Ron Paul makes a major move...

[tleilaxutank]

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

[jonsande]

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.

[Matt C]

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?

[20inch calves]

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

[bigdumbbell]

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?   

[Matt C]

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. 

[Zaphod]

don't you think he'd take more votes from Obama?

You're smarter than I realized. 

Than anti-zionist 9/11 ultra facist neo liberals love that dude.

[TechnoViking]

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...

[TechnoViking]

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...

[24KT]

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?

[Hedgehog]

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?

[Deicide]

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.

[shootfighter1]

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.

[CQ]

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

[Decker]

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.

[Deicide]

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.

[Bindare_Dundat]

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.

[Bindare_Dundat]

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!

[shootfighter1]

Decker, do some reading on the fair/consumption tax.  I meant to type fair tax above.

http://www.fairtax.org

[MB_722]

The Fair Tax Fraud

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=183560.0

 

[Decker]

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]

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/

[Bindare_Dundat]

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.

[Decker]

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?

[Bindare_Dundat]

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.