Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.
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.
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.
Cutting spending would free up the money that would otherwise be spent to go to more important functions such as paying down the debt and the constitutional duties of the federal government. It may not technically be considered raising revenue but it has the advantage of accomplishing the same thing and not stealing from the taxpayers.
Would one of you please ennumerate ALL the policies that RON Paul supports for us?
That might be very useful for advancing this discussion.
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.
Another blatant misrepresentation. I'm a supporter of free trade, and not the bastardized free trade we get with our "free trade" agreements, but genuine free trade. No where did I say tariffs were part of the "good ol' days."
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.
Another blatant misrepresentation. I'm a supporter of free trade, and not the bastardized free trade we get with our "free trade" agreements, but genuine free trade. No where did I say tariffs were part of the "good ol' days."
Would one of you please ennumerate ALL the policies that RON Paul supports for us?
That might be very useful for advancing this discussion.
LMAO I've just spent 4 pages trying to get an answer to a simple question of how the govt under Paul is going to generate revenues after he eliminates the income and SS taxes and no tariffs.
After asking 6 times no one can even answer that simple, basic fundamental question. I really don't think they have a freaking clue. They hear "eliminate taxes" and oh boy that's all they need to hear.
Good look luck with yours asking for ALL policies! LOL
Would one of you please ennumerate ALL the policies that RON Paul supports for us?
That might be very useful for advancing this discussion.
LMAO I've just spent 4 pages trying to get an answer to a simple question of how the govt under Paul is going to generate revenues after he eliminates the income and SS taxes and no tariffs.
After asking 6 times no one can even answer that simple, basic fundamental question. I really don't think they have a freaking clue. They hear "eliminate taxes" and oh boy that's all they need to hear.
Good look luck with yours asking for ALL policies! LOL
You've been answered just about every time I'm sure. As Paulie said, you simply don't like the answer or won't accept the answer. That's not our problem.
By cutting spending you free up capital to be put towards more productive, constitutional projects. Such as infrastructure, paying down the debt, etc... By cutting spending you are then able to cut taxes because you no longer need all the revenue you were collecting before. You're not funding as many things so you're able to operate with less revenue.
LMAO I've just spent 4 pages trying to get an answer to a simple question of how the govt under Paul is going to generate revenues after he eliminates the income and SS taxes and no tariffs.
After asking 6 times no one can even answer that simple, basic fundamental question. I really don't think they have a freaking clue. They hear "eliminate taxes" and oh boy that's all they need to hear.
Good look luck with yours asking for ALL policies! LOL
You've been answered just about every time I'm sure. As Paulie said, you simply don't like the answer or won't accept the answer. That's not our problem.
Bullshit. Remind me again how Paul plans to raise revenues.
It shouldn't take you more than 15 seconds to type it out.
By cutting spending you free up capital to be put towards more productive, constitutional projects. Such as infrastructure, paying down the debt, etc... By cutting spending you are then able to cut taxes because you no longer need all the revenue you were collecting before. You're not funding as many things so you're able to operate with less revenue.
Cutting spending does not generate revenues.
~ hits head against wall for 7th time ~
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.
Another blatant misrepresentation. I'm a supporter of free trade, and not the bastardized free trade we get with our "free trade" agreements, but genuine free trade. No where did I say tariffs were part of the "good ol' days."
You'd have a good basis for protesting -- if I had claimed you said it. Since the post I was responding to was referring to Paul, my "he" referred to him. It was from Paul's article in the OP. I was explaining my apparant misapprehension that Paul planned to raise revenues from tariffs.
Which I've been informed he does not.
So I'm still in the dark about his plan to raise revenues if the income and SS taxes are eliminated and there are no tariffs.
Pan for gold perhaps.
Ron Paul told us long ago. And so did the supporters of this one-time Libertarian presidential candidate.
Maybe you remember about 16 months ago the 11-term Texas Republican representative, who's now organized a new Campaign for Liberty, was raking in more political contributions each month than most other GOP presidential candidates, relying on his hundreds of thousands of fervent supporters staging their money bomb days of online donations and -- oh, yes tea parties.
Was Ron Paul, tea party re-inventor, right all along? | Top of the Ticket | Los Angeles Times
Ron Paul told us long ago. And so did the supporters of this one-time Libertarian presidential candidate.
Maybe you remember about 16 months ago the 11-term Texas Republican representative, who's now organized a new Campaign for Liberty, was raking in more political contributions each month than most other GOP presidential candidates, relying on his hundreds of thousands of fervent supporters staging their money bomb days of online donations and -- oh, yes tea parties.
Was Ron Paul, tea party re-inventor, right all along? | Top of the Ticket | Los Angeles Times
Heres a helpful marketing tip.
Dont base a political movement on ideas or metaphors like tea parties.
That sounds like something out of the guilded age of 1880s Victorian England. Only white people over age of 50 think tea parties sound hip. No person of color, and probably most white people under the age of 30 can remotely get down with the concept or metaphor of tea parties.
Its horrible marketing. It definitely sounds like a theme and a concept dreamed up by a movement made up of all elderly white people from the country club.
Heres a helpful marketing tip.
Dont base a political movement on ideas or metaphors like tea parties.
That sounds like something out of the guilded age of 1880s Victorian England. Only white people over age of 50 think tea parties sound hip. No person of color, and probably most white people under the age of 30 can remotely get down with the concept or metaphor of tea parties.
Its horrible marketing. It definitely sounds like a theme and a concept dreamed up by a movement made up of all elderly white people from the country club.
Ron Paul supporters are largely very youthful. I'm only 20 and I think Ron Paul's message is extremely hip. From the tea parties, the blimp, the money bombs, and everything else I'd say Ron Paul probably had the hippest campaign in 2008.
Can you dig that, holmes?
Another blatant misrepresentation. I'm a supporter of free trade, and not the bastardized free trade we get with our "free trade" agreements, but genuine free trade. No where did I say tariffs were part of the "good ol' days."
You'd have a good basis for protesting -- if I had claimed you said it. Since the post I was responding to was referring to Paul, my "he" referred to him. It was from Paul's article in the OP. I was explaining my apparant misapprehension that Paul planned to raise revenues from tariffs.
Which I've been informed he does not.
So I'm still in the dark about his plan to raise revenues if the income and SS taxes are eliminated and there are no tariffs.
Pan for gold perhaps.
You aren't listening, Iriemon. Paul's tax position can not simply be misstated by saying he wants to cut all taxes, and leave revenue generation in the dumpster. If you cut spending to responsible levels, you wouldn't NEED to generate the revenue lost by cutting the taxes he advocates cutting.
That's the answer you've BEEN getting, but like I said last night, it wasn't what YOU wanted to hear. Christ, talk about banging your head against a wall!
Let's do this one more time, and either move on to something new or just abandon this thread, your choice: Paul wants to cut spending significantly, in which case the government wouldn't have to be concerned with making up for lost revenue via tax cuts. He has REPEATEDLY said that by cutting spending merely to the levels they were at pre-year 2000, the income tax wouldn't even be necessary. I honestly can't say I completely agree with that, as I don't know the exact numbers he's going by, but he is GENERALLY correct that spending levels before the year 2000 required a SIGNIFICANTLY lower amount of taxes.
You loved it during the Clinton years, so I would have to imagine you'd be fine with us cutting spending back to those levels. After that, we'd be able to make drastic cuts in taxes.
Are you satisfied, or are you still missing something?
Heres a helpful marketing tip.
Dont base a political movement on ideas or metaphors like tea parties.
That sounds like something out of the guilded age of 1880s Victorian England. Only white people over age of 50 think tea parties sound hip. No person of color, and probably most white people under the age of 30 can remotely get down with the concept or metaphor of tea parties.
Its horrible marketing. It definitely sounds like a theme and a concept dreamed up by a movement made up of all elderly white people from the country club.
Ron Paul supporters are largely very youthful. I'm only 20 and I think Ron Paul's message is extremely hip. From the tea parties, the blimp, the money bombs, and everything else I'd say Ron Paul probably had the hippest campaign in 2008.
Can you dig that, holmes?
It's young people that realize that all the excess spending of Bush and Obama is going to make it impossible to earn a decent living when they grow up. Who'd want to pay 70% on taxes and get 1/10th the services we have now, because all of our money will pay off debt that was borrowed to line the pockets of those that failed?!
Ron Paul supporters are largely very youthful. I'm only 20 and I think Ron Paul's message is extremely hip. From the tea parties, the blimp, the money bombs, and everything else I'd say Ron Paul probably had the hippest campaign in 2008.
Can you dig that, holmes?
It's young people that realize that all the excess spending of Bush and Obama is going to make it impossible to earn a decent living when they grow up. Who'd want to pay 70% on taxes and get 1/10th the services we have now, because all of our money will pay off debt that was borrowed to line the pockets of those that failed?!
If they are knowledgeable they'll realize the pass the buck generation elected pandering policitians like Ron George and George who slashed everyone's taxes and borrowed trillions and that's why they'll have to pay 70% (like their grandfarther did) to pay off the Republican debt.
Here’s a helpful marketing tip.
Don’t base a political movement on ideas or metaphors like “tea parties”.
That sounds like something out of the guilded age of 1880’s Victorian England. Only white people over age of 50 think “tea parties” sound hip. No person of color, and probably most white people under the age of 30 can remotely get down with the concept or metaphor of “tea parties”.
Its horrible marketing. It definitely sounds like a theme and a concept dreamed up by a movement made up of all elderly white people from the country club.
Ron Paul supporters are largely very youthful. I'm only 20 and I think Ron Paul's message is extremely hip. From the tea parties, the blimp, the money bombs, and everything else I'd say Ron Paul probably had the hippest campaign in 2008.
Can you dig that, holmes?
Heres a helpful marketing tip.
Dont base a political movement on ideas or metaphors like tea parties.
That sounds like something out of the guilded age of 1880s Victorian England. Only white people over age of 50 think tea parties sound hip. No person of color, and probably most white people under the age of 30 can remotely get down with the concept or metaphor of tea parties.
Its horrible marketing. It definitely sounds like a theme and a concept dreamed up by a movement made up of all elderly white people from the country club.
Ron Paul supporters are largely very youthful. I'm only 20 and I think Ron Paul's message is extremely hip. From the tea parties, the blimp, the money bombs, and everything else I'd say Ron Paul probably had the hippest campaign in 2008.
Can you dig that, holmes?
so your contention is that the tea baggers and ron paul movements aren't 99.99999999% white?
I don't think that's an honest answer. Video tape doesn't lie, and those tea bagging crowds are white as the driven snow. You won't be a viable party in 21st century america, by being a white party.
Heres a helpful marketing tip.
Dont base a political movement on ideas or metaphors like tea parties.
That sounds like something out of the guilded age of 1880s Victorian England. Only white people over age of 50 think tea parties sound hip. No person of color, and probably most white people under the age of 30 can remotely get down with the concept or metaphor of tea parties.
Its horrible marketing. It definitely sounds like a theme and a concept dreamed up by a movement made up of all elderly white people from the country club.
Ron Paul supporters are largely very youthful. I'm only 20 and I think Ron Paul's message is extremely hip. From the tea parties, the blimp, the money bombs, and everything else I'd say Ron Paul probably had the hippest campaign in 2008.
Can you dig that, holmes?
so your contention is that the tea baggers and ron paul movements aren't 99.99999999% white?
I don't think that's an honest answer. Video tape doesn't lie, and those tea bagging crowds are white as the driven snow. You won't be a viable party in 21st century america, by being a white party.
