I didn't watch the GOP debate on Monday night (happy birthday, Becca!), but I've read from people who scoff at Ron Paul for saying that the US should consider the golden rule in foreign policy. Strange they'd scoff, isn't it? Even the nation-building neoconservatives should believe that the golden rule deserves center stage in our national ethics, shouldn't they? Isn't the golden rule the reason they believe we should pursue nation building?
Also, Paul said the income tax should return to its pre-1913 level, the level it was for most of American history: 0%. Stephen Moore comments on Paul's idea.
3 comments:
Just a quick comment on the 1913 thing. Leaving aside the fact that the US's position in the world has changed since then, as has the entire nature of the economy, that was only 137 years after the formation of the first federal American govt, and even less time after the adoptions of the constitution. And it's 99 years ago. So to say that those tax levels were in place for the majority of American history is only barely true in a technical sense, and certainly has misleading connotations.
I think Ron Paul takes your assertions into consideration: If the US shifted away from interventionism abroad and if the entire nature of the economy shifted away from crony capitalism and big spending then, and only then, we might be able to once again return to a 0% federal income tax (though not a 0% state income tax).
You bring up a good point about my misleading connotations, though, and I'm embarrassed because I realize now that I should have researched more about what led to the 16th amendment before I posted this. Pretty much I just liked that video I linked to—and the idealism of Paul.
and the golden rule
Post a Comment