In an interview with obscure Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul on Sunday’s "Face the Nation," host Bob Schieffer asked the Texas Congressman: "What is it that you see that the government ought to do besides deliver the mail?" This followed Schieffer’s description of Paul’s limited government philosophy:
Well, let me -- I want to just get your take on what you think the government ought to do. You've already said your anti-war. We know you're anti-abortion. You're anti-drug administration. You're anti-Medicare. I wrote all this down. Let's see. You're anti-income tax. You want to do away with that. You're anti-United Nations. You're anti-World Bank. You're anti-International Monetary Fund. And there must be some other things that you're against.
Certainly, some of Paul’s stances could be considered eccentric, like his response to Schieffer’s question of whether Iran is a threat: "No. I think our policy toward Iran is a threat." However, Schieffer labeling all of Paul’s limited government policies as being "anti" something clearly displayed the automatic assumption by many in the mainstream media that big government is good and reducing the size of government is bad.
Paul himself responded to Schieffer’s attack and pointed out:
Look, everything that you have said you can turn that into a pro. I'm pro-Constitution. I'm pro-liberty. I'm pro-sound money. I'm pro-states rights...I want people to take care of themselves. I'm pro-free markets and private property. I'm pro-Second Amendment. So every time they say you're anti-something means you have to be pro-something...Freedom is what made America great. Not welfarism and socialism and government controls...
Ron Paul may have some strange positions, but at least he is able to acknowledge that government does not have all the answers. Meanwhile, Schieffer was waiting for the mail, but of course the post office is closed on Sunday.
Here is the transcript of the interview excerpt:
SCHIEFFER: Well, let me -- I want to just get your take on what you think the government ought to do. You've already said your anti-war. We know you're anti-abortion. You're anti-drug administration. You're anti-medicare. I wrote all this down. Let's see. You're anti-income tax. You want to do away with that. You're anti-United Nations. You're anti-World Bank. You're anti-International Monetary Fund. And there must be some other things that you're against. What is it that you see that the government ought to do besides deliver the mail?
PAUL: Look, everything that you have said you can turn that into a pro. I'm pro-Constitution. I'm pro-liberty. I'm pro-sound money. I'm pro-states rights. I'm pro-liberty. I want people to take care of themselves. I'm pro-free markets and private property. I'm pro-Second Amendment. So every time they say you're anti-something means you have to be pro-something. And I think that what is happening today is that people have lost confidence in the government. And they see that what I stand for and what our campaign stands for, this is what has made America great. Freedom is what made America great. Not welfarism and socialism and government controls and invading our homes and loss of our privacy. That is what the people don't like.
—Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Oh, my goodness.
Mon, 11/12/2007 - 17:07 ET by sarcasmoBias against the one who may not be named gets mentioned on NB's main page. Be still, my beating heart! :) And THANKS!!!
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Sarc, is it your birthday
Mon, 11/12/2007 - 17:08 ET by vrwc13Sarc, is it your birthday or what?
v
No, but
Mon, 11/12/2007 - 17:13 ET by sarcasmoWe're in the right month, so maybe that's it! I still want SOME candidate (and yes, I want no-IRS entirely still, but this is a start!) to copy this idea. What's so-wrong with THAT??? Nobody wants to answer honestly, IMO, except if you count something like "apparently a very good idea was thought-up by the wrong guy." And that response came from a Paul-supporter. Where'd he & I get it wrong?
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
We all work for our money,
Mon, 11/12/2007 - 17:21 ET by vrwc13We all work for our money, why should this income be any different. I think RP should choose his battles carefully. This one won't get a lot of traction.
v
Tips aren't like salary at all
Mon, 11/12/2007 - 17:26 ET by sarcasmoLegally, they're more-like gifts, which up to $10 grand aren't subject to tax anyway, when last I checked. The position of the candidate has always been kill the IRS and replace it with nothing. This is incremental, which is how the big government side got the success they got. And before you claim it won't be interesting, try handing one of those cards out with your next tip and see what your server says to you. You might just be pleasantly, or unpleasantly, surprised...
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Big point is that Paul said
Mon, 11/12/2007 - 18:19 ET by TruthMongerBig point is that Paul said some great thing here - i see why you like him sarc - Jesus said great things too - unfortunately it just gets you nailed to a cross - not elected prez
and also like i said he looks too old - like Bob Dole:( - agism among the voters
no executive experience as well
it will be a tough battle for him
i still see alot of bumper stickers tho!
With all due respect,
Mon, 11/12/2007 - 20:37 ET by fosstenWith all due respect, TruthMonger, that was a very bad analogy. Jesus getting nailed to a cross holds more prestige than any action by any president, past, present, or future. There isn't a man alive who would willingly enter a city knowing that they were going to kill him.
I can't believe you would go there. It's an ignorant statement.
Forget 911, I dial 10MM.
Schieffer forgot to point
Mon, 11/12/2007 - 19:46 ET by Mr. KafirSchieffer forgot to point out that Ron Paul is also:
Of course, Paul forgot to point out he is pro:
There. That's better.
No, he's just not-a-hack. Once-again...
Tue, 11/13/2007 - 01:00 ET by sarcasmoTake it up with these guys, IF you dare (I've been lookin' and I've seen 0 so-far over there -- scared of the big boys??). And thank God for copy & paste. The response below is to some loon at Digg who posted the same BS. Gettin' scared we might win, eh?? And what does this say about the Texas Republicans in his district, who repeatedly elected him over both Democrats and party-annointed RINOs?? They sniffed this, and smelled BS.
This rEVOLution is not about hate, or it would not have grown so-fast or gotten so-far. It's about small-government & liberty instead, and that seems to be what's scaring people. I'd almost say "this is a typical tactic of the liberals," but that would sound too-much like what others reflexively say whenever THEIR favorite Republicans get these exact-same bogus accusations. Sigh.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
This is not in reply to these freedom hating hacks that post these lies
on every post about Ron Paul at digg.com. They've already been debunked
too many times. This is for those not familiar with the issue.
People are tired of responding to these ad hominem attacks. These
claims of racism by these same people have been debunked time and
again. Because these people can't debate the issues that Paul brings
forth, like limited government, less taxation, non-interventionism and
more freedom, they have to produce lies and attribute what other people
say as something Paul has said.
The racist comments were made in one of his newsletters while he was
out campaigning. He can't be held accountable for what others say while
not able to edit his newsletter. It's like saying that the digg.com
owners are liars because these guys post these lies here at digg.com.
Some quotes from Ron Paul:
"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views
humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists
believe that all individuals who share superficial physical
characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in
terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality,
the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism.
Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.
The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited,
constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual
rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism,
which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color,
gender, or ethnicity."
Just what did Paul say regarding these false accusations?
From an interview with Texas Monthly.
" In one issue of the Ron Paul Survival Report, which he had published
since 1985, he called former U.S. representative Barbara Jordan a
"fraud" and a "half-educated victimologist." In another issue, he cited
reports that 85 percent of all black men in Washington, D.C., are
arrested at some point: "Given the inefficiencies of what D.C.
laughingly calls the 'criminal justice system,' I think we can safely
assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are
semi-criminal or entirely criminal." And under the headline "Terrorist
Update," he wrote: "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged
male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."
In spite of calls from Gary Bledsoe, the president of the Texas
State Conference of the NAACP, and other civil rights leaders for an
apology for such obvious racial typecasting, Paul stood his ground. He
said only that his remarks about Barbara Jordan related to her stands
on affirmative action and that his written comments about blacks were
in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time."
He denied any racist intent. What made the statements in the
publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S.
congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything
remotely like this.
When I ask him why, he pauses for a moment, then says, "I could
never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written
by me. It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my
newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was
the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually
she was a delightful lady." Paul says that item ended up there because
"we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in
the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything."
So inspite of the fact these, admittedly, racist comments were not
Paul's, these people continue to post it on every story regarding Paul.
These statements were in Paul's newsletter while he was campaigning and
were not his own words. Don't expect their lies to be debunked in every
post they do this in as they do this everywhere.
One needs to look at Paul's voting record to find the truth about where
he stands on the issues. Not judge him because of what others said.
Especially when it is out of Paul's control.
These people are afraid of Paul's limited Government stance. He is like
a match in a dry field. If they don't extinguish it it may grow into an
inferno of free thinking people.
Limited Government
Mon, 11/12/2007 - 17:28 ET by HadaAbecheNational Security, Roads and Infrastructure, Law Enforcement, and Emergency Services....!
Lol @ HadAbeche..I guess he
Mon, 11/12/2007 - 17:43 ET by ThoughtPoliceLol @ HadAbeche..I guess he doesn't know that before 1913 there was NO income tax...over 130 years without one. I guess the beautiful state capital buildings don't really exist since there was no money before 1913. Actually, no federal income tax goes to any state cause (roads, schools, etc). Most of the Federal income tax goes to pay the interest on the nation debt (thank you Fed Reserve).
Go read Jekyll from Creature Island and get a clue. Here is the link...I lent my copy out to a friend or else I'd send it to you personally.
Oh yea, Kyle is the new best blogger on this site...(not too hard since there wasn't one before)
This is from the man
Mon, 11/12/2007 - 17:51 ET by ThoughtPoliceThis is from the man himself. Logic always wins...(my emphasis added)
by Ron Paul, Dr. April 10, 2006
April 10, 2006
April 15th, our national tax day, comes this year just as Congress prepares to pass the 2007 federal budget. If you think paying taxes was painful this year, I’ve got some bad news: the new budget is a grotesque illustration of everything wrong with the federal government. At $2.7 trillion, it’s the largest budget in U.S. history by a long shot. Like it or not, the pressure to raise your taxes will be enormous in coming years no matter who controls Congress. The amount of money government spends, borrows, and prints simply cannot be sustained.
For most people, their income tax return represents their most meaningful interaction with the federal government. It requires them to confess their actions over the past year to the IRS in excruciating detail. It's an annual ritual guaranteed to elicit strong feelings of disgust. Thanks to the deception of income tax withholding, however, some people actually look forward to tax time and a much-anticipated refund. Imagine how quickly Americans would demand lower taxes and spending if they had to write the federal government a check each month.
Most people understandably want a simpler income tax system, but it’s useless to discuss tax reform without spending reform. Who wants a 40% flat tax? Who wants a national sales tax if it adds 50% to the retail price of everything we buy? In other words, why change the tax structure if spending stays the same? Once we accept that Congress needs $2.7 trillion from us, the only question is how it will be collected. The current answer is the labyrinthine tax code, which pits taxpayers against each other in a political scramble to make sure the other guy pays. The truth is that Congress does not need $2.7 trillion, or anything close to it, to fund the proper constitutional functions of the federal government.
The only tax reform needed is to lower or abolish existing taxes. When reform proposals seem complicated, the reason is simple: they obscure their true nature as schemes to shift the tax burden around. It’s not who pays or how we pay; it’s how much we pay.
The real enemy of tax reform is the spending culture in Washington. Let me repeat: we will never have tax reform in this country until Congress changes its spending habits. The reform rhetoric, regardless of which party it comes from, never changes the reality that federal spending grows every year. Congress spent $2.4 trillion in the last Bush budget; the new budget proposes to spend $2.7 trillion. The same unconstitutional agencies are funded, the same unwise programs are perpetuated, but at higher levels than last year. The previous budget serves merely as a baseline; the only question in any given year is how much spending will increase. Once created, no spending program is ever eliminated. The cycle goes on and on, with different administrations and different people in Congress.
But could America exist without an income tax? The idea seems radical, yet in truth America did just fine without a federal income tax for the first 126 years of her history. Prior to 1913, the government operated with revenues raised through tariffs, excise taxes, and property taxes, without ever touching a worker's paycheck. Even today, individual income taxes account for only approximately one-third of federal revenue. Eliminating one-third of the proposed 2007 budget would still leave federal spending at roughly $1.8 trillion-- a sum greater than the budget just 6 years ago in 2000! Does anyone seriously believe we could not find ways to cut spending back to 2000 levels? Perhaps the idea of an America without an income tax is not so radical after all. It’s something to think about this week as we approach April 15th.
if this is true - i like
Mon, 11/12/2007 - 18:28 ET by TruthMongerif this is true - i like it:)!
Yes, it is true. Check this
Tue, 11/13/2007 - 10:40 ET by ThoughtPoliceYes, it is true. Check this link out. It has some great info about the income tax and Fed Reserve. Kind of long, but your future might depend on it!
Here
Hey TP...
Mon, 11/12/2007 - 17:51 ET by MightyMouthKnock, knock... Who’s there? Ron. Ron who? Exactly.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
No, exactly the problem with *the media*
Mon, 11/12/2007 - 17:54 ET by sarcasmoNot at all a problem with the thousand-plus Meetups! And not much problem in Nevada, either, if you trust Zogby's polls... :)
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Not anymore. See the
Mon, 11/12/2007 - 20:40 ET by fosstenNot anymore. See the above Newsbusters thread that we ARE ACTUALLY POSTING RESPONSES TO. Notice that he was on CBS. You know, the MAINSTREAM MEDIA NETWORK NEWS???
Forget 911, I dial 10MM.
ThoughtPolice
Mon, 11/12/2007 - 17:56 ET by Free StinkerActually, no federal income tax goes to any state cause (roads, schools, etc).
When did the federal government stop funding Interstate Highways?
. . . and no matter how horrific the terrorist attack, it's conducted by losers. Winners don't need to hijack airplanes. Winners have an Air Force. --P.J. O'Rourke
When did the federal
Tue, 11/13/2007 - 10:54 ET by ThoughtPoliceWhen did the federal government stop funding Interstate Highways?
Federal Gov't and funding in the same sentence is kind of an oxy moron isn't it? As you and I know, we fund the gov't 100%. Therefore, we funded the highways.
I know what your thinking already, "Well yea stupid, we funded it through the federal income tax!" Well, not really.
According to this website, here is how we paid for interstate highways:
NOTE: The term "super-highway" is used
to denote a controlled access (grade separated) roadway with at least
four lanes of traffic separated by
direction. Super-highways may be toll roads or free (freeways). In most
nations, including the United States, "free" super-highways are not
really free, in that their construction, maintenance and patrolling
costs are paid by highway user fees. grade separated roadways with four
lanes of
direction-separated traffic, first appeared in the New York City area
parkways that opened in the
1920s.
Quantifiable Economic Benefits: The primary benefits of the interstate highway system have
been experienced by the people who have used and paid for them.
The direct user benefits have been at least equal to the $329 billion user fee investment.
So there you have it, paid for by people who use highways via fees. A rEVOLutionary idea ;)...
http://www.publicpurpose.com/freeway1.htm
Thought Police, I was
Tue, 11/13/2007 - 11:03 ET by Free StinkerThought Police, I was remarking on your comment:
Actually, no federal income tax goes to any state cause (roads, schools, etc).
I think that the FEDERAL gas tax (user fees?) goes towards the $ the federal governmnet gives to the states to maintain the Interstate highways and that is all thrown into the "general fund" so it's sort of hazy where it comes from.
If you're saying it's a big shell game and the money comes from "us" anyway, I agree. I was just pointing out that I think the federal government is still giving money to the states for the Interstate highways.
Sarc....I watched the
Mon, 11/12/2007 - 18:02 ET by bigtimerSatrc....
I watched the interview yesterday...I also thought of you. like I have told you numerous times, I have been watching/listening to Paul for years and years, I agree with some of his blather...
Here is the whole interview, it is in two parts...there is plenty there for the hypocrisy of how he is not an isolationist plus the hypocrisy with the UN...he says he's anti UN but that he trusts the UN inspectors when it comes to Iraq/Iran....plus I have heard him on the floor of the House say we should let the UN take care of the war...meaning Iraq, this was back when it first was going...
I love this new word he threw in too...neo-isolationist...I would feel so safe with him as President against terrorists....yesssssireeee....
I do not have time to post all that I would like about this interview, it isn't long and I do advise others to listen to it if interested.
No, no, no...
Mon, 11/12/2007 - 18:04 ET by scamoramaDon't you realize that only PROgressives can be "Pro" anything? Everyone else is "Anti" by definition!
Yes, yes, yes...
Mon, 11/12/2007 - 21:01 ET by CJWARNER>> Don't you realize that only PROgressives can be "Pro" anything?
Yeah, like PROtagonist.
Bush/Cheney '08
The War On Terror Is Not Over
(and you don't change horses in the middle of a stream)
Hi Mr. Drennen... I am
Mon, 11/12/2007 - 18:09 ET by bigtimerHi Mr. Drennen...
I am surprised you did not put the link in for this whole interview and I cannot help but be curious as to why, as the last part of the interview was very important also as far as I am concerned when it comes to Ron Paul....I think it is only about three minutes or so.
Just curious on my end....
"Legally, they're more-like
Mon, 11/12/2007 - 18:24 ET by ckc1227"Legally, they're more-like gifts, which up to $10 grand aren't subject to tax anyway, when last I checked."
Hmm, not so sure about that. They are being compensated for performing a service. That would be income.
Besides, who reports their tips anyway? I mean, I know they report them, but I guarantee you they aren't reporting all of them. In my case, I reported less than half when I worked for tips, and I wasn't the only one.
As for Paul, he really has some good ideas that I could get behind. Too bad he's lost his mind on the foreign policy front, making it a deal breaker for me.
Once again . . .
Mon, 11/12/2007 - 19:03 ET by Galvanic. . . Schieffer betrays his political bias and displays his liberal journalism.
We've seen from past Schieffer interviews that the old guy just doesn't think government controls enough of our lives, and needs to control more. He can't distinguish libertarianism from anarchy, and so he sounds incredulous when conversing with a quasi-libertarian like Ron Paul. His repetition of the prefix anti- is a typical tactic, and hats off to Paul for calling him on it.