I think I may be backing Ron Paul......

[wiffleball 4,797]

Why wouldn't anyone (Republican) like what he stands for?

 

I think I already answered your question a few posts ago.

[EAwer 1]

All of those points sound good to me. What am I missing?

Why wouldn't anyone (Republican) like what he stands for?

 

I guess what Ron Paul wants to do will take money and power away from them.

That has to be it.

 

Because the Mainstream Media tries to portray him as some wacko. but if you ever listen to any of his interviews on youtube, you can see he is strictly logical and rational. He doesnt let emotion, corruption, etc. enter into his political decisions. He strictly follows the constitution. If the mainstream media gave him equal airtime and promotion, no doubt Dr. Paul would be leading GOP polls. I mean the dude wants to get rid of the IRS and income tax!!!

[wiffleball 4,797]

I mean the dude wants to get rid of the IRS and income tax!!!

 

We've had this talk before on this bored. As a 20 year corporate tax guy, I can tell you that's not the smartest move in the world. Sure, sounds great - who wouldn't want to get rid of the big bad IRS?

 

The problem is, you still have to fund the government - even a smaller government. And, the rates that most people quote for the so-called fair tax are woefully inadequate. So, you start upping the expenses of the poorest people in America - who up to now didn't pay much income tax if any. You jump the tax on their phone & power bill (not exactly luxury items) to about 70% cumulative when you add in the 'fair tax'.

 

RP: Oh - wait - we'll give a credit back to people who make less than 30,000 AGI.

 

?? But how will you know?

 

RP: Well, they'll have to file a tax return showing their W-2's and any other deductions...

 

?? But wait! You just told me you were going to get rid of the IRS! And, a lot of these people can't afford to 'front' the government 40% of their expenses for a year.

 

RP: Um... We'll call it the National Sales Tax Bureau. We haven't thought about your second point. We'll get back to you on that.

 

?? Okay, So what about big businesses that won't re-invest, won't upgrade because their costs have now increased by at least 40%??

 

RP: Um... We'll give them exemptions, deductions and accelerated depreciation credits and such.

 

??Huh, so you're saying you'll have the same kind of deductions and loopholes that you're bashing the IRS for, huh?

 

RP: Well yeah, No. Maybe. It'll be different I swear!

 

?? Oh, Okay. So, you'll hike the cost of medicines by 40%...

 

RP: NO, we didn't say that. Of course, we'd have an exemption for that.

 

?? Oh, Okay. So, you'll hike the cost of food for all Americans..

 

RP: No, exemption there too. (this one's really fun - check out sales tax rules on grocery items - it makes the FIT code look like a grade school primer!)

 

?? Oh, Okay. So, we're already paying huge taxes - as much as 50% or more on Gas. You're going to add ANOTHER 40% to that?

 

RP: No, exemption from there too.

 

?? Um, I think I see where we're headed.... (and we're already there)

[gocolts 300]

Because the Mainstream Media tries to portray him as some wacko. but if you ever listen to any of his interviews on youtube, you can see he is strictly logical and rational. He doesnt let emotion, corruption, etc. enter into his political decisions. He strictly follows the constitution. If the mainstream media gave him equal airtime and promotion, no doubt Dr. Paul would be leading GOP polls. I mean the dude wants to get rid of the IRS and income tax!!!

[naomi 360]

We've had this talk before on this bored. As a 20 year corporate tax guy, I can tell you that's not the smartest move in the world. Sure, sounds great - who wouldn't want to get rid of the big bad IRS?

 

The problem is, you still have to fund the government - even a smaller government. And, the rates that most people quote for the so-called fair tax are woefully inadequate. So, you start upping the expenses of the poorest people in America - who up to now didn't pay much income tax if any. You jump the tax on their phone & power bill (not exactly luxury items) to about 70% cumulative when you add in the 'fair tax'.

 

Have you checked out what he does say about this. I haven't, one aspect of everything he says I'm about.

 

 

Was thinking of just making a thread for this but eh, "Longshot" White House hopeful Paul takes in $4.3 million

 

24 hour web drive. That's grass roots support. Assuming it was mostly individuals and not organizations giving a lot of $ at once.

[wiffleball 4,797]

Have you checked out what he does say about this. I haven't, one aspect of everything he says I'm about.

 

Yeah, he's on local cable here 24/7. I fell asleep listening to him one night and woke up with him talking about the same subject. (How he as a Dr. can't prescribe pot) Freaked me out.

 

The bottom line is, his position on the IRS and a Flat tax is pretty simplistic. But then again, so are most people. You run through the dialogue that i wrote out and you find that, as always, the devil's in the details.

[KSB2424 3,174]

The bottom line is, his position on the IRS and a Flat tax is pretty simplistic. But then again, so are most people. You run through the dialogue that i wrote out and you find that, as always, the devil's in the details.

The CFO for Pepsi Cola was one of my economics professor in college. Prolly the only thing I took away from his class was: KISS: Keep it Simple Stupid.

 

The income tax isn't necessary to pay for government services. Few people know that every penny of the income tax is used to service federal debt, a large percentage of which is held by foreign investors and governments. Our government is borrowing nearly three billion dollars a day in order to perpetuate the welfare state and an international war-making empire. The fruits of your labor are going directly to Saudi millionaires and Chinese communist officials.

 

If we stop incurring this debt, we can quickly end the IRS.

 

Only about 42 percent of government revenue is collected through the personal income tax. During the course of the Bush presidency, government spending has increased by about 75 percent. Cutting spending to the same level it was at seven years ago would make it possible to render the personal income tax unnecessary.

 

If we further reduced spending to the 1992 level, we could quickly pay off our foreign debt, return our nation to solvency, and make April 15th a normal day.

 

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/end-the-irs/

[p.man 7]

The CFO for Pepsi Cola was one of my economics professor in college. Prolly the only thing I took away from his class was: KISS: Keep it Simple Stupid.

[

 

It Helps In Multi-Level Marketing Too.

 

[EAwer 1]

The CFO for Pepsi Cola was one of my economics professor in college. Prolly the only thing I took away from his class was: KISS: Keep it Simple Stupid.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/end-the-irs/

 

in case ppl too lazy to click the link:

 

" I have long been an advocate of ending the income tax and eliminating the IRS. People tell me that this is a laudable goal, but they don't see how it would be possible. The question that I am often asked is, "How would the government pay for the services they provide, or pay their employees, if there were no income tax?"

 

Between 1787 and 1913, we had no permanent income tax system, and America prospered! The Sixteenth Amendment was ratified to prevent the Supreme Court from ruling the income tax unconstitutional, as it had done in 1895.

 

The income tax isn't necessary to pay for government services. Few people know that every penny of the income tax is used to service federal debt, a large percentage of which is held by foreign investors and governments. Our government is borrowing nearly three billion dollars a day in order to perpetuate the welfare state and an international war-making empire. The fruits of your labor are going directly to Saudi millionaires and Chinese communist officials.

 

If we stop incurring this debt, we can quickly end the IRS.

 

Only about 42 percent of government revenue is collected through the personal income tax. During the course of the Bush presidency, government spending has increased by about 75 percent. Cutting spending to the same level it was at seven years ago would make it possible to render the personal income tax unnecessary.

 

If we further reduced spending to the 1992 level, we could quickly pay off our foreign debt, return our nation to solvency, and make April 15th a normal day.

 

Would you be comfortable with the government providing the services they did just fifteen years ago if it meant never paying income taxes again? "

[wiffleball 4,797]

The income tax isn't necessary to pay for government services. Few people know that every penny of the income tax is used to service federal debt, a large percentage of which is held by foreign investors and governments. Our government is borrowing nearly three billion dollars a day in order to perpetuate the welfare state and an international war-making empire. The fruits of your labor are going directly to Saudi millionaires and Chinese communist officials.

 

If we stop incurring this debt, we can quickly end the IRS.

 

Only about 42 percent of government revenue is collected through the personal income tax. During the course of the Bush presidency, government spending has increased by about 75 percent. Cutting spending to the same level it was at seven years ago would make it possible to render the personal income tax unnecessary.

 

Just because he says so doesn't make it true.

 

We spend about 10% of our tax revenues servicing the national debt.

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/taxes/article/102...llars-Are-Spent

(actually a really good article on how tax dollars are spent in general)

 

More like 47% of the government's total revenues are PIT. But that's splitting hairs. What he DOESN'T tell you is that 34% of our "revenue" is social security - which is spending more money than it's bringing in.

 

...Which means, that by abolishing the single largest source of government revenue, we're left with less than 20% of our revenue to not only run the government, but pay down a huge national debt. If we can't pay for it now at 100% revenue and record borrowing, doesn't common sense make you ask "Huh, how exactly are we going to not only fund our government, but pay down out crippling national debt and do it with NO borrowing and a FIFTH of our revenue?"

 

Like I said RP's got some good ideas. And, most of his ideas - especially with regard to taxes - sound REALLY good to the common man. But, you don't have to dig much into, or have that much intellectual curiousity before maybe some of these ideas seem a little too good to be true. - No agenda, I like the guy. I've just learned not to take any politician at the word - just because he managed to post it on a website.

[EAwer 1]

Just because he says so doesn't make it true.

 

We spend about 10% of our tax revenues servicing the national debt.

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/taxes/article/102...llars-Are-Spent

(actually a really good article on how tax dollars are spent in general)

 

More like 47% of the government's total revenues are PIT. But that's splitting hairs. What he DOESN'T tell you is that 34% of our "revenue" is social security - which is spending more money than it's bringing in.

 

...Which means, that by abolishing the single largest source of government revenue, we're left with less than 20% of our revenue to not only run the government, but pay down a huge national debt. If we can't pay for it now at 100% revenue and record borrowing, doesn't common sense make you ask "Huh, how exactly are we going to not only fund our government, but pay down out crippling national debt and do it with NO borrowing and a FIFTH of our revenue?"

 

Like I said RP's got some good ideas. And, most of his ideas - especially with regard to taxes - sound REALLY good to the common man. But, you don't have to dig much into, or have that much intellectual curiousity before maybe some of these ideas seem a little too good to be true. - No agenda, I like the guy. I've just learned not to take any politician at the word - just because he managed to post it on a website.

 

 

easy buddy, stop so many federal services. dept of homeland security, irs, dept of education, tenn. valley authority, etc. almost all. but most importantly from a financial perspective is to get rid of our international empire which would save god knows how many billions...

[EAwer 1]

and i BELIEVE the link you posted is our entire federal budget, not just received with income tax. The federal government collects taxes in numerous ways in addition to the income tax.

 

hth

[naomi 360]

...Which means, that by abolishing the single largest source of government revenue, we're left with less than 20% of our revenue to not only run the government, but pay down a huge national debt. If we can't pay for it now at 100% revenue and record borrowing, doesn't common sense make you ask "Huh, how exactly are we going to not only fund our government, but pay down out crippling national debt and do it with NO borrowing and a FIFTH of our revenue?"

some of what you wrote went so you might of spoken to it but I read it twice and while the numbers you give suggest we'd be at a temporary loss...if corrupt and futile spending was simultaneously cut out, maybe the difference could be made up

 

 

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.

[wiffleball 4,797]

and i BELIEVE the link you posted is our entire federal budget, not just received with income tax. The federal government collects taxes in numerous ways in addition to the income tax.

 

hth

 

 

 

Which is probably why I posted the 2nd link - which I talked about extensively. Dontcha think?

 

47% PIT

34% Social Security - That's spending more than it's collecting and isn't supposed to be used for anything other than social security and retirement programs.

 

...which leaves us with roughly less than a fifth of our current revenue collections to fund our government and pay down our crippling national debt. And of course, RP won't borrow anything either and since borrowing is keeping our government afloat, we're pretty much screwed.

 

Basic finance 101: If you're making 1,000 a month and having to borrow say, $500 a month on top of that, you'll have to cut your spending by HOW much to not only pay off your debt, but pay your bills at $190 a month?

 

I agree that ending a lot of our horrific spending is a good idea. But the notion that we're going exclusively cut our way out of record national debt AND reduce our income down to less than a fifth just defies any kind of common sense.

[EAwer 1]

Which is probably why I posted the 2nd link - which I talked about extensively. Dontcha think?

 

47% PIT

34% Social Security - That's spending more than it's collecting and isn't supposed to be used for anything other than social security and retirement programs.

 

...which leaves us with roughly less than a fifth of our current revenue collections to fund our government and pay down our crippling national debt. And of course, RP won't borrow anything either and since borrowing is keeping our government afloat, we're pretty much screwed.

 

Basic finance 101: If you're making 1,000 a month and having to borrow $500 a month, you'll have to cut your spending by HOW much to not only pay off your debt, but pay your bills at $190 a month?

Either read the whole post or don't bother posting, mkay?

 

duh stop Social security. Let us invest what we want to.

[wiffleball 4,797]

duh stop Social security. Let us invest what we want to.

 

Okay Sparky, do you want to tell the 50 Million baby boomers who've been contributing to Social Security for the past 50 years that they're not getting any of that money back?

 

'Cause it's OUR money right now that's (re)paying THIER Social Security.

 

- Guess they're focked huh?

 

Brilliant.

 

Are you drunk?

[itsbigmoni 1]

I know how we can save 10 billion dollars. By not adding another 10 billion (like we did about a month ago) to the already promised 20 billion to israel.

[TheBlade 3]

I, too, have started seriously considering joining the bandwagon. I've just started looking at what he has had to say about various topics, and I find myself agreeing with his viewpoint almost all of the time. The most refreshing thing about him is seeing a politician who has the guts to say it like it is, not what everyone wants to hear. And, I agree with Wiffle that the tax situation isn't as simple as it's made out to be, but even if he's dead wrong in that arena, it still looks like he's by far the best alternative out there right now. Nobody's perfect, but overall I like his line of thinking.

 

As for what Moni said, I think we need to stop most of the aid that we give foreign countries. Most of them don't truly appreciate it anyways, and we certainly have enough of our own issues on American soil as it is. We could do a lot with all of the aid money we send to other countries.

[EAwer 1]

Okay Sparky, do you want to tell the 50 Million baby boomers who've been contributing to Social Security for the past 50 years that they're not getting any of that money back?

 

'Cause it's OUR money right now that's (re)paying THIER Social Security.

 

- Guess they're focked huh?

 

Brilliant.

 

Are you drunk?

 

 

STOP spending from the social security fund. Thats why there is money missing. give ME and other young people who have ZERO chance of ever seeing a penny from social security an option to stop funding the unconstitutional fund.

 

but he says it alot better than i do

 

"Our nation’s promise to its seniors, once considered a sacred trust, has become little more than a tool for politicians to scare retirees while robbing them of their promised benefits. Today, the Social Security system is broke and broken.

 

Those in the system are seeing their benefits dwindle due to higher taxes, increasing inflation, and irresponsible public spending.

 

The proposed solutions, ranging from lower benefits to higher taxes to increasing the age of eligibility, are NOT solutions; they are betrayals.

 

Imposing any tax on Social Security benefits is unfair and illogical. In Congress, I have introduced the Senior Citizens Tax Elimination Act (H.R. 191), which repeals ALL taxes on Social Security benefits, to eliminate political theft of our seniors’ income and raise their standard of living.[/b]

 

Solvency is the key to keeping our promise to our seniors, and I have introduced the Social Security Preservation Act (H.R. 219) to ensure that money paid into the system is only used for Social Security.

 

It is fundamentally unfair to give benefits to anyone who has not paid into the system. The Social Security for Americans Only Act (H.R. 190) ends the drain on Social Security caused by illegal aliens seeking the fruits of your labor.

 

We must also address the desire of younger workers to save and invest on their own. We should cut payroll taxes and give workers the opportunity to seek better returns in the private market.

 

Excessive government spending has created the insolvency crisis in Social Security. We must significantly reduce spending so that our nation can keep its promise to our seniors. "

[KSB2424 3,174]

Okay Sparky, do you want to tell the 50 Million baby boomers who've been contributing to Social Security for the past 50 years that they're not getting any of that money back?

 

'Cause it's OUR money right now that's (re)paying THIER Social Security.

 

- Guess they're focked huh?

 

Brilliant.

 

Are you drunk?

Why have you got to spout out the"okay sparky" and "are you drunk" remarks, and pull the holier than thou card?

 

Each and every economic plan devised can be broken down a certain way to find flaws and imperfections. However RP's economic principles of fiscal responsibility, stopping to incur more national debt, wasteful spending of tax dollars, reducing government ect. are sound and valid points. Whether or not his ideas are enough to one day do away with the national income tax may be extreme, however the premise of his ideas are the direction to take as opposed to the current administration, not to mention many of the Democratic philosophies IMO.

[JWD 0]

We've had this talk before on this bored. As a 20 year corporate tax guy, I can tell you that's not the smartest move in the world. Sure, sounds great - who wouldn't want to get rid of the big bad IRS?

 

The problem is, you still have to fund the government - even a smaller government. And, the rates that most people quote for the so-called fair tax are woefully inadequate. So, you start upping the expenses of the poorest people in America - who up to now didn't pay much income tax if any. You jump the tax on their phone & power bill (not exactly luxury items) to about 70% cumulative when you add in the 'fair tax'.

 

RP: Oh - wait - we'll give a credit back to people who make less than 30,000 AGI.

 

?? But how will you know?

 

RP: Well, they'll have to file a tax return showing their W-2's and any other deductions...

 

?? But wait! You just told me you were going to get rid of the IRS! And, a lot of these people can't afford to 'front' the government 40% of their expenses for a year.

 

RP: Um... We'll call it the National Sales Tax Bureau. We haven't thought about your second point. We'll get back to you on that.

 

?? Okay, So what about big businesses that won't re-invest, won't upgrade because their costs have now increased by at least 40%??

 

RP: Um... We'll give them exemptions, deductions and accelerated depreciation credits and such.

 

??Huh, so you're saying you'll have the same kind of deductions and loopholes that you're bashing the IRS for, huh?

 

RP: Well yeah, No. Maybe. It'll be different I swear!

 

?? Oh, Okay. So, you'll hike the cost of medicines by 40%...

 

RP: NO, we didn't say that. Of course, we'd have an exemption for that.

 

?? Oh, Okay. So, you'll hike the cost of food for all Americans..

 

RP: No, exemption there too. (this one's really fun - check out sales tax rules on grocery items - it makes the FIT code look like a grade school primer!)

 

?? Oh, Okay. So, we're already paying huge taxes - as much as 50% or more on Gas. You're going to add ANOTHER 40% to that?

 

RP: No, exemption from there too.

 

?? Um, I think I see where we're headed.... (and we're already there)

 

 

He is for removing the individual federal income tax, not the corporate income tax. As a person familiar with the tax codes you should also know that the 16th ammendment was never ratified and is, due to limitations imposed by the U.S. Constitution, a %100 voluntary tax.

 

Also do you know what our Federal Income Taxes are used for? Ronald Reagan appointed Peter Grace to head a commission called the Private Sector Survey On Cost Control or the Grace Commission. Give it a Google. It was in part to find out where the $$$$ goes. Guess what his answer was.

 

From page 12 of the report.

 

With two-thirds of everyone's personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Government contributions to transfer payments.

In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their government."

 

 

Also this is a good read http://www.devvy.com/notax.html. I think you will find this interesting if you alreay are not aware this.

 

This would represent where the Corporate Income Taxes go. http://www.fcnl.org/pdfs/taxday07.pdf

[EAwer 1]

He is for removing the individual federal income tax, not the corporate income tax. As a person familiar with the tax codes you should also know that the 16th ammendment was never ratified and is, due to limitations imposed by the U.S. Constitution, a %100 voluntary tax.

 

Also do you know what our Federal Income Taxes are used for? Ronald Reagan appointed Peter Grace to head a commission called the Private Sector Survey On Cost Control or the Grace Commission. Give it a Google. It was in part to find out where the $$$$ goes. Guess what his answer was.

 

From page 12 of the report.

 

With two-thirds of everyone's personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Government contributions to transfer payments.

In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their government."

Also this is a good read http://www.devvy.com/notax.html. I think you will find this interesting if you alreay are not aware this.

 

This would represent where the Corporate Income Taxes go. http://www.fcnl.org/pdfs/taxday07.pdf

 

 

thank you friend.

[Boz/BoFan 0]

He is for removing the individual federal income tax, not the corporate income tax. As a person familiar with the tax codes you should also know that the 16th ammendment was never ratified and is, due to limitations imposed by the U.S. Constitution, a %100 voluntary tax.

 

Also do you know what our Federal Income Taxes are used for? Ronald Reagan appointed Peter Grace to head a commission called the Private Sector Survey On Cost Control or the Grace Commission. Give it a Google. It was in part to find out where the $$$$ goes. Guess what his answer was.

 

From page 12 of the report.

 

With two-thirds of everyone's personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Government contributions to transfer payments.

In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their government."

Also this is a good read http://www.devvy.com/notax.html. I think you will find this interesting if you alreay are not aware this.

 

This would represent where the Corporate Income Taxes go. http://www.fcnl.org/pdfs/taxday07.pdf

 

As far as the 16th Amendment never being ratified you'll find it very hard to get to the truth after having exhausted all resources, biased and unbiased. Some say it was just never ratified period. Some say it wasnt agreed upon by the necessary number of states for ratification. Some say it WAS agreed upon by a sufficient number of states however a few of those states at the time were not actually part of the union. Some say they were. Either way, the documents are old and almost impossible to authenticate.....which brings in the conspiracy wacks, almost rightfully so though.

 

Its a tough battle but I dont know of a single person getting away with not paying fed inc tax. Ive seen a few "Ex IRS employees" claiming they've gotten away with it but who knows if they are legit.

 

I believe its an unconstitutional tax and side with RP on this issue. Which is not to say that all taxes are unconstitutional, just FIT.

[paradoxical 1]

He actually makes a lot of sense.

 

My only problem is that he is against universal health care, which I am for. I guess if they could shift that to the states and have each state do their own, I could live with that.

Well consider the fact that he is a doctor and he knows the ins and outs of the system. Take that into consideration and look into his health care policy a little more.

 

I for one love this guy. He has cured my apathy toward politics because he is such an honest and principled man. I agree with almost all of his positions and I think hi campaign is about to really take off. It truly is rare to have such a person of integrity running for prez. Spread the word, people.

[Voltaire 5,506]

while some of his ideas are at least interesting, i personally have a hard time even looking into him seriously as a lot of his fans (BLS on this bored for example, and others RL) seem to be completely raving loons. they come so hard and over the top about him, it makes you brush him aside as if he fans are this "nuts" what must he be? i wonder if his fans realize a lot of them are actually detracting from him. you can be for a canidate, or really behind him...but blasting rhetoric 24/7 and screaming down anyone that disagrees is not a good way to win support imo.

 

Well I think Ron Paul is great and I'm not going to hold it against him that I agree with Boz/BoFan on this. He's the only one out there that really inspires me. I'm hoping the guy can catch some traction. Michigan votes early and I'll be glad to help, I need to get off my butt though to get an absentee ballot sent out.

[buffalobillsffl2003 0]

Who are the other candidates?

 

Fred Law and Order Thompson........here come da Judge

 

Hitlery KlingTong bah hahahahahaha only ragged jewesses will vote for that haggard kunt

 

John FireBrand McCain......he'll jump on a nuke and wave a cowboy hat.

 

Dennis Cleveland Steamer Kooksinnich......

 

John Ambulance Chaser Homersexual Edwards

 

Rudy Giuliani...........ehhhhhh doubt it.

 

Joe Biden.........this fukkin heeb is still alive?

 

Bill Fatterson....."I WAS AN AMBASSADOR......and did nothing to crack down on the border"

 

I don't even know any of the other candidorks, since they are all an un-inspiring lot of fukking losers.

 

 

Ron Paul has a lot of momentum.......it's just that jewpayoff types like Christy Matthews and Wolfgang Donner and Blitzen are instructed by their handlers to keep the lezbo and the sambo in the forefront.

 

[MDC 8,030]

He's a power lib, but he is correct on a few issues, the following is not one of them. The other night he honestly tried to downplay illegal immigration as if it were something completely concocted by a right wing think tank and that it should have ZERO bearing on the 08 election. For someone who's entire show is hinged on current events he constantly shows an absurd level of hollywood detachment from the rest of America. The War and Illegal immigration will be the top 2 issues for voters, period. Not the only two, but the top two.

 

Immigration will be huge in the GOP primary but not the general election.

[Brad GLuckman 519]

I like Ron Paul's Domestic policy moreso than any other candidate.

But I don't agree with him asking permission from Al Qaeda to carry out foreign policy.

It is for that reason, and because I think he may be insane, that I cannot vote for him.

[edjr 7,004]

But I don't agree with him asking permission from Al Qaeda to carry out foreign policy.

[paradoxical 1]

But I don't agree with him asking permission from Al Qaeda to carry out foreign policy.

:

[Brad GLuckman 519]

 

 

:

 

He said it...not me

[EAwer 1]

I like Ron Paul's Domestic policy moreso than any other candidate.

But I don't agree with him asking permission from Al Qaeda to carry out foreign policy.

It is for that reason, and because I think he may be insane, that I cannot vote for him.

 

you sound like Rudy. And thats not a good thing. I suggest you do a little research on the real reason the 19 scumbag attacked us. You HONESTLY think its because we have freedom here? lol. plz dont be so ignorant.

[Voltaire 5,506]

I like Ron Paul's Domestic policy moreso than any other candidate.

But I don't agree with him asking permission from Al Qaeda to carry out foreign policy.

It is for that reason, and because I think he may be insane, that I cannot vote for him.

 

Dude, it's amazing how stoopid your remark sounds.

 

Osama wrote/continues to write Bush's foreign policy for him. Go after Saddam, maybe even Iran, and essentaily ignore him to do whatever he wants. While The Retard is focking off in Iraq, Osama has resurged in Afghanistan and has nuclear Pakistan in a state of emergency. We should have focused on taking him out, instead we gave him a half hearted (quarter hearted) attempt to get him and essenially let him do whatever he likes.

 

The huge diversion of all US troops to Iraq from Afghanistan = George W Bush grabbing his ankles while Osama laughed and lubbed.

 

Bush = Osama's wet dream. Bush makes all Osama's mad rantings come true. "US hate Islam, US wants to dominate the world. US wants our oil." He makes it easy or them to hate us, easy for Osama to recruit. Categorically allows torture destoying our moral high ground. Even worse, Bush has carries out his plans in the dumbest, most ineffective way possible making the situation far worse than it ever was. But that's par for the course with Bush- it's a lifetime of complete fockups holding thier pattern.

 

Turkey is pissed off completely unnecessarily. Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan are in a civil war. Hamas runs Gaza. That's just the Middle East.

 

Oh by the way, China is all over Asia, Africa, and Latin America while the US slept. Kim Jong Il has nukes and Iran will soon too. Europeans don''t trust us. Nobody respects us.

 

Heck of a Job, Bushie.

 

So yes, Osama wrote the book on US foreign policy and Bush played the role of Osama's complete American dumbass president to a T. Played like a fiddle.

[edjr 7,004]

Dude, it's amazing how stoopid your remark sounds.

 

Osama wrote/continues to write Bush's foreign policy for him. Go after Saddam, maybe even Iran, and essentaily ignore him to do whatever he wants. While The Retard is focking off in Iraq, Osama has resurged in Afghanistan and has nuclear Pakistan in a state of emergency. We should have focused on taking him out, instead we gave him a half hearted (quarter hearted) attempt to get him and essenially let him do whatever he likes.

 

The huge diversion of all US troops to Iraq from Afghanistan = George W Bush grabbing his ankles while Osama laughed and lubbed.

 

Bush = Osama's wet dream. Bush makes all Osama's mad rantings come true. "US hate Islam, US wants to dominate the world. US wants our oil." He makes it easy or them to hate us, easy for Osama to recruit. Categorically allows torture destoying our moral high ground. Even worse, Bush has carries out his plans in the dumbest, most ineffective way possible making the situation far worse than it ever was. But that's par for the course with Bush- it's a lifetime of complete fockups holding thier pattern.

 

Turkey is pissed off completely unnecessarily. Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan are in a civil war. Hamas runs Gaza. That's just the Middle East.

 

Oh by the way, China is all over Asia, Africa, and Latin America while the US slept. Kim Jong Il has nukes and Iran will soon too. Europeans don''t trust us. Nobody respects us.

 

Heck of a Job, Bushie.

 

So yes, Osama wrote the book on US foreign policy and Bush played the role of Osama's complete American dumbass president to a T. Played like a fiddle.

 

 

:ownt:

[Brad GLuckman 519]

Dude, it's amazing how stoopid your remark sounds.

 

Osama wrote/continues to write Bush's foreign policy for him. Go after Saddam, maybe even Iran, and essentaily ignore him to do whatever he wants. While The Retard is focking off in Iraq, Osama has resurged in Afghanistan and has nuclear Pakistan in a state of emergency. We should have focused on taking him out, instead we gave him a half hearted (quarter hearted) attempt to get him and essenially let him do whatever he likes.

 

The huge diversion of all US troops to Iraq from Afghanistan = George W Bush grabbing his ankles while Osama laughed and lubbed.

 

Bush = Osama's wet dream. Bush makes all Osama's mad rantings come true. "US hate Islam, US wants to dominate the world. US wants our oil." He makes it easy or them to hate us, easy for Osama to recruit. Categorically allows torture destoying our moral high ground. Even worse, Bush has carries out his plans in the dumbest, most ineffective way possible making the situation far worse than it ever was. But that's par for the course with Bush- it's a lifetime of complete fockups holding thier pattern.

 

Turkey is pissed off completely unnecessarily. Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan are in a civil war. Hamas runs Gaza. That's just the Middle East.

 

Oh by the way, China is all over Asia, Africa, and Latin America while the US slept. Kim Jong Il has nukes and Iran will soon too. Europeans don''t trust us. Nobody respects us.

 

Heck of a Job, Bushie.

 

So yes, Osama wrote the book on US foreign policy and Bush played the role of Osama's complete American dumbass president to a T.

 

I never said I liked how Bush carried out his foreign policy either, so let's calm down a bit.

Like I said, I really like Paul's domestic policies.

But watching Ron Paul in the debate gave me more than enough reason to never vote for him. Being afraid of Al Qaeda and not wanting to make them mad shouldn't have any bearing on foreign policy. If you want to say we shouldn't have invaded Iraq because it wasn't necessary or we needed troops in Afghanistan then I'm fine with that. However comments like this, to me at least, mean he wants to give in to Al Qaeda and try not to make them mad, and just hope they go away.

 

The fact that we had troops in Saudi Arabia was one of the three reasons given for the attack on 9/11. So why leave them in the region?

 

If you know anything about Al Qaeda then you know they aren't going away, even if Ron Paul is elected and tries to play nice with them.

[Brad GLuckman 519]

you sound like Rudy. And thats not a good thing. I suggest you do a little research on the real reason the 19 scumbag attacked us. You HONESTLY think its because we have freedom here? lol. plz dont be so ignorant.

 

Muslim extremism was present far before 9/11 and before the first gulf war...and they attack countries who don't have any troops i the mideast region. So If you're going to use Saudi Arabia as your reason here, you are wrong.

 

 

:ownt:

I'm not an internet dork...so I don't know what ownt means.

 

EDIT: and for the record...everyone blaming Bush for everything is getting really old. I'm sick of everyone using that for a reason someone else should be elected. BUSH ISNT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT IN 2008!!! So stop telling how he's the devil, I want to hear what people are going to do to fix the situation. Telling me Bush is messed up doesn't tell me anything relevant.

[wiffleball 4,797]

He is for removing the individual federal income tax, not the corporate income tax. As a person familiar with the tax codes you should also know that the 16th ammendment was never ratified and is, due to limitations imposed by the U.S. Constitution, a %100 voluntary tax.

 

Also do you know what our Federal Income Taxes are used for? Ronald Reagan appointed Peter Grace to head a commission called the Private Sector Survey On Cost Control or the Grace Commission. Give it a Google. It was in part to find out where the $$$$ goes. Guess what his answer was.

 

From page 12 of the report.

 

With two-thirds of everyone's personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Government contributions to transfer payments.

In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their government."

Also this is a good read http://www.devvy.com/notax.html. I think you will find this interesting if you alreay are not aware this.

 

This would represent where the Corporate Income Taxes go. http://www.fcnl.org/pdfs/taxday07.pdf

 

All you have to do is look at the links I provided on page one to prove that thsi is not an accurate statement. May have been at the time he wrote it (dunno), but it sure as hell isn't now. I believe it said something like 10% of Income Taxes collected (Corporate and Personal) are currently allocated to debt repayment.

 

I mean, that doesn't even make sense. When the biggest component (47%) of our tax revenues are PIT, do you honestly think that we're spending almost HALF of our total tax revenues on debt service? A lot of this is just common sense. I like RP, but I don't mindlessly suck in anything just because he's got it on his website. Just step back and ask yourself - look at some of his contradictory comments - Does it make sense that 42-47% (depending upon whose numbers you use) would be spent on federal debt service?

[EAwer 1]

All you have to do is look at the links I provided on page one to prove that thsi is not an accurate statement. May have been at the time he wrote it (dunno), but it sure as hell isn't now. I believe it said something like 10% of Income Taxes collected (Corporate and Personal) are currently allocated to debt repayment.

 

I mean, that doesn't even make sense. When the biggest component (47%) of our tax revenues are PIT, do you honestly think that we're spending almost HALF of our total tax revenues on debt service? A lot of this is just common sense. I like RP, but I don't mindlessly suck in anything just because he's got it on his website. Just step back and ask yourself - look at some of his contradictory comments - Does it make sense that 42-47% (depending upon whose numbers you use) would be spent on federal debt service?

 

when you have Bush running the exec branch and the fed reserve owned by a few wealthy private banking individuals, yes sir, it does make sense.

[wiffleball 4,797]

1) Why have you got to spout out the"okay sparky" and "are you drunk" remarks, and pull the holier than thou card?

 

2) Each and every economic plan devised can be broken down a certain way to find flaws and imperfections. However RP's economic principles of fiscal responsibility, stopping to incur more national debt, wasteful spending of tax dollars, reducing government ect. are sound and valid points. Whether or not his ideas are enough to one day do away with the national income tax may be extreme, however the premise of his ideas are the direction to take as opposed to the current administration, not to mention many of the Democratic philosophies IMO.

 

 

The first part:

 

Those comments are directly solely and directly at EA. If he/she doesn't take the time to read what's posted, and throws out stupid shiit like "Duh, eliminate social security", he's not thinking, not contributing, not even worth participating in the discussion.

 

The second part:

 

Agree with everything you said.

 

 

To Sum Up:

 

Ron Paul throws out throwaway lines like "Wouldn't it be easy to reduce our spending by one-third?" And his followers all mindlessly nod their head. "uh-huh".

 

The whole "I'll cut taxes by reducing spending" line ain't exactly ground breaking. Might was well promise "A Chicken in every Pot!" too.

 

What I want Ron to do - since he's such a straightforward talker - is to tell us what EXACTLY he's going to cut.

 

+ Is he going to eliminate the FDA so our kids can die from salmonella poisoning?

+ Is he going to eliminate federal funding for infrastructure so more people can die in bridge collapses?

+ Is he going to elminate the CDC and NIH that are working to cure diseases and contain new ones?

 

'Cause Hell, I'm all for the "Specifically Enumerated Powers" talk. The Government is doing about 100,000 things not listed in the Constitution. But, hey, I'm kind of OKAY with the three I listed above. And about 100 others I can think of too.

 

And Hey, I'm all for cutting spending. But tell me where and how. Don't throw out broad unsupportable statements like "I'm going to elimniate the PIT and It'd be easy to cut one-third of our spending!" Show me the numbers. SHOW me where exactly you're going to cut. Because when you start looking at his numbers, (as I've said) it comes down to:

 

+ Running our government, our homeland security, our military and a bunch of other things - On about 19% of what we're spending now.

+ AND we can't afford to do that at 100% of our current tax collections now. So we're borrowing. We're spending say, 120-140% of what we're collecting in taxes already. So we borrow.

+ But RP won't borrow. So now, we're looking at cutting our spending by what? 100-120% Incredible.

+ And on top of that incredible idea, RP tells us he'll pay down our crippling debt. - With WHAT?

 

 

I mean, this is just common sense. -Great on the surface. Voo-Doo in the execution.

 

Think about it:

 

What If I promised you that in return for HALF of your income, I'd cut your expenses by one THIRD. But you'd also have to use that remaining income to pay down all your debts.

 

- Would you take the deal? Basic Math. Even using his numbers: 42% Income Reduction > 33% Expense Reduction

 

 

And yet, RP's still probably one of the most palatable candidates out there.

[Boz/BoFan 0]

I like Ron Paul's Domestic policy moreso than any other candidate.

But I don't agree with him asking permission from Al Qaeda to carry out foreign policy.

It is for that reason, and because I think he may be insane, that I cannot vote for him.

 

He voted to go into Afghanistan where AQ and Bin laden were at the time and to mercilessly kill the phuck out of em all. Which is a far cry from asking permission from AQ. What he didnt do was vote to go into Iraq saying this........

 

“Mr. Speaker; I rise to urge the Congress to think twice before thrusting this nation into a war without merit – one fraught with danger of escalating into something no American will be pleased with. Thomas Jefferson advised: “Never was so much false arithmetic employed on any subject as that which has been employed to persuade nations that it is in their interests to go to war.”

 

We have for months now heard plenty of false arithmetic and lame excuses on why we must pursue a preemptive war of aggression against an impoverished nation 6000 miles from our shores that doesn’t even possess a navy or air force, with the pretense that it must be done for national security reasons.

 

For some reason such an attack makes me feel much less secure, while our country is made more vulnerable.

 

Congress must consider the fact that those with military experience advise a “go slow” policy, while those without military experience are the ones demanding this war. We cannot ignore the fact that all Iraq’s Arab neighbors are opposed to this attack, and our European allies object as well.

 

And if the military and diplomatic reasons for a policy of restraint make no sense to those who want a war, I advise consider the $100 billion it will cost.”

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Which I have to admit, seems a bit prophetic today.....except for the gross underestimation of the price tag. I have to admit, I was wrong about Iraq.