How do Republicans expect to pay for things?

We borrow money from such pro-democracy countries as Russia, China and Saudi Arabia.

If I can be called anything politically, it would be libertarian, so not a Republican here. But an alternative to compulsory taxation is voluntary funding.

ADDITION: I appreciate the compliment. While I usually write lengthy essays, the answer really was so simple that I decided to make it brief.

What is there to not agree with? If money is to change hands, it is either going to be by voluntary consent or through compulsion. Perhaps you disagree on the basis that you believe that people wouldn't voluntarily fund certain programs. From there, we could debate on a number on fronts. For instance,

1) What is the moral justification to force people to pay for things that they wouldn't have done voluntarily?

2) Would voluntary funds go to alternative programs that could serve as well as or better than the tax funded programs?

We could also weigh the costs of tax funding in a number of ways:

1) What are the opportunity costs of taxation? In other words, how would the money have been employed if left in private hands?

2) What are the moral hazards of taxation? How much wealth is redirected by lobbyists or even more illicit individuals?

3) Do the costs outweigh the benefits of the tax funded programs?

4) For that matter, since many people oppose taxation (or at least the level of taxation - few people oppose it altogether), by whose standard are we to weigh the costs and benefits? Clearly, the people who would have rather not paid the taxes are placing more value on the costs than the benefits.

None of these topics are intended as "gotcha" questions to which there are no answers. They could all be rationally debated from both sides. What's more, they could be debated separately for different programs. For instance, perhaps you have a different view on funding national defense than you do on welfare or health care or funding for abortion.

Whatever the outcome of these debates, voluntary funding is ALWAYS an option. I state this in the strongest terms because I see one of the most pernicious myths in current thought as the notion that to oppose the government provision of something (i.e. to oppose compulsory funding followed by central dictate) is to oppose its provision entirely. That simply is not true, and I am trying to keep the reasoning following from your question from allowing that myth to stand.

ADDITION #2: Okay, let's try again but back to simple. I repeat a key phrase from my last addition:

"If money is to change hands, it is either going to be by voluntary consent or through compulsion."

Agree or disagree?

They have other people in China, India, Mexico and other foreign countries to do the work while the Republicans reep huge profits. Also refer to Palin's expensive dinner that some retard bid about $63,000 on eBay.

Hey Gnarly, ever thought of looking at the other side of an issue? If you only hang around with like-minded individuals, your brain becomes lopsided and can only see things from a single perspective. Once you believe that you're opinion is right, you are wrong. Search for truth, not acceptance.

Repubs don't want to eliminate taxes they want to reduce the tax rate to inspire production. with more production comes more tax money. They surely don't want to increase taxes for stupid lib pork projects.

Yes you are missing something - a basic law of economics. When you lower taxes the revenue to the government increases. And BTW, even if they didn't the solution is for the government to do fewer things.

Ummm, by limiting the things the government pays for?

The less money I spend on taxes, the more money I have to pay for things myself.

I don't know...Maybe stop EIC where they get back from the IRS twice as much as they paid in....

"What am I missing?"

The Fair Tax