[RAndoMness]=> 28Sep09
 [JPsDocs] => 22Feb09
 [JPics] => 10Dec11

February 2020
sun mon tue wed thu fri sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
recent music
Boycott SONY



    Aware of the positions  echo $newRAM;
    added Sat January 12 2008 at 8:12 PM
    I made a post on a public group in facebook stating my support for Ron Paul. I got a message a few hours later from some girl I've never met, that said:

    "Are you aware of the fact that this man wants to legalize prostitution, heroin and cocaine, do away with the sales tax and Income tax ( do you like your hospitals and your nice paved roads)....I believe that's a bit radical and it is not slander...these are his positions"

    And my reply:

    Prostitution is already legal in one state - and Ron Paul wants to leave that decision up to the states (see the bottom of the page at ). Sounds like the way it already is. Just because he received a donation from the owner of a Nevada brothel doesn't make him a pimp any more than receiving a donation from me makes him a computer programmer or receiving a donation from you makes him a female.

    The "war on drugs" is a waste of money that could be otherwise spent on hospitals and nice paved roads - or given back to you the taxpayer. Already this year, one billion dollars has been spent in this "war," yet the government is not any closer to winning it then when it started. How many people do you know that have taken drugs? How many of your friends have smoked pot? I have never taken drugs and never will, but I know that this prohibition is exactly as effective as the last national prohibition brought by the 18th amendment. The alcohol prohibition gave rise to organized crime very similar to the way that illegal drugs drive current gangs. Furthermore, if you were to legalize it, you could tax it to the point that it generates enough income to pay for the idiots' hospital bills when they overdose. That burden is currently left to the general public.

    The federal government does not have a sales tax, so getting rid of it would not be a radical idea. When I first heard his plan to eliminate the income tax, I questioned its validity as well. The answer is that if we keep spending at the rate that we are, we can't eliminate the IRS. The federal government gets a little under half its money from individual income tax ( ), the rest comes from corporation income tax, social security, and "other" (such as tariffs and excise tax). In order to reduce spending to the point that we can afford to get rid of the income tax, we would have to cut spending in half. The federal government spent $2.65 trillion in 2006 ( ). If you cut that in half, you get $1.325 trillion - let's pretend that's our new budget. If we take into account inflation (which is another topic on its own), we would need to reduce spending to the levels of 1976. Maybe we should ask our parents if they had paved roads and hospitals when they were our age. Would it be tough for the government to make this transformation? Yes, but imagine not having to give that money to the government.

    I know the positions of my candidate - do you?