Steve Forbes Endorses Rand Paul (Ron Paul's son) for US Senate in Kentucky

[uscitizen]

how about we just keep the discussion to what actually has happened so far. All forbes did was mention his support for paul.

If you find a link to forbes donating to paul and would like to debate the issue, make a thread about it.

you are very poor at understanding politics if you think that big name endorsements does not attract money.

big name endorsements will no doubt "attract money". There's nothing wrong with that. Forbes' freedom of speech to say he supports paul may very well cause others to want to throw their support to him as well, and donate money. There is nothing wrong with that. If there was, then why have a 1st amendment in the first place?

Make up your mind. Are you concerned that forbes himself is donating to paul, or that his endorsement may bring in more donation money from others?

Because being as how you're supporting the other candidate, it looks to me like you just have sour grapes that you didn't get the endorsement.

It's just an endorsement. Someone said "i like rand". That's only wrong to you because it hurts your candidate's chances just a little more.

huh?

 

[uscitizen]

Rand does not even have a blimp.

 

[Polk]

My memo to the Kentucky GOP:

Please nominate Rand Paul.

Signed,
Me

I get your point, and Paul is polling higher than the dem candidates.

Food for thought.

So does Grayson. The difference is Paul has a much bigger downside.

 

[uscitizen]

I have to go with Grayson, over the dem as well.

 

[jillian]

Steve Forbes Endorses Rand Paul for Senate - Forbes.com

Said Mr. Forbes, "I am proud to endorse Republican candidate Dr. Rand Paul for Senate.

"As someone who has run an outsider campaign myself, I know something about taking on the establishment. I see in Rand someone who can take the fight from the Tea Parties to the Senate, and help take back our government and our country from the out of control, tax and spend liberals.

"The American people need more than just another vote. They need a man of principle who will always stand up and fight. They need a citizen politician who will represent THEM.

"Rand Paul will do the work to fight for lower taxes and spending and for more freedom in Washington. He'll fight for a constitutional amendment to balance the budget and for term limits. He'll fight to give back more of our rights, not take more away.

"And then he'll go back home to Kentucky. I can't think of a better way to represent the people of Kentucky then to end the cycle of career politicians and pork barrel spending in Washington."

All I can say is WOW. This is probably the most significant endorsement that any non-establishment conservative candidate has gotten in a major race in recent memory.

This is the kind of thing that could help put Paul over the top to beat his opponent in the primary. He's already polling ahead of his opponent and the Democrats, so there's a HUGE possibility he could actually win this thing.

I'm beside myself right now, mainly because Forbes had a VERY similar, and just just as good a candidate, to endorse in NJ's gubernatorial primary back in the spring but instead chose to endorse the establishment candidate Chris Christie and attack the one I'm speaking of.

While this is definitely very weird to me, I'll TAKE IT!

This is going to be a very interesting race in Kentucky.

are you really surprised? i've heard the flat tax called the "let steve forbes keep his money" program...

randian's don't mind the idea of the world as dickensian nightmare...

perhaps you should better think about the fact that those programs basically allow the rest of us to keep subsidizing rich people.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Steve Forbes Endorses Rand Paul for Senate - Forbes.com

Said Mr. Forbes, "I am proud to endorse Republican candidate Dr. Rand Paul for Senate.

"As someone who has run an outsider campaign myself, I know something about taking on the establishment. I see in Rand someone who can take the fight from the Tea Parties to the Senate, and help take back our government and our country from the out of control, tax and spend liberals.

"The American people need more than just another vote. They need a man of principle who will always stand up and fight. They need a citizen politician who will represent THEM.

"Rand Paul will do the work to fight for lower taxes and spending and for more freedom in Washington. He'll fight for a constitutional amendment to balance the budget and for term limits. He'll fight to give back more of our rights, not take more away.

"And then he'll go back home to Kentucky. I can't think of a better way to represent the people of Kentucky then to end the cycle of career politicians and pork barrel spending in Washington."

All I can say is WOW. This is probably the most significant endorsement that any non-establishment conservative candidate has gotten in a major race in recent memory.

This is the kind of thing that could help put Paul over the top to beat his opponent in the primary. He's already polling ahead of his opponent and the Democrats, so there's a HUGE possibility he could actually win this thing.

I'm beside myself right now, mainly because Forbes had a VERY similar, and just just as good a candidate, to endorse in NJ's gubernatorial primary back in the spring but instead chose to endorse the establishment candidate Chris Christie and attack the one I'm speaking of.

While this is definitely very weird to me, I'll TAKE IT!

This is going to be a very interesting race in Kentucky.

are you really surprised? i've heard the flat tax called the "let steve forbes keep his money" program...

randian's don't mind the idea of the world as dickensian nightmare...

perhaps you should better think about the fact that those programs basically allow the rest of us to keep subsidizing rich people.

What's wrong with people keeping their money?

And I don't think Rand Paul wants a flat tax.

 

[uscitizen]

I am for a flat tax with no deductions and on all personal income. But many of Pauls other ideas are wacko and will never fly.

 

[jillian]

But PPP’s most stunning finding is that Rand Paul has grabbed a big lead against establishment favorite Grayson in the GOP primary: 44% to 25%. Other surveys have found Paul to be unexpectedly strong, but never to this extent. It’s hard not to see this as good news for Democrats: While Paul has outside of the MoE leads, he’s a far riskier proposition for Republicans than Grayson. An untested candidate (it showed this week), Paul could give Democrats the openings they need to make the race about him whereas Grayson could run the type of quite campaign that allows him to win on the sole basis of the national environment. (Another arguable reason for Democrats to root for Paul: Even if he wins the general election, he’d give the GOP leadership far more headaches than the presumably reliable Grayson would.)

Poll watch: David Paterson enjoys uptick, Rand Paul grabs a decisive lead at Campaign Diaries

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I am for a flat tax with no deductions and on all personal income. But many of Pauls other ideas are wacko and will never fly.

The Flat Tax may be one of the nuttiest proposals to come down the pike.

Unless one is fabuously wealthy, it makes no sense. But then again yours and others support for the nonsense only proves my point about the gullibility and ignorance of the general public.

d.

 

[jillian]

I am for a flat tax with no deductions and on all personal income. But many of Pauls other ideas are wacko and will never fly.

If you're for a flat tax, you've never run a business or had a family.

Why on earth would you be for no deductions?

What about capital gains taxes?

 

[uscitizen]

I am for a flat tax with no deductions and on all personal income. But many of Pauls other ideas are wacko and will never fly.

If you're for a flat tax, you've never run a business or had a family.

Why on earth would you be for no deductions?

What about capital gains taxes?

Personal income tax only. I said all personal income.
Including personal capital gains.

And yes I have had a business and a family.
We could cut govt expenses by billiions with a pure flat tax.
The IRS could reduce it's workforce by 90% or so.

We could end the parasitical HR block, etc that lives off of tax deductions and the tax system.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I am for a flat tax with no deductions and on all personal income. But many of Pauls other ideas are wacko and will never fly.

If you're for a flat tax, you've never run a business or had a family.

Why on earth would you be for no deductions?

What about capital gains taxes?

Personal income tax only. I said all personal income.
Including personal capital gains.

And yes I have had a business and a family.
We could cut govt expenses by billiions with a pure flat tax.
The IRS could reduce it's workforce by 90% or so.

We could end the parasitical HR block, etc that lives off of tax deductions and the tax system.

Hey. I know. Maybe we can copy these countries and use them to model our health care system, and our political system? What do you think?

Countries that have flat tax systems
These are countries, as well as minor jurisdictions with the autonomous power to tax, that have adopted tax systems that are commonly described in the media and the professional economics literature as a flat tax.


BIH [27]
Bulgaria [12]
Albania [13][14]
Czech Republic[15]
Estonia [16][17][18]
Georgia [18][19]
Guernsey [20]
Kazakhstan [21]
Iceland [20][22][23] Iceland's system differs from the Hall-Rabushka flat tax by taxing investment income and allowing numerous exceptions.[24]
Iraq [25][26][27] It is not clear how effectively the Iraqi tax is being collected in practice.
Jersey [28]
Kyrgyzstan [20]
Latvia [18]
Lithuania [18][29]
Macedonia [20][30]
Mongolia [31]
Montenegro [32]
Mauritius [20]
Romania [18]
Russia [18][33]
Serbia [34]
Slovakia [18]
Ukraine [18][35]
Also:

Transnistria, also known as Transnistrian Moldova or Pridnestrovie.[36] This is a disputed territory, but the authority that seems to have de facto government power in the area claims to levy a flat tax.

wikipedia

 

[jillian]

I am for a flat tax with no deductions and on all personal income. But many of Pauls other ideas are wacko and will never fly.

If you're for a flat tax, you've never run a business or had a family.

Why on earth would you be for no deductions?

What about capital gains taxes?

Personal income tax only. I said all personal income.
Including personal capital gains.

And yes I have had a business and a family.
We could cut govt expenses by billiions with a pure flat tax.
The IRS could reduce it's workforce by 90% or so.

We could end the parasitical HR block, etc that lives off of tax deductions and the tax system.

The point of taxes isn't to CUT government expenditures. It's to raise money FOR government expenditures.

And what government services do you cut?

 

[uscitizen]

If you're for a flat tax, you've never run a business or had a family.

Why on earth would you be for no deductions?

What about capital gains taxes?

Personal income tax only. I said all personal income.
Including personal capital gains.

And yes I have had a business and a family.
We could cut govt expenses by billiions with a pure flat tax.
The IRS could reduce it's workforce by 90% or so.

We could end the parasitical HR block, etc that lives off of tax deductions and the tax system.

And what government services do you cut?

None if all people paid a flat tax on ALL income we would have plenty of money at a lower tax rate for most. Of course some woud pay that had not had to before because of deductions.

My comcept is if you make 1,000 you pay X%, you make 1 billiion you pay exactly the same x % on 1 billion.

This is personal income from all sources only. Not businesses.

 

[Paulie]

But PPP’s most stunning finding is that Rand Paul has grabbed a big lead against establishment favorite Grayson in the GOP primary: 44% to 25%. Other surveys have found Paul to be unexpectedly strong, but never to this extent. It’s hard not to see this as good news for Democrats: While Paul has outside of the MoE leads, he’s a far riskier proposition for Republicans than Grayson. An untested candidate (it showed this week), Paul could give Democrats the openings they need to make the race about him whereas Grayson could run the type of quite campaign that allows him to win on the sole basis of the national environment. (Another arguable reason for Democrats to root for Paul: Even if he wins the general election, he’d give the GOP leadership far more headaches than the presumably reliable Grayson would.)

Poll watch: David Paterson enjoys uptick, Rand Paul grabs a decisive lead at Campaign Diaries

This is just establishment mumbo jumbo.

You can root for Paul all you want. I'd rather him win the primary and end up losing the general, than not have the opportunity at all.

I'm not a RINO. I don't vote for candidates like Grayson (not that I'm voting in this primary of course).

 

[manifold]

I think this is great.

Anything or anyone that gets DoucheNell even more hysterical with envy than Ravi does is a pleasure to behold.

But I do wonder why Douchy has such a hard-on for people born into wealth. An orphan perhaps?

 

[Paulie]

Anything positive for the Paul family assuredly gets jillian hysterical though

 

[Polk]

I am for a flat tax with no deductions and on all personal income. But many of Pauls other ideas are wacko and will never fly.

Is Paul for that? Or he is for Forbes's "flat tax on wage income, no taxes on all other income"?

 

[Paulie]

I am for a flat tax with no deductions and on all personal income. But many of Pauls other ideas are wacko and will never fly.

Is Paul for that? Or he is for Forbes's "flat tax on wage income, no taxes on all other income"?

His father has said before that he would vote yes on flat tax simply because it would eliminate the income tax, which to him would be SOME kind of progress, but that it isn't good enough for him ultimately because he'd rather spending be cut to a point where neither would be necessary.

I assume Rand holds the same position. I'm pretty sure he doesn't SPECIFICALLY support flat tax other than because of what I mentioned.

Why is Rand being pinned to the flat tax just because someone who endorsed him is the quintessential flat taxer?

 

[Polk]

I am for a flat tax with no deductions and on all personal income. But many of Pauls other ideas are wacko and will never fly.

Is Paul for that? Or he is for Forbes's "flat tax on wage income, no taxes on all other income"?

His father has said before that he would vote yes on flat tax simply because it would eliminate the income tax, which to him would be SOME kind of progress, but that it isn't good enough for him ultimately because he'd rather spending be cut to a point where neither would be necessary.

I assume Rand holds the same position. I'm pretty sure he doesn't SPECIFICALLY support flat tax other than because of what I mentioned.

Why is Rand being pinned to the flat tax just because someone who endorsed him is the quintesential flat taxer?

I was asking because of the previous poster's comment. I don't know Rand's position, though I imagine it's like that of his father and Forbes.