Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: 240 is Back on June 10, 2008, 02:33:28 PM
-
Republican candidate Ron Paul has not endorsed McCain. However, he did just book an areana in Minneapolis.
Just a few days before Mccain accepts his convention in St. Paul, MN.
What does Ron Paul have in mind? He continued to win 15-20% of the Republican vote, even with zero media coverage. He's sitting on tens of millions of dollars of donator money. He led all candidates in military donations!
Will he have a big announcement? Make some speech that speaks to the Republican base of voters who love the Constitution, but aren't so crazy about the war and the economy?
Time will tell. It will be an interesting summer!
-
It he runs as an independant, he'll be giving Obama the White House.
-
It he runs as an independant, he'll be giving Obama the White House.
I hadn't thought about Ron paul running as an independent. he said all along that he planned on winning the Repub nomination, but only in the very end said he had no interest in running.
That would be insane if he did that. It would destroy McCain. I'd vote Ron Paul in a second... He'd get us out of the war in Iraq, he loves the constitution, he'd stop sending $ overseas... He won't win, but he would definitely giftwrap the white house for Obama.
perhaps this is a slick move to get McCain to put him on the ticket lol...
-
It he runs as an independant, he'll be giving Obama the White House.
irony? ;D
-
Republican candidate Ron Paul has not endorsed McCain. However, he did just book an areana in Minneapolis.
Just a few days before Mccain accepts his convention in St. Paul, MN.
What does Ron Paul have in mind? He continued to win 15-20% of the Republican vote, even with zero media coverage. He's sitting on tens of millions of dollars of donator money. He led all candidates in military donations!
Will he have a big announcement? Make some speech that speaks to the Republican base of voters who love the Constitution, but aren't so crazy about the war and the economy?
Time will tell. It will be an interesting summer!
he can't run for president without being on the ballot.
-
irony? ;D
lol
-
Ron Paul is dangerous.
His ideas make great sense to someone who does not understand history and economics.
A complete absence of government involvement in taxation will lead to an inconceivable concentration of wealth that will result in the fall of the US. This is the very reason that the US revolted from Britain, a reduction in the tax required to pay by the East India Company.
This is something Pareto recognized very early. 20% of the people control 80% of the wealth. Once wealth gets large enough, it can beget more wealth which can make the ratio 10/90 (the current situation in the US). This type of concentration was the downfall of many empires. One of the rolls of taxation is to redistribute wealth. Thomas Jefferson himself is said to have been very concerned with people amassing enough wealth to pass it on to further generations creating family empires, much like the Kennedy's Rockerfeller's etc.
People need to take some economics classes...
-
The media tried to slander Ron Paul with accusations of racism. Once that not only failed but backfired completely, they simply stopped covering him at all!
Also, Ron Paul knows EXACTLY what interest group is taking a piss:
Nope, no controlled media here. ::)
Even the dumb fucks on this board will start connecting the dots eventually.
-
Even the dumb fucks on this board will start connecting the dots eventually.
Sorry for sidetracking this thread 240 but Matt C you pompus ass you are a fucking troll.
-
It he runs as an independant, he'll be giving Obama the White House.
don't you think he'd take more votes from Obama?
-
He'd get my vote!
-
Sorry for sidetracking this thread 240 but Matt C you pompus ass you are a fucking troll.
Yeah I am pompous, but not a troll.
I spew tons of insults in my posts but at least I have science and data to back up what I say. I actually don't mind insults to me, but I don't like posts that insult me and are devoid of substance like yours.
I would prefer for you to come back with: "Matt C, you are a dumb fuck, and the reason is because [sourced scientific doc]". Those kinds of rebuttals are cool.
-
he's already missed the ballot deadline for filing in texas
-
I wonder why ron paul doesnt attack democrats instead of trying to have a revenge against the other republicans...
whats the point of bashing the "neo" conservatives when currently democrats have never been so strong and are the ones about to win the next pres elections.
-
The media tried to slander Ron Paul with accusations of racism.
yeah, just because racist things were written under his name (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters/index.html) doesn't mean he's accountable for them.
but at this point, the presidency is Obama's to lose.
-
don't you think he'd take more votes from Obama?
No.
Paul is a libertarian. Libertarians tend to vote Republican, not Democrat.
-
Republican candidate Ron Paul has not endorsed McCain. However, he did just book an areana in Minneapolis.
Just a few days before Mccain accepts his convention in St. Paul, MN.
What does Ron Paul have in mind? He continued to win 15-20% of the Republican vote, even with zero media coverage. He's sitting on tens of millions of dollars of donator money. He led all candidates in military donations!
Will he have a big announcement? Make some speech that speaks to the Republican base of voters who love the Constitution, but aren't so crazy about the war and the economy?
Time will tell. It will be an interesting summer!
He will never endorse him, McCain is a neo-con and Paul is a true Republican. McCain is anti-Constitution and Paul is pro.
-
Even the dumb fucks on this board will start connecting the dots eventually.
Any scientific basis for this? ;D
-
Republican candidate Ron Paul has not endorsed McCain. However, he did just book an areana in Minneapolis.
Just a few days before Mccain accepts his convention in St. Paul, MN.
What does Ron Paul have in mind? He continued to win 15-20% of the Republican vote, even with zero media coverage. He's sitting on tens of millions of dollars of donator money. He led all candidates in military donations!
Will he have a big announcement? Make some speech that speaks to the Republican base of voters who love the Constitution, but aren't so crazy about the war and the economy?
Time will tell. It will be an interesting summer!
I gave my original support to Dr Paul months ago and admire him for doing this.( sent him 100 contribution)
I am voting for Obama now however.
-
Republican candidate Ron Paul has not endorsed McCain. However, he did just book an areana in Minneapolis.
Just a few days before Mccain accepts his convention in St. Paul, MN.
What does Ron Paul have in mind? He continued to win 15-20% of the Republican vote, even with zero media coverage. He's sitting on tens of millions of dollars of donator money. He led all candidates in military donations!
Will he have a big announcement? Make some speech that speaks to the Republican base of voters who love the Constitution, but aren't so crazy about the war and the economy?
Time will tell. It will be an interesting summer!
Ummmm, sure it will :-\
-
Ron Paul planning parallel convention to send GOP a 'strong message' in Minneapolis
After being denied a speaking slot at the Republican convention this summer, former candidate Rep. Ron Paul, who is not supporting GOP nominee John McCain, has decided to stage his own parallel convention in Minneapolis.
"There is a growing surge of people out there just craving" for a return "to traditional American government, limited government that places personal liberty first and places an emphasis on personal responsibility and essentially gets out of the way after that," Paul spokesman Jesse Benton told the Pittsburgh Tribune Review. "The buzz we get from supporters is that they are very eager to come to St. Paul and very eager to send a strong message."
After being initially viewed as little more than a gadfly's revolt, Paul's campaign picked up substantial steam during the GOP primaries, when the libertarian leaning Texan raised about $35 million almost entirely online and garnered more than a million votes. Paul's secured at least 35 convention delegates, but Republican party big-wigs are denying him a speaking slot.
-
It he runs as an independant, he'll be giving Obama the White House.
Here's hoping! :D
-
yeah, just because racist things were written under his name (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters/index.html) doesn't mean he's accountable for them.
but at this point, the presidency is Obama's to lose.
Yes Tim, a "racist" who will release all non-violent drug offenders from prison who are there due to the "war on black people drugs". A "racist" who will put a stop to the war in Iraq - a war which exploits minorities the most. ::)
Racism is obviously not part of Ron's character. Of course, that is only obvious to those who have some remnants of intelligence. Tim, you are smart (just a little too liberal for my liking ;D) so you should get this.
The owning in the clip above is one of the very last ownings Ron Paul gave to the mainstream media before they stopped giving him coverage.
Nope, no controlled media here or anything. ::) The media clowns couldn't handle Ron Paul so they stopped giving him coverage. He isn't pushing the agenda they want.
His actions speak louder than some stupid writings he probably never even saw when they were produced back in the day. The fact is, he did not write those racist comments.
-
As far as I can tell, Ron Paul is the most popular candidate. If Jesse Ventura (whose political views almost mirror Ron Paul's as well as my own) ran, not only would he run - he'd win. But he can't get ballot access.
I always thought Americans are asleep when it comes to these issues, but now I'm starting to think that they are awake and that the mainstream media is just shutting them down. Now that this movement is beginning to grow, more and more people will realize there is a piss being taken and the situation will be dealt with.
That said, it would only take one more terrorist attack to get the sheep in line again. :-\
-
A complete absence of government involvement in taxation will lead to an inconceivable concentration of wealth that will result in the fall of the US.
You stupid guy...
Ron never once said a total absence of government taxation, he said end to the FEDERAL INCOME TAX.
-
You stupid ####...
Ron never once said a total absence of government taxation, he said end to the FEDERAL INCOME TAX.
let me clarify, oh smart stormshadow,
"the removal of a graduated tax, which taxes the rich more than the poor, will lead to an unhealthy concentration of wealth"
If you read my entire post, this is obviously what I meant...
goodnight
-
Republican candidate Ron Paul has not endorsed McCain. However, he did just book an areana in Minneapolis.
Just a few days before Mccain accepts his convention in St. Paul, MN.
What does Ron Paul have in mind? He continued to win 15-20% of the Republican vote, even with zero media coverage. He's sitting on tens of millions of dollars of donator money. He led all candidates in military donations!
Will he have a big announcement? Make some speech that speaks to the Republican base of voters who love the Constitution, but aren't so crazy about the war and the economy?
Time will tell. It will be an interesting summer!
Yeah, definitely. I'm so glad he's around if only to give people a breath of fresh air.
-
let me clarify, oh smart stormshadow,
"the removal of a graduated tax, which taxes the rich more than the poor, will lead to an unhealthy concentration of wealth"
If you read my entire post, this is obviously what I meant...
goodnight
Even if we abolished the IRS, the federal government would still collect enough revenue to fuel a budget the size that the USA had in the year 2000. What is so difficult about reducing the budget to the size it was merely eight years ago?
-
the media doesn't support ron paul because they can't control him. i love it when a reporter trys to interrupt him and he cuts them off. they guy has SOME good ideas. if he was running and the election was tom. he would get my vote
-
Even if we abolished the IRS, the federal government would still collect enough revenue to fuel a budget the size that the USA had in the year 2000. What is so difficult about reducing the budget to the size it was merely eight years ago?
um, we? are you not canadian? :)
-
Watch this clip:
One word answers:
1. Iraq.
2. The mainstream media.
3. Immigration.
4. War on terror.
"One word answers", talk about attempted sabotage you dumb bitch. ::)
-
don't you think he'd take more votes from Obama?
You're smarter than I realized. 8)
Than anti-zionist 9/11 ultra facist neo liberals love that dude.
-
It he runs as an independant, he'll be giving Obama the White House.
which is probably the plan...It will only help a third party to become that much more powerful in 2012...Esp/when we go to war with Iran with a Dem in office...
-
The Bible codes read that the of an ERa will be at the hands Osama but it just may be that the Bible codes were supposed to read Obama...His Rev/may just be the insight of how dangerous a men Obama really is...
-
Republican candidate Ron Paul has not endorsed McCain. However, he did just book an areana in Minneapolis.
Just a few days before Mccain accepts his convention in St. Paul, MN.
What does Ron Paul have in mind?
Maybe the Vice Presidential slot?
-
Yeah I am pompous, but not a troll.
I spew tons of insults in my posts but at least I have science and data to back up what I say. I actually don't mind insults to me, but I don't like posts that insult me and are devoid of substance like yours.
I would prefer for you to come back with: "Matt C, you are a dumb fuck, and the reason is because [sourced scientific doc]". Those kinds of rebuttals are cool.
Do you even know what "Liberal" means?
You claim that Tim is too much of a liberal.
Yet you support Ron Paul, who has been praised by classic liberals for his economic philosophy.
So how about this: Matt C, you are a dumb fcuk, because you have no grasp of what Liberal means.
Is that better?
-
Do you even know what "Liberal" means?
You claim that Tim is too much of a liberal.
Yet you support Ron Paul, who has been praised by classic liberals for his economic philosophy.
So how about this: Matt C, you are a dumb fcuk, because you have no grasp of what Liberal means.
Is that better?
Hedgehog, in Europe Liberal has retained its original meaning whereas in the USA it is something else entirely; to an American I have to identify myself as a 'Libertarian' because if I said Liberal they would assume all the wrong things...most Americans don't even know what Classical Liberalism is.
-
True, liberalism is somewhat different in the U.S.
McCain would not have Ron Paul as VP. Too many conflicting ideas, particularly on America's international military policies.
If RP ran as an independent, I would vote, again, for Ron Paul... at very least to send a message. I don't care for Obama's socialist agenda and am not real comfortable with McCain either.
We have to send a strong message to the gov that their power & spending has gotten out of control.
I believe RP supports a flat tax, which has been heavily researched and is a very viable method of taxation which applies to everyone here (not everyone is paying taxes or reporting income under the current system). I believe people at and under the poverty line are tax exempt.
-
True, liberalism is somewhat different in the U.S.
We have 2 'liberal' parties - no conservative/republican at all - and always have very puny welfare, next to no taxation on locals, with very heavy religious law with tons of things being illegal.
This always confuses me ???
-
Ron Paul is dangerous.
His ideas make great sense to someone who does not understand history and economics.
A complete absence of government involvement in taxation will lead to an inconceivable concentration of wealth that will result in the fall of the US. This is the very reason that the US revolted from Britain, a reduction in the tax required to pay by the East India Company.
This is something Pareto recognized very early. 20% of the people control 80% of the wealth. Once wealth gets large enough, it can beget more wealth which can make the ratio 10/90 (the current situation in the US). This type of concentration was the downfall of many empires. One of the rolls of taxation is to redistribute wealth. Thomas Jefferson himself is said to have been very concerned with people amassing enough wealth to pass it on to further generations creating family empires, much like the Kennedy's Rockerfeller's etc.
....
I would agree with this assessment.
Any time I hear someone talk about the virtue of 'scrapping the Code' or 'scrapping the IRS', I know I am not dealing with a serious person.
-
I would agree with this assessment.
Any time I hear someone talk about the virtue of 'scrapping the Code' or 'scrapping the IRS', I know I am not dealing with a serious person.
Well the US is falling anyway, so right now it's a moot point.
-
Ron Paul is dangerous.
His ideas make great sense to someone who does not understand history and economics.
A complete absence of government involvement in taxation will lead to an inconceivable concentration of wealth that will result in the fall of the US. This is the very reason that the US revolted from Britain, a reduction in the tax required to pay by the East India Company.
This is something Pareto recognized very early. 20% of the people control 80% of the wealth. Once wealth gets large enough, it can beget more wealth which can make the ratio 10/90 (the current situation in the US). This type of concentration was the downfall of many empires. One of the rolls of taxation is to redistribute wealth. Thomas Jefferson himself is said to have been very concerned with people amassing enough wealth to pass it on to further generations creating family empires, much like the Kennedy's Rockerfeller's etc.
People need to take some economics classes...
Clueless.
-
I would agree with this assessment.
Any time I hear someone talk about the virtue of 'scrapping the Code' or 'scrapping the IRS', I know I am not dealing with a serious person.
HEy, if your happy being a slave and having the government tell you how much of YOUR own earned dollars you can keep through YOUR own hard work so be it. Personally, I think it's a load of bullshit. Even without the income tax collected we'd still have as much money to spend on programs as we did 10 years ago. It's the government spending that we need to control. You don't cost the government money, the government costs you money!
-
Decker, do some reading on the fair/consumption tax. I meant to type fair tax above.
http://www.fairtax.org
-
The Fair Tax Fraud
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=183560.0 (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=183560.0)
:)
-
HEy, if your happy being a slave and having the government tell you how much of YOUR own earned dollars you can keep through YOUR own hard work so be it. Personally, I think it's a load of bullshit. Even without the income tax collected we'd still have as much money to spend on programs as we did 10 years ago. It's the government spending that we need to control. You don't cost the government money, the government costs you money!
The Fair Tax is a shell game that benefits the rich and hits the poor and middle class hard.
-
Decker, do some reading on the fair/consumption tax. I meant to type fair tax above.
http://www.fairtax.org
I have researched it pretty throroughly.
Here's a great site that does a good job debunking the fair tax. http://www.fair-tax.org/
-
The Fair Tax is a shell game that benefits the rich and hits the poor and middle class hard.
I dont support a fair tax either. When I say cut taxes, I don't mean fiddle with the code. I mean abolish the income tax and the IRS, and replace them with nothing.
-
I dont support a fair tax either. When I say cut taxes, I don't mean fiddle with the code. I mean abolish the income tax and the IRS, and replace them with nothing.
How does the US pay for defense? or anything for that matter?
-
How does the US pay for defense? or anything for that matter?
It's time to change our way of thinking.
Most people understandably want a simpler income tax system, but it’s useless to discuss tax reform without spending reform. Who wants a 40% flat tax? Who wants a national sales tax if it adds 50% to the retail price of everything we buy? In other words, why change the tax structure if spending stays the same? Once we accept that Congress needs $4.7 trillion from us, the only question is how it will be collected. The current answer is the labyrinthine tax code, which pits taxpayers against each other in a political scramble to make sure the other guy pays. The truth is that Congress does not need $4.7 trillion, or anything close to it, to fund the proper constitutional functions of the federal government.
We will never have tax reform in this country until Congress changes its spending habits.
-
The key issue is gov spending...totally agree. If the gov stops excessive spending and borrowing, I am less concerned about the method of taxation.
I do not agree that the fair tax benefits the rich and I've seen statistical analysis which is compelling. As usual, I'm sure you'll find credible arguments on each side.
-
I like Ron Paul, but just to keep his candidacy in perspective, he got about million votes. Jesse Jackson had about 6 million in one of his campaigns. I wonder how many Al Sharpton got in 2004?
-
How does the US pay for defense? or anything for that matter?
The states pony up to pay for defense and all other federal government funding.
People pay the state government, and the state government funds the Fed.
Do you not see the chaos resulting from our current system where the Federal Government collects directly from the people and then redistributes to the states??
The house of representatives was representation at the federal level for the people, the Senate was representation for the states.
The 17th amendment destroyed the states representation by handing the Senate over to the people. Thus a major Check was removed and allowed power to consolidate at the federal level because the states had no more representation in Washington.
The masses can become DUMB and vote away their liberty... Direct State representation via the Senate at the federal level was a check against this.
-
I like Ron Paul, but just to keep his candidacy in perspective, he got about million votes. Jesse Jackson had about 6 million in one of his campaigns. I wonder how many Al Sharpton got in 2004?
Please for all our sakes stop thinking like that. Stop being a follower and become a leader of sorts. If I followed what pop culture does, I'd be fvcked hard.
-
Ron Paul is a wash.
I like him, like his policies, but the fact remains he comes across as a lunatic to the public for a zillion reasons.
-
Ron Paul is a wash.
I like him, like his policies, but the fact remains he comes across as a lunatic to the public for a zillion reasons.
If anyone believes Ron is a lunatic than they are just another robot that accepts the reality they were handed to them from the day they were born.
It amazes me that this has happened over and over throughout history. We have been blessed with thinkers that do so outside the box and we have robots that condemn them for giving us knowlesdge that we may not understand yet. People need to stop being so fvucking arrogant and stop and listen.
-
Please for all our sakes stop thinking like that. Stop being a follower and become a leader of sorts. If I followed what pop culture does, I'd be fvcked hard.
Thinking like what? Just stating the facts. Jesse Jackson got about six million votes and Ron Paul got about a million. You dispute those facts?
-
Ron Paul is a wash.
I like him, like his policies, but the fact remains he comes across as a lunatic to the public for a zillion reasons.
He was never a viable candidate. The large CT nut following didn't help either.
-
Thinking like what? Just stating the facts. Jesse Jackson got about six million votes and Ron Paul got about a million. You dispute those facts?
I dont dispute those facts but I also don't let them dictate my way of voting or dictate what I think is right.
Hitler had a huge following at one point also, whats the point?
-
If anyone believes Ron is a lunatic than they are just another robot that accepts the reality they were handed to them from the day they were born.
I am not even speaking on his policies, I mean *him*. He simply comes across very badly and that is reality.
Why do they wear suits at debates - not jeans and a cowboy hat? Public perception and societal norms matter.
Slap Paul's polices into Edwards/Biden/Romney he would have done way better.
It amazes me that this has happened over and over throughout history. We have been blessed with thinkers that do so outside the box and we have robots that condemn them for giving us knowledge that we may not understand yet. People need to stop being so fvucking arrogant and stop and listen.
I agree 100%.
Thing being, the average voter is no rocket scientist. To win, one must play the game.
-
I am not even speaking on his policies, I mean *him*. He simply comes across very badly and that is reality.
Why do they wear suits at debates - not jeans and a cowboy hat? Public perception and societal norms matter.
Slap Paul's polices into Edwards/Biden/Romney he would have done way better.
I agree 100%.
Thing being, the average voter is no rocket scientist. To win, one must play the game.
This has been beaten to death, the thread isn't about what he looks like, it's about the message, I don't know why the rest of you give his delivery or look so much more importance as is evidenced by how many times it's brought up.
-
I dont dispute those facts but I also don't let them dictate my way of voting or dictate what I think is right.
Hitler had a huge following at one point also.
You should always vote your conscience. I'm just putting his candidacy in perspective.
-
You should always vote your conscience. I'm just putting his candidacy in perspective.
Agian, you and I have beaten that topic to death, lets focus on whats more important, yes?
-
This has been beaten to death, the thread isn't about what he looks like, it's about the message, I don't know why the rest of you give his delivery or look so much more importance as is evidenced by how many times it's brought up.
It shouldn't be important, but it is. That's why we talk about it. It helps explain why he couldn't win.
-
Agian, you and I have beaten that topic to death, lets focus on whats more important, yes?
I think they should let him speak at the convention and McCain should consider including him in his cabinet, assuming he endorses and/or doesn't undermine him during the campaign.
-
It shouldn't be important, but it is. That's why we talk about it. It helps explain why he couldn't win.
Wasted energy my friend. YOU are the one bringing it up all the time. If you agree it shouldnt be so important, why bring it up all the time instead of spreading the message that you say you agree with so much?
-
Yes, its the message thats important.
I understand what CQ & Beach are saying. RP didn't come off nearly as smooth as Obama or Romney. Speaking of that, still not sure how McCain beat Romney.
-
The states pony up to pay for defense and all other federal government funding.
People pay the state government, and the state government funds the Fed.
Do you not see the chaos resulting from our current system where the Federal Government collects directly from the people and then redistributes to the states??
The house of representatives was representation at the federal level for the people, the Senate was representation for the states.
The 17th amendment destroyed the states representation by handing the Senate over to the people. Thus a major Check was removed and allowed power to consolidate at the federal level because the states had no more representation in Washington.
The masses can become DUMB and vote away their liberty... Direct State representation via the Senate at the federal level was a check against this.
I don't see how using the States as a de facto IRS solves anything. In fact, the lack of uniformity in procedure would probably handcuff the experiment out of the gate.
While don't agree with your opinion on the effect of the 17th amendment as far as the degree of damage done to federalism, I do see a problem with undue influence in washington.
Direct State representation, to me, is not a guard against stupidity of people. That's an education issue. I like more democracy rather than less.
-
Wasted energy my friend. YOU are the one bringing it up all the time. If you agree it shouldnt be so important, why bring it up all the time instead of spreading the message that you say you agree with so much?
I bring up the facts. You can agree or disagree. It's just reality. Political races are partly a beauty contest. Why the heck do you think Obama is the Democrat nominee? He gave a great convention speech, he looks good, and sounds good. Ain't a whole lot of substance to his "message," but his delivery is a knockout. That is the world we live in.
And what "message" are you talking about? I like the guy, I agree with him on many issues, but he is not even a blip on the radar right now. I like Huck too and I'm not spreading his "message" (whatever it is).
-
It shouldn't be important, but it is. That's why we talk about it. It helps explain why he couldn't win.
It is why he stood no chance from the onset.
A truly savvy man ignores *should* and looks at reality.
Not to be overdramatic, but I *should* be able to go out in a tiny dress at 3am in the worst part of Washington DC for a 2 hr walk unarmed by myself. I *should* be able to that, reality tells me I would be a fool.
Paul could have gotten some speech coaching, body language help, nice suits etc, and come across way better. It is common sense to be President one must appear normal at minimum, the fact he did not try to in turn makes me doubt his mindset.
-
I have researched it pretty throroughly.
Here's a great site that does a good job debunking the fair tax. http://www.fair-tax.org/
So have I...I have read both books by the authors of the fair tax and the bill. The second one being written and published in rebuttal to the above website that you referenced.
-That site is a wash as it insults people which is never good for your arguement.(insulting IQs, etc.) Not only some of the points that it lists has is wrong.
-The Fair Tax does not try to get rid of the IRS. That is the biggest myth about the Fair Tax.
-The authors do note the outrageous spending of our government. That is a different subject to discuss as whatever the tax code is they(government) will spend it on something stupid.
-The Fair Tax is the most researched bill in the history of our country.
-The Fair Tax gets rid of the Payroll Tax(among others), which is one of the most idiotic taxes ever put into law.
-While it may not necessarily be the best ever, I believe the proposed system is currently the best alternative as to what we have right now.
-People shouldn't have to give up their wealth as they worked for it. The current tax code punishes production while the Fair Tax at least tries to tax consumption.
-
So have I...I have read both books by the authors of the fair tax and the bill. The second one being written and published in rebuttal to the above website that you referenced.
-That site is a wash as it insults people which is never good for your arguement.(insulting IQs, etc.) Not only some of the points that it lists has is wrong.
-The Fair Tax does not try to get rid of the IRS. That is the biggest myth about the Fair Tax.
-The authors do note the outrageous spending of our government. That is a different subject to discuss as whatever the tax code is they(government) will spend it on something stupid.
-The Fair Tax is the most researched bill in the history of our country.
-The Fair Tax gets rid of the Payroll Tax(among others), which is one of the most idiotic taxes ever put into law.
-While it may not necessarily be the best ever, I believe the proposed system is currently the best alternative as to what we have right now.
-People shouldn't have to give up their wealth as they worked for it. The current tax code punishes production while the Fair Tax at least tries to tax consumption.
Their is not 'the' fair tax. Various politicians have been pushing the 'fair tax' since the early 1990s.
Which points at the web site I listed are wrong?
So the the flat fair tax replaces the (almost) flat payroll tax. I don't see the benefit.
-
It is why he stood no chance from the onset.
A truly savvy man ignores *should* and looks at reality.
Not to be overdramatic, but I *should* be able to go out in a tiny dress at 3am in the worst part of Washington DC for a 2 hr walk unarmed by myself. I *should* be able to that, reality tells me I would be a fool.
Paul could have gotten some speech coaching, body language help, nice suits etc, and come across way better. It is common sense to be President one must appear normal at minimum, the fact he did not try to in turn makes me doubt his mindset.
Why do focus so much on his suit and delivery when in your own words you said you agree with his policies? I wish you spent as much time discussing the policies you agreed with instead of wasting both our time with pure nonsense. Notice I didnt say, talk about him being president, I said talk about his policies.
So lets see, so far you agree with his policies but doubt his mind set because he didnt wear the suit you thought he should wear and he didn't speak as fluently as say someone like Obama. ok...the truth is vanity is more imporatant to you than substance.
-
And what "message" are you talking about?
you know, the ones you posted yourself last December, or did you forget already?
-
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.
-
True...I should have said "The" Fair Tax. It is very different wording in a legal sense.
-The one point I put out was the IRS...the plan I am speaking of does NOT want to get rid of the IRS.
-The problem with the payroll tax is that businesses have to equal what every employee pays in federal taxes(this kills small businesses) it's not that it is a flat tax. The business owner is then of course taxed again for profits, etc.
-The black market is here to stay...it won't increase or decrease no matter what our government decides to do.
I must be one of those low IQ people(LOL), while I don't have a formal education I do my best to read and keep up with world events. I don't totally understand the math shown, but also I've always responded to someone teaching math rather than reading it. Flame away at that...
-
Why do focus so much on his suit and delivery when in your own words you said you agree with his policies? I wish you spent as much time discussing the policies you agreed with instead of wasting both our time with pure nonsense. Notice I didnt say, talk about him being president, I said talk about his policies.
So lets see, so far you agree with his policies but doubt his mind set because he didnt wear the suit you thought he should wear and he didn't speak as fluently as say someone like Obama. ok...the truth is vanity is more imporatant to you than substance.
It's not he wasn't up to Obama [who is top notch in that area] it was that he sucked majestically in that area. Big difference.
Check their expenses, many pres candidates hire speech coaches, and other coaches to help with perception. It matters, everyone knows it. Despite the facts plainly in evidence and true for years - Paul chose to disregard societal norms and expectations. Majority of the general public will NOT look past perceived creepiness, the minuscule number of votes he got confirms that.
Great ideas, if people won't vote for him - useless. Why did he not do what every other single viable candidate does - take effort with presentation, brush up social skills etc? He stood no chance, partly by not taking some effort to conform to society's norms. That makes me doubt his mindset, not his looks.
-
...-The problem with the payroll tax is that businesses have to equal what every employee pays in federal taxes(this kills small businesses) it's not that it is a flat tax. The business owner is then of course taxed again for profits, etc.
I'm not sure what you are getting at. The employer and employee pay 1/2 and 1/2 of the payroll tax. The SS portion is a flat tax b/c it is 12.4% for all people but it favors the rich b/c the tax is capped at $105,000. The 2.9% Medicare portion of FICA is not capped but it is still a flat tax.
....I must be one of those low IQ people(LOL), while I don't have a formal education I do my best to read and keep up with world events. I don't totally understand the math shown, but also I've always responded to someone teaching math rather than reading it. Flame away at that...
I didn't author the web site and I'm sorry if you're offended by it. I don't care to do things that way for the most part. Poor taste aside, I don't see any substantive errors at that site.
-
I'm not sure what you are getting at. The employer and employee pay 1/2 and 1/2 of the payroll tax. The SS portion is a flat tax b/c it is 12.4% for all people but it favors the rich b/c the tax is capped at $105,000. The 2.9% Medicare portion of FICA is not capped but it is still a flat tax.
I didn't author the web site and I'm sorry if you're offended by it. I don't care to do things that way for the most part. Poor taste aside, I don't see any substantive errors at that site.
That isn't entirely accurate...whatever the employee pays the employer MATCHES. I've seen this myself as I work for a small business. That's what makes me angry about the situation. Even half of the payroll tax is too much.
-The litigation for both SS and Medicare is a "contribution". I find that to be a bit odd.
I was by no means offended,(I can take more than that) and I know you did not author it, my point was it's just detrimental to an arguement if you are trying to convince people otherwise.
-Why does it favor the rich with it being capped at $150,000? Knowing that it is a "contribution", not only that, but if the rich plan for retirement during their working years, why should they pay for somebody else's?
-
It's not he wasn't up to Obama [who is top notch in that area] it was that he sucked majestically in that area. Big difference.
Check their expenses, many pres candidates hire speech coaches, and other coaches to help with perception. It matters, everyone knows it. Despite the facts plainly in evidence and true for years - Paul chose to disregard societal norms and expectations. Majority of the general public will NOT look past perceived creepiness, the minuscule number of votes he got confirms that.
Great ideas, if people won't vote for him - useless. Why did he not do what every other single viable candidate does - take effort with presentation, brush up social skills etc? He stood no chance, partly by not taking some effort to conform to society's norms. That makes me doubt his mindset, not his looks.
I'm talking about YOU right now. If YOU like ROn's policies, (which you said you do) why have you wasted effort and time constantly bringing up his dressing style and orating skill? Unless one means more to you than the other. Now do you understand what Im trying to say?
-
I'm not sure what you are getting at. The employer and employee pay 1/2 and 1/2 of the payroll tax. The SS portion is a flat tax b/c it is 12.4% for all people but it favors the rich b/c the tax is capped at $105,000. The 2.9% Medicare portion of FICA is not capped but it is still a flat tax.
I didn't author the web site and I'm sorry if you're offended by it. I don't care to do things that way for the most part. Poor taste aside, I don't see any substantive errors at that site.
-
you know, the ones you posted yourself last December, or did you forget already?
I just listed his positions on issues and stated whether I agree with them or not. I guess you could consider that a "message." He and I are tax kindred, so I guess I could cite him, but there are plenty of other anti-tax militants.
In any event, I doubt our system changes in this lifetime.
-
It is why he stood no chance from the onset.
A truly savvy man ignores *should* and looks at reality.
Not to be overdramatic, but I *should* be able to go out in a tiny dress at 3am in the worst part of Washington DC for a 2 hr walk unarmed by myself. I *should* be able to that, reality tells me I would be a fool.
Paul could have gotten some speech coaching, body language help, nice suits etc, and come across way better. It is common sense to be President one must appear normal at minimum, the fact he did not try to in turn makes me doubt his mindset.
I agree.
-
I'm talking about YOU right now. If YOU like ROn's policies, (which you said you do) why have you wasted effort and time constantly bringing up his dressing style and orating skill? Unless one means more to you than the other. Now do you understand what Im trying to say?
Maybe it's not so much that one means more to her than the others ...as much as it is one impacts the other.
It's like a condiment. Too much salt on your food makes it hard to savour. All you can think about is the salt.
I know exactly where she's coming from, because I get that same feeling from him as well, ...especially in that last link that MB_22 posted.
-
That isn't entirely accurate...whatever the employee pays the employer MATCHES. I've seen this myself as I work for a small business. That's what makes me angry about the situation. Even half of the payroll tax is too much.
-The litigation for both SS and Medicare is a "contribution". I find that to be a bit odd.
I was by no means offended,(I can take more than that) and I know you did not author it, my point was it's just detrimental to an arguement if you are trying to convince people otherwise.
-Why does it favor the rich with it being capped at $150,000? Knowing that it is a "contribution", not only that, but if the rich plan for retirement during their working years, why should they pay for somebody else's?
My recitation of the FICA rates is entirely accurate. I admire Soc. Sec. b/c it has helped millions of people with a hand up, myself included..
The SS portion of FICA that's capped at 105,000 favors those that earn over 105,000 b/c those amounts are not subject to the 12% tax. People earning less than 105,000 pay Soc. Sec tax on all their earnings.
The reason why people, including the rich, should pay into Soc. Sec. is b/c it is a form of Social Insurance. We fewer people in abject poverty and/or living on the street b/c of SS. We have many old people that don't have to choose btn food and medicine. We don't have widows and orphans living on the street b/c of SS.
All in all, I'd say SS benefits society in a way no other private or public program could.
-
I admire Soc. Sec. b/c it has helped millions of people with a hand up, myself included..
Most deadbeats do like free money.
-
Most deadbeats do like free money.
If you're paying for it, ...how is it free? ???
-
If you're paying for it, ...how is it free? ???
Because he used the word "helped"
Anytime I am "helped" that means value was given to me in excess of my own production.
-
Because he used the word "helped"
Anytime I am "helped" that means value was given to me in excess of my own production.
You're talking to people who still fall for the slick, car salesman routine.
Sound good, look better, buy crap.. again.
-
Most deadbeats do like free money.
What does that have to do with SS?
It seems that you are excessively selfish or miserly and without a care for your fellow man.
That's not rugged individualism. That's just sad.
-
Because he used the word "helped"
Anytime I am "helped" that means value was given to me in excess of my own production.
Please.
You'd be nowhere other than living on a subway grate if it weren't for the help society has given you.
You ain't an island.
-
Perhaps if more able bodied people were allowed to keep more of their hard in dollars through less taxation, they wouldnt need to rely on government social programs as much as they do today? The more people there are that opt to get out of social programs and fend for themselves as they wish, frees up more money to those who truley can't help themselves.
The only thing that worries me about that, is how many people are responsible enough to save the extra money for emergency type situations, if they didn't have to pay income tax for example? But that initaial suffering may very well be the cost we have to pay for giving away our individual responsiblities to the government.
-
Perhaps if more able bodied people were allowed to keep more of their hard in dollars through less taxation, they wouldnt need to rely on government social programs as much as they do today? The more people there are that opt to get out of social programs and fend for themselves as they wish, frees up more money to those who truley can't help themselves.
The only thing that worries me about that, is how many people are responsible enough to save the extra money for emergency type situations, if they didn't have to pay income tax for example? But that initaial suffering may very well be the cost we have to pay for giving away our individual responsiblities to the government.
Less taxes would be a good thing.
The vested business interests that are enriched by government subsidy, tax deferment or abatement and/or government R&D want the tax structure and gov gravy train the way it is. The social programs that help indigents, widows, orphans, the disabled and the elderly are good. That group is not comprised of 'able bodied' people and only the elderly have any voting power.
Taxes are the price of civilization.
My own view is that gov should provide services and the private sector should provide services. Whenever the private sector intermingles with government--contracts or such, invariably we see exploitation and the taxpayor getting screwed. Just look at the billions 'lost' in Iraq.
-
I like Ron Paul, but just to keep his candidacy in perspective, he got about million votes. Jesse Jackson had about 6 million in one of his campaigns. I wonder how many Al Sharpton got in 2004?
;)
Poor Bindare...
-
;)
Poor Bindare...
Where you been Benny, getting ready for the march? ;D
-
The only thing that worries me about that, is how many people are responsible enough to save the extra money for emergency type situations, if they didn't have to pay income tax for example?
We have no income tax as I've said, and while [guessing] 70/80% use our very high net wages to live a great life, and prepare for old age.....we still have a small segment that don't. There will always be twits unfortunately.
-
The social programs that help indigents, widows, orphans, the disabled and the elderly are good.
Where do you draw the line Decker?
How about Single mom Whores with 4 kids they cannot support on their own, are these programs also good for them?
How about those that don't hurry to get another job, because they make out quite well with unemployment and WIC for their children.
How about those that cheat the system (and there are MANY of them) and get a doctor to say they are disabled and can't work, so they collect SSI.
And what about individuals like me that do nothing but PAY MANY TIMES THEIR FAIR SHARE IN TAXES, but take nothing out.
I've never once collected unemployment, food stamps, WIC, SSI, SS, the list goes on.
I don't even get the government subsidies for children because I am single with no kids.
Do you not see how I (the responsible) am punished, while the dead wood in society is rewarded?
On top of all this, and despite very tough financial times for myself, I still donate to charity.
-
Where do you draw the line Decker?
Fraud.
...I've never once collected unemployment, food stamps, WIC, SSI, SS, the list goes on.
I don't even get the government subsidies for children because I am single with no kids.
You could not have earned one thin dime if it were not for the tax dollars of people that came before you. Did you build your own roads and phone and satellite system. Did you ever take out a student loan? Do you pay for the federal R&D that supports our business infrastructure? Do you print your own money?....
So you think the government, of the People and by the People, should let some of the people crash and burn b/c there some taxpayers out there too cheap to kick in some tax dollars that alleviate much suffering?
Do you not see how I (the responsible) am punished, while the dead wood in society is rewarded?
On top of all this, and despite very tough financial times for myself, I still donate to charity.
Yours is the cry of the financial conservative elite--I'm taxed too much. The Larry Kudlows of the world.
You know, you are right.
If those people that choose to be leeches are to die, then they best do it and decrease the surplus population.
Interfering with their just rewards for living irresponsibly is the worst sort of big government!
We can't afford to make idle people responsible. I have been forced to support them through taxation, and God knows they cost more than they're worth. Those who are badly off must have only themselves to blame.
What else can I say when I live in a world full of fools babbling "More Social Programs" at one another? What're handouts but an opportunity for a free ride at another's expense? There's nothing free in that to me. If I could work my will, every idiot who goes about with "More Social Programs" on his lips should be boiled with his own pudding and buried with a steak of holly through his heart.
For these leeches on society, are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?
-
Stormshadow will be screaming for social programs when those "worthless" people decide to get off their butts and go to work: ie: committing B&E's, armed robberies & car jackings to support themselves. I mean, ...it's like thay can get a job... those are all being shipped to Mexico. He has no concept of how "social programs" and societal safety nets protect his ass. They exist for the protection of those who work, ...not for the benefit of those too lazy to.
-
Stormshadow will be screaming for social programs when those "worthless" people decide to get off their butts and go to work: ie: committing B&E's, armed robberies & car jackings to support themselves. I mean, ...it's like thay can get a job... those are all being shipped to Mexico. He has no concept of how "social programs" and societal safety nets protect his ass. They exist for the protection of those who work, ...not for the benefit of those too lazy to.
So you are saying that I should be happy to pay someone so they don't rob me?
Stick to pimping your fuel pills bitch.
-
You could not have earned one thin dime if it were not for the tax dollars of people that came before you.
I disagree. "Money" is the representation of value created for another person(s).
Even on an island, I can use my brain, my labor, my talents to create value for another. The only requirement is my productive capacity, and another human to engage in free exchange.
If you read Ben Franklin's Autobiography you will find that the local police (militia), fire department, library, were all creations from the private sector.
Pull your nose out of Marx and Engels for a change and read some Locke and Bastiat.
-
So you think the government, of the People and by the People, should let some of the people crash and burn b/c there some taxpayers out there too cheap to kick in some tax dollars that alleviate much suffering?
YES!!
Governments are instituted among men to secure the rights of Life, Liberty, and Property.
That is to which the Founders pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor.
Not Welfare, Security, and Freedom from Suffering.
-
I disagree. "Money" is the representation of value created for another person(s).
Even on an island, I can use my brain, my labor, my talents to create value for another. The only requirement is my productive capacity, and another human to engage in free exchange.
If you read Ben Franklin's Autobiography you will find that the local police (militia), fire department, library, were all creations from the private sector.
Pull your nose out of Marx and Engels for a change and read some Locke and Bastiat.
I have little use for Bastiat. He is a veritable joke to me. I like John Locke.
The value that you create for another would not happen without the accomplishments of others already paid to society. Did you educate yourself? Did you make your own clothes. In short, did you create the infrastructure that shaped your life? No. So you start out in the hole already.
-
I have little use for Bastiat. He is a veritable joke to me. I like John Locke.
The value that you create for another would not happen without the accomplishments of others already paid to society. Did you educate yourself? Did you make your own clothes. In short, did you create the infrastructure that shaped your life? No. So you start out in the hole already.
I think we're starting to veer off the subject a bit now.
-
YES!!
Governments are instituted among men to secure the rights of Life, Liberty, and Property.
That is to which the Founders pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor.
Not Welfare, Security, and Freedom from Suffering.
So let people crash and burn so that you can enjoy the purity of your interpretation of governance? I don't think so.
John Locke posited life, liberty and property. The US constitution states life, liberty and happiness. There's a difference....for everybody.
The founders wrote the constitution to guarantee that the 'right people' always ruled, i.e., the monied class.
The Founders were not deities. They were well educated men. But they were moral fucks too: slave owners, destroyers of indians, oppressors of women.
I suggest you read Alexis de Tocqueville's work. Why he chose democracy over aristocracy.
-
I think we're starting to veer off the subject a bit now.
Who the hell's Ron Paul? ! !
-
John Locke posited life, liberty and property. The US constitution states life, liberty and happiness. There's a difference....for everybody.
WRONG
14th amendment says Life, Liberty, and Property.
Try reading the document before you quote it.
-
WRONG
14th amendment says Life, Liberty, and Property.
Try reading the document before you quote it.
Sorry friend, You are correct. It's the declaration I was referring to.
Your 14th amendment reference is the due process clause/Equal Protection Act but I fail to see how that defines our governmental purpose and function.
I think our country's principles are set out in the declaration of independence. And running with the idea that our country is one of democracy, liberty, happiness, the constitution has become better than originally drafted. No more slavery. The women get the vote. Segregation is nixed.
-
So you are saying that I should be happy to pay someone so they don't rob me?
Stick to pimping your fuel pills bitch.
ooooooooooh, ...methinks I've struck a tender little nerve. :P
-
I think our country's principles are set out in the declaration of independence.
Including this part? "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . . ."
-
Including this part? "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . . ."
Just because someone is a deist, ...doesn't mean they are Christians. I can see you coming from a mile away.
-
How about Single mom Whores with 4 kids they cannot support on their own, are these programs also good for them?
How about those that don't hurry to get another job, because they make out quite well with unemployment and WIC for their children.
How about those that cheat the system (and there are MANY of them) and get a doctor to say they are disabled and can't work, so they collect SSI.
And what about individuals like me that do nothing but PAY MANY TIMES THEIR FAIR SHARE IN TAXES, but take nothing out.
I've never once collected unemployment, food stamps, WIC, SSI, SS, the list goes on.
Do you not see how I (the responsible) am punished, while the dead wood in society is rewarded?
I'm sorry, I know it's obnoxious for me to say in my position, but I empathize. I see the greater point of welfare programs, but the individual perspective of working hard than having to pay for others must be very annoying to live with.
-
Just because someone is a deist, ...doesn't mean they are Christians. I can see you coming from a mile away.
I didn't say anything about Christianity.
-
I'm talking about YOU right now. If YOU like ROn's policies, (which you said you do) why have you wasted effort and time constantly bringing up his dressing style and orating skill? Unless one means more to you than the other. Now do you understand what Im trying to say?
Missed this, so plz excuse my late response.
It's just as wasteful of time and effort to discuss his policies as they stand *zero* chance of being used. We both wasted time really, as well all do here - chances are no official entity come to Getbig to get policy positions :D
It was his policy of doing things that made him not stand a chance that I was discussing. I could care less how he dresses, I'm not going to date the man. Ew.
-
Stormshadow you should listen to Decker...
Does anyone know who Pareto was and what it is he found? ::Crickets Chirping::
Fair Tax= Rich get richer = Plutocracy Anybody know what a plutocracy is?
The thing that makes republicans and libertarians prey on the greed of the middle class to support their ideas...they think because liberals want to tax the rich it means their taxes go up...
Taxation has more purposes than just funding the goverment. Our founding fathers were very concerned with people accumulating enough wealth to have "king like power"
-
Missed this, so plz excuse my late response.
It's just as wasteful of time and effort to discuss his policies as they stand *zero* chance of being used. We both wasted time really, as well all do here - chances are no official entity come to Getbig to get policy positions :D
It was his policy of doing things that made him not stand a chance that I was discussing. I could care less how he dresses, I'm not going to date the man. Ew.
No worries, we're all busy, just some more than others on getbig. ;D
Anyway, just about all his policies are based around the constitution. He's the strictest constitutionalist there is, so are you suggesting the constitution is meaningless?
-
No worries, we're all busy, just some more than others on getbig. ;D
Anyway, just about all his policies are based around the constitution. He's the strictest constitutionalist there is, so are you suggesting the constitution is meaningless?
Honestly, I am not some constitution buff so my opinions there would be world class drivel, worse than my normal posts ;D
I just liked most everything I read, and heard from him...foreign policy, Patriot Act, Iraq etc.
-
Including this part? "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . . ."
That was put there to make it clear to the King that God provided the rights and not England's royalty.
It's a useful fiction b/c it's fairly plain that the rights exist b/c men created them in a binding social contract.
-
Stormshadow you should listen to Decker...
Does anyone know who Pareto was and what it is he found? ::Crickets Chirping::
Fair Tax= Rich get richer = Plutocracy Anybody know what a plutocracy is?
The thing that makes republicans and libertarians prey on the greed of the middle class to support their ideas...they think because liberals want to tax the rich it means their taxes go up...
Taxation has more purposes than just funding the goverment. Our founding fathers were very concerned with people accumulating enough wealth to have "king like power"
Pareto founded the "Pareto principle" or the 80/20 rule. It is used in pretty much all sciences and not just micro economics.
I wouldn't say the greed of the middle class. It's just that as of right now the middle class "feels" it pays most of the taxes(it's also the biggest economic class) and most middle class still live paycheck to paycheck, hence the lack of wanting many social programs etc.(get out and work blah, blah) Again, as Decker and I were speaking, there is a difference between "A" Fair Tax and "The" Fair Tax. Regardless, our current tax code is wasteful, confusing, time consuming, and it isn't very fair to anybody except the rich hence, the reason a fair tax bill is in place. Something does need to change with the tax code.
Yes, most people do get scared when they want to tax the rich. Because most "liberals" as you put it don't just want to tax the rich, they want to increase taxes across the board and even have the hikes trickle into the middle class. I have heard sums as low as $70,000, that is by no means "rich". While I agree with a slight raise in taxes as I understand the economic predicament we are in, there must be a balance so the middle class doesn't get stuck with the bill.
-
Pareto founded the "Pareto principle" or the 80/20 rule. It is used in pretty much all sciences and not just micro economics.
I wouldn't say the greed of the middle class. It's just that as of right now the middle class "feels" it pays most of the taxes(it's also the biggest economic class) and most middle class still live paycheck to paycheck, hence the lack of wanting many social programs etc.(get out and work blah, blah) Again, as Decker and I were speaking, there is a difference between "A" Fair Tax and "The" Fair Tax. Regardless, our current tax code is wasteful, confusing, time consuming, and it isn't very fair to anybody except the rich hence, the reason a fair tax bill is in place. Something does need to change with the tax code.
Yes, most people do get scared when they want to tax the rich. Because most "liberals" as you put it don't just want to tax the rich, they want to increase taxes across the board and even have the hikes trickle into the middle class. I have heard sums as low as $70,000, that is by no means "rich". While I agree with a slight raise in taxes as I understand the economic predicament we are in, there must be a balance so the middle class doesn't get stuck with the bill.
Pareto's rule can be found in many sciences, you are correct, but he discovered it by analyzing the wealth distributions in many nations (past and present), which is why it is most famously used in economics and more recently quality control..
Most agree that middle and lower class are paying too much taxes. Dems are targeting the 33% + (that means if you are single and make over 164k per year (taxable income)) then your taxes are going up in a year...sorry
-
I don't know why some people complicate things so much.
Instead of debating who's taxing philosophy works best no one even bothered to ask if the federal government has the right to collect and spend certain taxes. Some taxes, like the income tax are immoral collections, imo. That tax is no different than saying that you are a slave and the governemnt will decide how much of your dollars, earned through the exchange of your time and effort, you are allowed to keep.
I can understand the need for taxes but does that one in particular sound just as screwed up to anyone else?
-
That was put there to make it clear to the King that God provided the rights and not England's royalty.
It's a useful fiction b/c it's fairly plain that the rights exist b/c men created them in a binding social contract.
So when you said you "think our country's principles are set out in the declaration of independence," you meant every part except "useful fiction" portion?
-
So when you said you "think our country's principles are set out in the declaration of independence," you meant every part except "useful fiction" portion?
You're not going to start inventing stories about Jefferson and company being Christians are you? ::)
-
You're not going to start inventing stories about Jefferson and company being Christians are you? ::)
Not at all Troll.
-
Some good points all around.
CQ, I agree about Ron's less than outstanding public speaking and appearance. Even though it shouldn't affect his messages, it does.
Decker, some people criticize programs like welfare, medicaid, WIC, ect because there is so much abuse in the system. I see it first hand every day working in medicine. Some people really need it, whether its temporary or permanent because of age or disability...but a large % of people are abusing the system. I have a lot of first hand experience with this unfortunately. There's also a viscious cycle of dependency that is hard to break because of how the system is structured.
About social security...Everyone gets the same amount when they qualify, correct? So, by paying a flat rate, people who make more, still pay more into the system but get the same amount when it pays out. That means they are helping to fund others. Is that right? (I'm not 65...haha). If thats true, then it does not exactly favor the rich, even if its capped at $105,000...its just not a progressive, graduated tax like income tax.
-
...
Decker, some people criticize programs like welfare, medicaid, WIC, ect because there is so much abuse in the system. I see it first hand every day working in medicine. Some people really need it, whether its temporary or permanent because of age or disability...but a large % of people are abusing the system. I have a lot of first hand experience with this unfortunately. There's also a viscious cycle of dependency that is hard to break because of how the system is structured.
YOu're correct, there is abuse out there. I don't think there's enough abuse to justify eliminating those safety net programs. There are ways for resourceful people to address those problems.
About social security...Everyone gets the same amount when they qualify, correct? So, by paying a flat rate, people who make more, still pay more into the system but get the same amount when it pays out. That means they are helping to fund others. Is that right? (I'm not 65...haha). If thats true, then it does not exactly favor the rich, even if its capped at $105,000...its just not a progressive, graduated tax like income tax.
The benefit is based on a formula that takes into account years of service and compensation earned among other things. http://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/econ/fs59r_ssbenefit.pdf So the benefit amount will vary. The $105,000 is a cap on the amount of compensation considered from which the payroll tax is taken. It's not a cap on the benefit payout.
We're not supposed to think of this as an investment like a 401k plan. It's supposed to be social insurance keeping our old people from becoming street people. It's worked pretty well.