I think the problem you are having is making assumptions.
Kestrel wrote:Tax cuts and spending cuts are fine, as a general principle. But I do remember a question being asked at one of the debates, "How low should the income tax rate be?" Paul's answer: zero. And his proposals for what to tax instead just didn't jive.
If the income tax were the sole source of Federal Government funding, then that might not jive, but the income tax is not. The personal income tax accounts for roughly half of the federal government's revenue. Cut spending roughly half, and you're on par again.
Yes, it's radical. Especially for a nation that thinks merely cutting the rate of government growth is too extreme. But it's not anti-mathematics.
Kestrel wrote:Then there is the issue of abandoning a fiat currency and returning to the Gold Standard. It's another nice pet theory which sounds impressive but just doesn't wash. Do the math on that one. What would the price of gold have to be in order to fully support the amount of US currency outstanding?
You are assuming Ron Paul wants a mandatory 100% gold reserve currency. He does not. There are goldbugs that do want that, but Ron Paul is not one of them. What he wants instead is to allow competing currencies. Take away the Federal Reserve's monopoly on the creation of money, and allow private banks to issue their own if they want. Historically, decentralized banking systems used fractional reserves, which makes the gold price problem go away.
Is it radical? Yes. But it's still not anti-mathematics. There are numerous examples of it working in the past, and decentralized banking has been backed by at two Nobel Prize winners, Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek.