people were allowed to keep their money they had money to donate to charities and churches that would help the sick or hungry. I wasn't around 100 years ago, but I doubt there were masses of people dying in the street without Social Security and welfare and Medicare.

 

[playboymommy]

I've read many peoples' views that they think ron paul wants to abolish all government completely when he really wants to restore the federal government to its constitutional limits. And when laws are more local, as they're supposed to be, the people have a more powerful voice.

 

[Crickett]

I recently began listening to the writings and speeches of ron paul and he has some very refreshing things to say about the current state of our country, government spending and taxes. I love the simplicity of the forefathers and thats what ron paul seems to represent and it would appear our country has lost its way. I read a comment that a user posted on facebook; and I am not educated enough on his policies to respond fully. I dont agree with the comment but dont have an educated understanding enough to answer fully. I know that these entitlement programs are relatively new; but i dont know specifically what government taxes go to what and how long they have been around for, and need the aid of a true libertarian for advice. I am not out to prove a person wrong, but help their understanding of the sensibility of what ron paul believes in and possibly convince him as well. Here is the statement:

"Interesting... Bear in mind, those taxes pay for the ambulances, police, fire department, paved roads, hospital and emergency room care for the uninsured, welfare, food stamps, and unemployment checks for the unemployed. It would be interesting to see what would happen to all of those things and those people without taxes... no ambulances, police, and fire departments to help those in need, people dying en masse in the street or committing crimes to try to feed themselves with no welfare, food stamps, or unemployment checks. While there are great flaws in the system, the alternative is far far worse.... There are always many ways to look at an issue. Be wary of those who become so myopic and fixated on their specific view that they fail to see all that is around them..."

I am not a true Libertarian or anything else, but you must remember, that coming with these changes will also be a change in our own way of thinking. In addition to what the others have answered, people will also find a new sense of responsibility for themselves and their neighbors. There will be more volunteers for firemen and local charitable organizations. People will learn again The Constitution in the schools, and will understand more about self-reliance and what freedom means.

 

[Foolness]

Well, you received the more idealistic answers and I'm not claiming to know the more pragmatic answer so depending on his own knowledge, this may be useless but you can't abolish all taxes in one night.

What will happen is that you will get the equivalent of a "true" tax cut if more people feel all taxes needs to be abolished. It's not just in the words, it's in how the words fuel the curiosity and destroy the propaganda.

There will be no celebratory "Libertarian" ideal route, but:

What will instead happen to the philosophy of wanting to abolish all taxes is that the president can start to urge the masses to slowly pay for taxes that they know will only go to the ambulances, police, fire department...basically allowing the masses to urge the system to be leaner. As long as the masses want to abolish taxes, even just one thing like the income tax being removed would take the leverage away from the politicians to the people. Even the people who want to pay for things with taxes and support the less needy.

See the statement is correct if Americans (I'm not one) have a lean or normal government. When you have an overspending government, there's enough taxes and talking points propped up to allow people to buy into the opposite extreme of overspending further when the country can easily go bankrupt or reframe the situation into smokescreens that don't really cut off costs like what many of the Republicans are claiming. The worse of this is that the size of bureaucracy is big enough that you can't just say "ok let's remove all taxes except ones that pay for ambulances and hospitals, etc." As long as politicians know that they can get an inch from you, they can always play good tax increase/bad tax cuts/vice versa with the populace every time they are running for election.

This isn't to say abolishing all taxes doesn't have a truer philosophical need. It's just right now with America's economy being bad, there's just as much obvious practical need to cut spending and reduce the pipeline on which politicians can convince the masses to provide them with the fuel to overspend. Once this monetary spill is plugged up, then there's not only better opportunities to help people via government spending but also help more people in spite of government spending.

 

[Ron Paul 2012]

This is a tough one. I do think that before social security and welfare things were tougher. Then again, we didn't have the innovations we now do. No doubt the private sector can do it cheaper and more efficient. The private sector does things so much more effectively than government.

 

[vechorik]

tweet Romney will cut Medicare - Ron Paul's plan doesn't cut

This was tweeted yesterday by the campaign and I've been spreading it around:

ROMNEY'S 2012 PLAN CUTS MEDICARE--Ron Paul’s plan cuts $1 trillion the first year and it balances the budget in 3 years. The plan cuts spending by ending the costly unconstitutional foreign wars, and cuts foreign welfare, corporate welfare, and overgrown federal bureaucracy. These cuts are made so that those who are dependent on domestic spending programs such as Medicare aren’t endangered through a sudden change in benefits. Romney’s plan cuts Medicare, on which many elderly Americans rely.

 

[Enforcer]

Perhaps I missed something, but Ron Paul has not stated that we are cutting welfare or any other program out. He's saying this stuff will no longer be handled at the federal level.

If / when government handles an entitlement program, the taxes must go through Congress, given to a federal bureaucracy where it is subjected to that agency's rules. They dole it out to state agencies who then dole it out to the intended programs.

By the time you pay for all the bureaucracies and agencies, their employees, the enforcement of those rules, etc. more than half of the money goes missing just to pay bureaucrats to disburse the funds.

Welfare, food stamps, ambulances, etc. are cheaper and more efficient when handled through state and local governments.

Socialist Security was not intended to be a general expenditure, but rather an Old Age Survivors Disability Program. Today, while the money is taken out of your paycheck separately from income tax, the funds are used for general use. THAT is why the program is broke today. If a private company used pension money to pay for new machinery, that company would have officers being arrested and put into prison. When our elected leaders do it, we continue to vote for them, actually believing that one of them will make sure we get "our fair share" back.