Was Ron Paul Right All Along?

[FactFinder]

Well Kevin, thanks for that helpful and enlightening observation. I never would have guessed that.

But your helpful observation does raise another question, if you hadn't already anticipated it I'll spell it out for you: Which forms of taxation if income taxes and tariffs are eliminated?

Let me spell it out for you: I'm not going to go through every tax the government uses to get revenue. The income tax accounts for around 30 - 40% of the federal government's revenue, and they can go without that to do their constitutional duties.

So Paul's plan is to eliminate the income tax the wealthy pay, but keep the regressive SS tax the working poorer pay.

I can see why rich folks would love Paul. Leona Helmsley's fantasy come true.

And I can see why others call him a whacko.

Another misrepresenting him. I didn't see that at all about him. Do ya mind showing some facts to back that up?

 

[Paulie]

Well Kevin, thanks for that helpful and enlightening observation. I never would have guessed that.

But your helpful observation does raise another question, if you hadn't already anticipated it I'll spell it out for you: Which forms of taxation if income taxes and tariffs are eliminated?

Let me spell it out for you: I'm not going to go through every tax the government uses to get revenue. The income tax accounts for around 30 - 40% of the federal government's revenue, and they can go without that to do their constitutional duties.

So Paul's plan is to eliminate the income tax the wealthy pay, but keep the regressive SS tax the working poorer pay.

I can see why rich folks would love Paul. Leona Helmsley's fantasy come true.

And I can see why others call him a whacko.

You don't seem to know very much about the man at all. Earlier you thought he favored tariffs, which at this point ANYONE who has an opinion about him ought to know is NOT true, and now you think he favors SS tax? He advocates allowing people to opt out of SS altogether for the very reason that he disagrees with the system in principle.

If you disagree with him disagreeing with it, that's fine. But before you go getting cozy in a thread devoted to Ron Paul, with the intention of flaming him, you probably ought to know what you're talking about.

 

[Iriemon]

Let me spell it out for you: I'm not going to go through every tax the government uses to get revenue. The income tax accounts for around 30 - 40% of the federal government's revenue, and they can go without that to do their constitutional duties.

So Paul's plan is to eliminate the income tax the wealthy pay, but keep the regressive SS tax the working poorer pay.

I can see why rich folks would love Paul. Leona Helmsley's fantasy come true.

And I can see why others call him a whacko.

Another misrepresenting him. I didn't see that at all about him. Do ya mind showing some facts to back that up?

Ask Kevin. He's the source. But feel free to clarify as to Paul's plans for revenues after income taxes are eliminated.

 

[FactFinder]

So Paul's plan is to eliminate the income tax the wealthy pay, but keep the regressive SS tax the working poorer pay.

I can see why rich folks would love Paul. Leona Helmsley's fantasy come true.

And I can see why others call him a whacko.

Another misrepresenting him. I didn't see that at all about him. Do ya mind showing some facts to back that up?

Ask Kevin. He's the source. But feel free to clarify as to Paul's plans for revenues after income taxes are eliminated.

Who the hell is Kevin and why should I care?

 

[Iriemon]

Let me spell it out for you: I'm not going to go through every tax the government uses to get revenue. The income tax accounts for around 30 - 40% of the federal government's revenue, and they can go without that to do their constitutional duties.

So Paul's plan is to eliminate the income tax the wealthy pay, but keep the regressive SS tax the working poorer pay.

I can see why rich folks would love Paul. Leona Helmsley's fantasy come true.

And I can see why others call him a whacko.

You don't seem to know very much about the man at all. Earlier you thought he favored tariffs, which at this point ANYONE who has an opinion about him ought to know is NOT true, and now you think he favors SS tax? He advocates allowing people to opt out of SS altogether for the very reason that he disagrees with the system in principle.

If you disagree with him disagreeing with it, that's fine. But before you go getting cozy in a thread devoted to Ron Paul, with the intention of flaming him, you probably ought to know what you're talking about.

He was the one talking about the good old days in the 1913 when the Govt got its revenue from tariffs.

So where does Paul plan to get revenues? Seems like a simple question I've asked a few times but I'm only get dancing and prancing.

 

[Iriemon]

Another misrepresenting him. I didn't see that at all about him. Do ya mind showing some facts to back that up?

Ask Kevin. He's the source. But feel free to clarify as to Paul's plans for revenues after income taxes are eliminated.

Who the hell is Kevin and why should I care?

He's the one who was explaining Paul's tax plans before you butted in.

 

[Paulie]

So Paul's plan is to eliminate the income tax the wealthy pay, but keep the regressive SS tax the working poorer pay.

I can see why rich folks would love Paul. Leona Helmsley's fantasy come true.

And I can see why others call him a whacko.

Another misrepresenting him. I didn't see that at all about him. Do ya mind showing some facts to back that up?

Ask Kevin. He's the source. But feel free to clarify as to Paul's plans for revenues after income taxes are eliminated.

Paul's plans for revenue would include the spending cuts that a few days ago, you said you agreed with me on. You said you agreed with tax cuts if they're accompanied by spending cuts.

We could start a new thread and list those cuts if you'd like. I don't have much time tonight, but I'd be happy to come back here tomorrow sometime and list some of my biggest cuts. I bet you'd be pleasantly surprised at some of the things I'd cut, believe it or not.

 

[Iriemon]

Another misrepresenting him. I didn't see that at all about him. Do ya mind showing some facts to back that up?

Ask Kevin. He's the source. But feel free to clarify as to Paul's plans for revenues after income taxes are eliminated.

Paul's plans for revenue would include the spending cuts that a few days ago, you said you agreed with me on. You said you agreed with tax cuts if they're accompanied by spending cuts.

We could start a new thread and list those cuts if you'd like. I don't have much time tonight, but I'd be happy to come back here tomorrow sometime and list some of my biggest cuts. I bet you'd be pleasantly surprised at some of the things I'd cut, believe it or not.

Thanks, but spending cuts is not a plan for generating revenue.

Still getting dancing and prancing for a simple question. You say I should know more about Paul before questioning him but you defend him and can't answer this simple question?

And I doubt I necessarily agreed to your spending cuts.

 

[Paulie]

So Paul's plan is to eliminate the income tax the wealthy pay, but keep the regressive SS tax the working poorer pay.

I can see why rich folks would love Paul. Leona Helmsley's fantasy come true.

And I can see why others call him a whacko.

You don't seem to know very much about the man at all. Earlier you thought he favored tariffs, which at this point ANYONE who has an opinion about him ought to know is NOT true, and now you think he favors SS tax? He advocates allowing people to opt out of SS altogether for the very reason that he disagrees with the system in principle.

If you disagree with him disagreeing with it, that's fine. But before you go getting cozy in a thread devoted to Ron Paul, with the intention of flaming him, you probably ought to know what you're talking about.

He was the one talking about the good old days in the 1913 when the Govt got its revenue from tariffs.

So where does Paul plan to get revenues? Seems like a simple question I've asked a few times but I'm only get dancing and prancing.

I'm wondering if there's a context problem here. I haven't watched any recent video, or read a recent article. I know enough about the man that I'd prefer to just chime in with an opinion. Did he actually say the good old days were BECAUSE of the tariffs, or did he just say the good old days and you added in yourself that there happened to have been tariffs during those times?

I highly doubt he said tariffs were a reason they were the good old days. If he did, then I would imagine that if he was forced to have some kind of taxation, he'd rather see tariffs imposed on foreign trade then taxes levied against our own citizens.

It's like Kevin said earlier, the government has specific constitutional duties and authorizations, and needs only the revenue required to conduct them. Beyond that, nothing more is necessary.

We could have cancelled out a trillion right off the bat by not invading Iraq. We could cancel out trillions more by not perceiving "for the general welfare of the US" to mean whatever the current crop of politicians deem to be "welfare", such as bailing out a failing business, or even printing money to purposely misrepresent as a "tax rebate".

 

[Iriemon]

You don't seem to know very much about the man at all. Earlier you thought he favored tariffs, which at this point ANYONE who has an opinion about him ought to know is NOT true, and now you think he favors SS tax? He advocates allowing people to opt out of SS altogether for the very reason that he disagrees with the system in principle.

If you disagree with him disagreeing with it, that's fine. But before you go getting cozy in a thread devoted to Ron Paul, with the intention of flaming him, you probably ought to know what you're talking about.

He was the one talking about the good old days in the 1913 when the Govt got its revenue from tariffs.

So where does Paul plan to get revenues? Seems like a simple question I've asked a few times but I'm only get dancing and prancing.

I'm wondering if there's a context problem here. I haven't watched any recent video, or read a recent article. I know enough about the man that I'd prefer to just chime in with an opinion. Did he actually say the good old days were BECAUSE of the tariffs, or did he just say the good old days and you added in yourself that there happened to have been tariffs during those times?

Neither, it was sarcasm, evidence by my earlier post in the thread.

I highly doubt he said tariffs were a reason they were the good old days. If he did, then I would imagine that if he was forced to have some kind of taxation, he'd rather see tariffs imposed on foreign trade then taxes levied against our own citizens.

It's like Kevin said earlier, the government has specific constitutional duties and authorizations, and needs only the revenue required to conduct them. Beyond that, nothing more is necessary.

We could have cancelled out a trillion right off the bat by not invading Iraq. We could cancel out trillions more by not perceiving "for the general welfare of the US" to mean whatever the current crop of politicians deem to be "welfare", such as bailing out a failing business, or even printing money to purposely misrepresent as a "tax rebate".

Thanks, but I don't buy the unconstitutional BS and I'm not interested at the moment in what you would cut in spending.

All I want to know, third person, 5th time I've asked, is how Paul plans to generate revenues with apparently no income tax, you say no SS tax, and no tariffs.

The fact I can't get a simple answer to this very basic question is unfortunately not untypical of what I find when I've questione a little more closely at Paul's policies. Lots of nice slogans like eliminate taxes, but not a lot to back it up.

 

[Paulie]

Ask Kevin. He's the source. But feel free to clarify as to Paul's plans for revenues after income taxes are eliminated.

Paul's plans for revenue would include the spending cuts that a few days ago, you said you agreed with me on. You said you agreed with tax cuts if they're accompanied by spending cuts.

We could start a new thread and list those cuts if you'd like. I don't have much time tonight, but I'd be happy to come back here tomorrow sometime and list some of my biggest cuts. I bet you'd be pleasantly surprised at some of the things I'd cut, believe it or not.

Thanks, but spending cuts is not a plan for generating revenue.

Still getting dancing and prancing for a simple question. You say I should know more about Paul before questioning him but you defend him and can't answer this simple question?

And I doubt I necessarily agreed to your spending cuts.

I didn't say spending cuts were for generating revenue. I'm simply telling you how we can afford to make the tax cuts that Paul proposes. Not even Paul will say there shouldn't be ANY taxes. The government needs a certain amount of revenue to conduct its constitutional duties. We could simply cut spending back to levels before 2000, and be able to significantly reduce income taxes to a level that I doubt anyone would feel the need to promote nationwide tea parties to protest against.

I personally favor a flat tax, myself. It doesn't need to be as high as ~30% though, I don't see why it needs to be any higher than 10 or 15%, if our elected officials could generate the testicular fortitude to make some REAL spending cuts.

 

[Iriemon]

Paul's plans for revenue would include the spending cuts that a few days ago, you said you agreed with me on. You said you agreed with tax cuts if they're accompanied by spending cuts.

We could start a new thread and list those cuts if you'd like. I don't have much time tonight, but I'd be happy to come back here tomorrow sometime and list some of my biggest cuts. I bet you'd be pleasantly surprised at some of the things I'd cut, believe it or not.

Thanks, but spending cuts is not a plan for generating revenue.

Still getting dancing and prancing for a simple question. You say I should know more about Paul before questioning him but you defend him and can't answer this simple question?

And I doubt I necessarily agreed to your spending cuts.

I didn't say spending cuts were for generating revenue. I'm simply telling you how we can afford to make the tax cuts that Paul proposes. Not even Paul will say there shouldn't be ANY taxes. The government needs a certain amount of revenue to conduct its constitutional duties. We could simply cut spending back to levels before 2000, and be able to significantly reduce income taxes to a level that I doubt anyone would feel the need to promote nationwide tea parties to protest against.

I personally favor a flat tax, myself. It doesn't need to be as high as ~30% though, I don't see why it needs to be any higher than 10 or 15%, if our elected officials could generate the testicular fortitude to make some REAL spending cuts.

All I want to know is Paul's plans for generating revenues. 6th time.

 

[Paulie]

You're just not getting the answer that YOU want, Iriemon. What I know about Paul, is that he is a lot more concerned right now right cutting spending to sustainable levels. Get the spending to where it was MEANT to be, and after that, worry about how much cut in taxation can be afforded.

I'm deeply sorry that isn't what you want to hear. We know full well at this point that you support liberal spending that there's no other authorization in the constution for, other than "for the general welfare of the US".

All the more reason to pass the Enumerated Powers Act. I'd love to see the constutional authority the liberals in congress (dem AND rep) feel offers them the ability to spend some of the money they've spent over the years.

 

[Paulie]

Thanks, but spending cuts is not a plan for generating revenue.

Still getting dancing and prancing for a simple question. You say I should know more about Paul before questioning him but you defend him and can't answer this simple question?

And I doubt I necessarily agreed to your spending cuts.

I didn't say spending cuts were for generating revenue. I'm simply telling you how we can afford to make the tax cuts that Paul proposes. Not even Paul will say there shouldn't be ANY taxes. The government needs a certain amount of revenue to conduct its constitutional duties. We could simply cut spending back to levels before 2000, and be able to significantly reduce income taxes to a level that I doubt anyone would feel the need to promote nationwide tea parties to protest against.

I personally favor a flat tax, myself. It doesn't need to be as high as ~30% though, I don't see why it needs to be any higher than 10 or 15%, if our elected officials could generate the testicular fortitude to make some REAL spending cuts.

All I want to know is Paul's plans for generating revenues. 6th time.

You should do yourself a favor and stop assuming he wants to get rid of every dollar of taxation, because that simply isn't the case.

You either think that, or you're highly misinformed and undereducated on the ways a government can generate revenue.

 

[Paulie]

We'll talk more another time, I have to roll.

 

[Iriemon]

You're just not getting the answer that YOU want, Iriemon. What I know about Paul, is that he is a lot more concerned right now right cutting spending to sustainable levels. Get the spending to where it was MEANT to be, and after that, worry about how much cut in taxation can be afforded.

I'm deeply sorry that isn't what you want to hear. We know full well at this point that you support liberal spending that there's no other authorization in the constution for, other than "for the general welfare of the US".

All the more reason to pass the Enumerated Powers Act. I'd love to see the constutional authority the liberals in congress (dem AND rep) feel offers them the ability to spend some of the money they've spent over the years.

Well, I'm not trying to be unreasonable. But so far all I've heard is that Paul is going to get rid of income taxes, SS taxes and tariffs. But he has no plan to raise revenues to run the Govt. Excise taxes I guess. Which is about enough to keep up the monuments on the Washington Mall.

Sorry, I can't endorse a plan like that, or even give it credence enough to say it is not whacko.

 

[eots]

Thanks, but spending cuts is not a plan for generating revenue.

Still getting dancing and prancing for a simple question. You say I should know more about Paul before questioning him but you defend him and can't answer this simple question?

And I doubt I necessarily agreed to your spending cuts.

I didn't say spending cuts were for generating revenue. I'm simply telling you how we can afford to make the tax cuts that Paul proposes. Not even Paul will say there shouldn't be ANY taxes. The government needs a certain amount of revenue to conduct its constitutional duties. We could simply cut spending back to levels before 2000, and be able to significantly reduce income taxes to a level that I doubt anyone would feel the need to promote nationwide tea parties to protest against.

I personally favor a flat tax, myself. It doesn't need to be as high as ~30% though, I don't see why it needs to be any higher than 10 or 15%, if our elected officials could generate the testicular fortitude to make some REAL spending cuts.

All I want to know is Paul's plans for generating revenues. 6th time.

you have tariff, excise taxes,..user fees.. highway fees ..consumption tax. there's still a lot of money. ... the real problem is spending. .. we lived a long time in this country without an income tax.... Up until 1913

 

[eots]

You're just not getting the answer that YOU want, Iriemon. What I know about Paul, is that he is a lot more concerned right now right cutting spending to sustainable levels. Get the spending to where it was MEANT to be, and after that, worry about how much cut in taxation can be afforded.

I'm deeply sorry that isn't what you want to hear. We know full well at this point that you support liberal spending that there's no other authorization in the constution for, other than "for the general welfare of the US".

All the more reason to pass the Enumerated Powers Act. I'd love to see the constutional authority the liberals in congress (dem AND rep) feel offers them the ability to spend some of the money they've spent over the years.

Well, I'm not trying to be unreasonable. But so far all I've heard is that Paul is going to get rid of income taxes, SS taxes and tariffs. But he has no plan to raise revenues to run the Govt. Excise taxes I guess. Which is about enough to keep up the monuments on the Washington Mall.

Sorry, I can't endorse a plan like that, or even give it credence enough to say it is not whacko.

whats wacko is massive government waste...losing track of trillions,,,corporate bail outs...preemptive wars
pure madness....



[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGl0sisd4Bc[/ame]

 

[FactFinder]

Thanks, but spending cuts is not a plan for generating revenue.

Still getting dancing and prancing for a simple question. You say I should know more about Paul before questioning him but you defend him and can't answer this simple question?

And I doubt I necessarily agreed to your spending cuts.

I didn't say spending cuts were for generating revenue. I'm simply telling you how we can afford to make the tax cuts that Paul proposes. Not even Paul will say there shouldn't be ANY taxes. The government needs a certain amount of revenue to conduct its constitutional duties. We could simply cut spending back to levels before 2000, and be able to significantly reduce income taxes to a level that I doubt anyone would feel the need to promote nationwide tea parties to protest against.

I personally favor a flat tax, myself. It doesn't need to be as high as ~30% though, I don't see why it needs to be any higher than 10 or 15%, if our elected officials could generate the testicular fortitude to make some REAL spending cuts.

All I want to know is Paul's plans for generating revenues. 6th time.

Well, I think it is refreshing that a politician wouldn't have revenue generation as a front tiered priority. It seems that Ron Paul has talked more about what the government shouldn't be doing and therefore has no need of revenue for.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So Paul's plan is to eliminate the income tax the wealthy pay, but keep the regressive SS tax the working poorer pay.

I can see why rich folks would love Paul. Leona Helmsley's fantasy come true.

And I can see why others call him a whacko.

Another misrepresenting him. I didn't see that at all about him. Do ya mind showing some facts to back that up?

Ask Kevin. He's the source. But feel free to clarify as to Paul's plans for revenues after income taxes are eliminated.

Nonsense.

You asked me to list every tax that the government will use to get it's revenue, I declined. In no way shape or form did I mention or hint at all about Ron Paul supporting a social security tax. In fact, I'm fairly sure he's introduced legislation to get rid of that tax, though I'm not going to bother looking it up.