0
   

Ron Paul on tax reform

 
 
Reply Sat 22 Sep, 2007 06:24 am
Quote:

``The real enemy of tax reform is the spending culture in Washington. Let me repeat: we will never have tax reform in this country until Congress changes its spending habits. The reform rhetoric, regardless of which party it comes from, never changes the reality that federal spending grows every year``-----Ron Paul


Our founding fathers addressed the very issue Ron Paul complains of, but Ron Paul, to the best of my knowledge, has not expounded upon our Founding Father`s solution which is already in our Constitution! As a matter of fact, our Constitution`s original tax plan is not being promoted by any big media recognized ``conservatives``, including Newt Gingrich, with his latest gimmick called American Solutions. (1)


Unlike the proposals our self anointed ``conservatives`` offer [flat tax, fair tax, national sales tax, value added tax], which offer nothing to make members of Congress immediately accountable for reckless spending and borrowing, our Constitution`s original tax plan does in fact provide a very real mechanism to control Congress`s reckless spending and borrowing by making every member of Congress immediately accountable to their State Governor and Legislature should Congress borrow to meet its expenses, which includes pork barrel expenditures financed by Congress`s borrowing!


The provision I refer to in our Constitution is Art. 1, Sec. 2, Cl. 3 which allows for an apportioned tax among the states, and was intended to be used if Congress fails to raise sufficient revenue from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes.


Our founding fathers intended that Congress should raise its revenue from imposts and duties [taxes at our water`s edge], and miscellaneous internal excise taxes on consumption, and, if insufficient revenue was raised from these sources to meet Congress`s expenditures, then Congress would lay a direct tax among the states to make up any shortfall.


To insure protection against the abuse of the direct taxing power, our founding fathers also provided a fair share formula to be followed which determines each State`s share of the tax whenever Congress decides to call upon the people of the various States to fill the national treasury.


Considering subsequent amendments to our Constitution, that fair share formula may be represented as follows:


State`s population
-------------------------------X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S SHARE
Total U.S. Population



The theory of the founder`s fair share formula is based upon a conservative idea Representation with proportional obligation, an idea which socialists and the friends of big government dread with a passion!

After determining each state`s share of the sum to be raised using the fair share formula, each state`s Congressional Delegation is to return to their own state with a bill for their state`s share of the tax and the various state Governors and Legislatures are to be left with the responsibility of transferring their state`s share from the state treasury into the treasury of the United States, or, raising additional taxes within the state and then transferring that money into the treasury of the United States. For documentation of this tax being practiced see: Act laying a direct tax for $3 million August 2, 1813, and each state`s share of the tax. Also see:Section 7 of direct tax of 1813[/b]allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions.


Those who view themselves as being ``conservatives`` should ask themselves what would happen to the king of pork, the pride and joy of Pennsylvania, Representative John Murtha, if he should have to return home with a bill for his state Governor and Legislature to pay to finance the billions and billions of pork barrel earmarks he now channels to his district by plundering the federal treasury?


The point is, our founder`s plan provides a very real moment of accountability when Congress engages in reckless spending and borrowing, and yet, the only tax reform proposals being discussed by those the big media identifies as ``fiscal conservatives``, such as Newt Gingrich, Giuliani, Huckabee, Romney, etc., are tax plans which are void of any meaningful mechanisms designed to encourage Congress to follow sound fiscal policies!


In any event, it is difficult to imagine the Governor and Legislature of Pennsylvania being thrilled about having to deplete their state`s treasury to finance Murtha`s irresponsible pork barrel spending spree which he now engages in, when the bill for such spending will be immediately sent to Pennsylvania`s Governor and Legislature!


Regards,

JWK

(1)

The only ``conservative`` political group I know of which does in fact promote our Constitution`s original tax plan, and the ``state rate tax`` to extinguish deficits, is theConstitution Party[/u]
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 4,823 • Replies: 131
No top replies

 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Sep, 2007 10:48 am
Are you aware of the following.

AMENDMENT XVI
Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.

Note: Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 16.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.


Since this was enacted, we have had an ability-to-pay (graduated rates) system, which has worked like a jewel. Our system is the envy of the world. Other countries send delegations to the IRS so as to emulate our system. Conservatives are acting very recklessly and against our country's interests in proposing flat-tax type systems.
0 Replies
 
john w k
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Sep, 2007 12:35 pm
Advocate wrote:
Quote:

Are you aware of the following.

AMENDMENT XVI
Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.



The 16th Amendment has nothing to do with the apportioned direct tax mentioned in our Constitution. Are you aware of that?

For example, BROMLEY v. MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929) the Court states, well after the adoption of the 16th Amendment, and in crystal clear language: ``As the present tax is not apportioned, it is forbidden, if direct.`` [/i]

Likewise, the Court stated the same in EISNER v. MACOMBER , 252 U.S. 189 (1920) proper regard for its genesis, as well as its very clear language, requires also that this amendment ``shall not be extended by loose construction, so as to repeal or modify, except as applied to income, those provisions of the Constitution that require an apportionment according to population for direct taxes upon property, real and personal, this limitation still has an appropriate and important function, and is not to be overridden by Congress or disregarded by the courts.`` [/i]

But getting back to the real subject, a reckless spending and borrowing Congress, doesn't it bother you that Rep. John Murtha, the king of pork and the pride and joy of Pennsylvania, is very happy to exercise the rule of apportionment when it comes time to determine his state`s superior voting strength in Congress when voting to send pork to his state, but he ignores the other part of that equation, the fair share formula


State`s population
-------------------------------X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S SHARE
Total U.S. Population



when it comes time for his state to fill the national treasury to finance the pork his state gets?



JWK

The servant has become the master over those who created a servant and the new servant pays tribute by taxation to a gangster government which ignores our most basic laws ___ our constitutions, state and federal.[/i]
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Sep, 2007 02:11 pm
Obviously, those decisions didn't overturn the 16th Amendment. Our present income tax is not apportioned.

Pork has nothing to do with taxation. Further, I'm sure that there are legislators on the right who make Murtha look like a piker. Remember the bridge to nowhere in Alaska?
0 Replies
 
john w k
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Sep, 2007 04:49 pm
Advocate wrote:

Quote:

Obviously, those decisions didn`t overturn the 16th Amendment. Our present income tax is not apportioned.


And, the apportioned direct tax, which makes every member of Congress accountable to their State Governor and Legislature, is still very much part of our Constitution!

Advocate wrote:

Quote:

Pork has nothing to do with taxation. Further, I'm sure that there are legislators on the right who make Murtha look like a piker. Remember the bridge to nowhere in Alaska?


Pork has everything to do with taxation when you are the one being taxed for it! But I get the uncomfortable impression you view a remedy for a reckless spending and borrowing Congress as a fight between the right and left, when in fact it is the fight of Mary and Joe Sixpack who have been made the tax slaves of the Washington Establishment`s Empire, which includes being a tax slave for the millions of political plum jobs created by Congress with excessive salaries, top of the shelf medical plans and an outrageous pension plan, all of which Mary and Joe Sixpack can only dream of having but are taxed to finance so these parasites may redistribute Mary and Joe`s paychecks for functions not authorized by our written Constitution.

Fact is, Ron Paul hit the nail on the head when he stated:

Quote:

``The real enemy of tax reform is the spending culture in Washington. Let me repeat: we will never have tax reform in this country until Congress changes its spending habits. The reform rhetoric, regardless of which party it comes from, never changes the reality that federal spending grows every year``-----Ron Paul


Isn`t it time for freedom loving people to come together to return power to the people, and make every member of Congress immediately accountable to their Governor and State Legislature when they engage in reckless spending and borrowing?

JWK


The servant has become the master over those who created a servant and the new servant pays tribute by taxation to a gangster government which ignores our most basic laws…our constitutions, state and federal.[/i]
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Sep, 2007 09:28 am
I am afraid you are one of the people who are victims of the right's hoax e-mails.

No one favors pork (except for the legislators who benefit from it). However, it is small potatoes compared to the other expenditures from the right's borrow and spend people.

Congress does not have a fabulous health plan. Many in the private sector have plans that are better or just as good. Its pension plan is not outrageous. It is contributory and, contrary to the e-mails, is not all that great. For example, Craig, who has 25 years service, would get $120,000 per annum.
0 Replies
 
john w k
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Sep, 2007 04:11 pm
Advocate wrote:

I am afraid you are one of the people who are victims of the right's hoax e-mails.


An unsubstantiated and stupid remark.

Advocate wrote:

No one favors pork (except for the legislators who benefit from it). However, it is small potatoes compared to the other expenditures from the right's borrow and spend people.


I see you still have that silly right vs. left thing going on when the problem is the Washington Establishment`s Empire which has enslaved the people and has made Mary and Joe Sixpack its personal tax slaves.

Advocate wrote:

Congress does not have a fabulous health plan. Many in the private sector have plans that are better or just as good. Its pension plan is not outrageous. It is contributory and, contrary to the e-mails, is not all that great. For example, Craig, who has 25 years service, would get $120,000 per annum.


The political plum jobs I referred to are those who administer the redistribution of money taxed away from Mary and Joe, such the 5,000 plum job holders at the federal Department of Education, and have excessive salaries, top of the shelf medical plans and an outrageous pension plan, all of which Mary and Joe Sixpack can only dream of having but are taxed to finance so these parasites may redistribute Mary and Joe`s paychecks for functions not authorized by our written Constitution.

You do know that the political plum job holders are Congress`s foot soldieries during federal election time and double as Congress`s campaign workers to prop up the Washington Establishment Empire.

I do know that closing down the parasitic Federal Department of Education with all its political plum jobs, we would save $ 67 BILLION a year, which was approximately the entire federal budget in 1952 !

Heck, by closing down the parasitic and unconstitutional Federal Department of Education and returning its budget to the various states by the rule of apportionment, Michigan would receive a very generous $26 MILLION which I`m sure would help to reduce the taxes now plundered from Mary and Joe`s paychecks by the Washington Establishment for a function not authorized by our written federal Constitution.

We have a parasitic infestation in Washington which ignores the delegated powers granted by our federal Constitution. What part of that do you not understand?

Quote:

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State."



JWK


``He has erected a multitude of new offices (Washington`s existing political plum job Empire) , and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance`` [/i]___Declaration of Independence
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Sep, 2007 04:47 pm
John, you are really full of it. BTW, $26 M would be peanuts considering the state's run into many billions. It would hardly reduce taxes more than a couple of cents.

There are only 1.8 million civilian federal employees, which is very small in a country with a population of about 300 M, and they are very hard working. They deserve the modest benefits that they get.
0 Replies
 
john w k
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Sep, 2007 07:00 pm
Washington's political plum job empire!
Advocate wrote:

John, you are really full of it.

Another one of you`re unsubstantiated assertions!

Advocate wrote:

BTW, $26 M would be peanuts considering the state's run into many billions. It would hardly reduce taxes more than a couple of cents.


But when you go down THE LIST OF DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES[/u] not authorized by our written Constitution, that $26 million figure explodes into billions!

Advocate wrote:

There are only 1.8 million civilian federal employees, which is very small in a country with a population of about 300 M, and they are very hard working. They deserve the modest benefits that they get.


You`re funny, I mean you creative figures you give who are one the federal government payroll. How about trying the real figure which is over 14 million! See: Big Government Gets Bigger

Quote:

Roll all of those together -- and mix in the numbers of postal workers and military personnel on the federal payroll -- and the "true size" of the federal government stands at 14.6 million employees, said Paul C. Light, the study's author and a government professor at New York University.


Of course, I am the first one who will state a few million of those mentioned above are performing constitutionally authorized functions. But the vast majority on the federal government`s payroll are nothing more than political plum job holders, holding jobs created by Congress to reward political campaign workings and other friends of big government ___ parasites which feed at the public trough which is filled by Mary and Joe Sixpack which the Washington Establishment views at their personal tax slaves.

JWK

``He has erected a multitude of new offices (Washington`s existing political plum job Empire) , and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance`` [/i]___Declaration of Independence
0 Replies
 
tinygiraffe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Sep, 2007 07:32 pm
john w k wrote:
The only ``conservative`` political group I know of which does in fact promote our Constitution`s original tax plan, and the ``state rate tax`` to extinguish deficits, is theConstitution Party[/u]


yes and it's lovely they're opposed to the patriot act, but i can't favor one strongly unconstitutional platform riduculously and innapropriately named over another.

the so-called "constitution party" would like to make sex and pornography illegal, expand capital punishment, and just doesn't seem to get that the founding fathers went to great lengths to prevent theocracy in the united states. please take your bibles and your bigotry and repeat after me:

Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
0 Replies
 
john w k
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Sep, 2007 09:50 pm
tinygiraffe wrote:


the so-called "constitution party" would like to make sex and pornography illegal, expand capital punishment, and just doesn't seem to get that the founding fathers went to great lengths to prevent theocracy in the united states. please take your bibles and your bigotry and repeat after me:



Will you please provide the documentation supporting your above assertions? I`m not that familiar with all their positions and never came across anything to support what you say above. Just curious.

JWK
0 Replies
 
tinygiraffe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2007 12:08 am
no problem. let's look at a few gems from the page you linked to of the constitution party's website:

(all emphasis in bold is my own, but the quotes are verbatim but for font style.)

Quote:
Preamble

The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.


WOW. and here's the constitution party on abortion.

Quote:
Sanctity of Life

The pre-born child, whose life begins at fertilization, is a human being created in God's image. The first duty of the law is to prevent the shedding of innocent blood. It is, therefore, the duty of all civil governments to secure and to safeguard the lives of the pre-born.

To that end, the Constitution of the United States was ordained and established for "ourselves and our posterity." Under no circumstances may the federal government fund or otherwise support any state or local government or any organization or entity, foreign or domestic, which advocates, encourages or participates in the practice of abortion. We also oppose the distribution and use of all abortifacients.


like it or not, this would mean opposing distribution of the birth control pill as well. the person that drew up the material for the website may not realize this, or they may be perfectly aware of it.

Quote:
AIDS

HIV / AIDS is a contagious disease which is dangerous to public health. It should not be treated as a civil rights issue. Under no circumstances should the federal government continue to subsidize activities which have the effect of encouraging perverted or promiscuous sexual conduct.


so it's now the government's job to deny any "civil rights" including that of promiscuous sex. this is constitutional?!

Quote:
We favor more vigorous efforts in both domestic and foreign markets to protect the interests of owners in their copyrights and patents.


i won't speculate whether that means doing away with "fair use" or not.

Quote:
The law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman. The marriage covenant is the foundation of the family, and the family is fundamental in the maintenance of a stable, healthy and prosperous social order. No government may legitimately authorize or define marriage or family relations contrary to what God has instituted. We are opposed to amending the U.S. Constitution for the purpose of defining marriage.


Quote:
We stand against so-called "sexual orientation" and "hate crime" statutes that attempt to legitimize inappropriate sexual behavior and to stifle public resistance to its expression. We oppose government funding of "partner" benefits for unmarried individuals. Finally, we oppose any legal recognition of homosexual unions.


Quote:
...we oppose efforts to legalize adoption of children by homosexual singles or couples.


Quote:
We affirm both the authority and duty of Congress to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in all cases of state sodomy laws in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2.


translation: we don't want the supreme court declaring sodomy bans unconstitutional, no matter what we call our party.

Quote:
Gambling promotes an increase in crime, destruction of family values, and a decline in the moral fiber of our country. We are opposed to government sponsorship, involvement in, or promotion of gambling, such as lotteries, or subsidization of Native American casinos in the name of economic development. We call for the repeal of federal legislation that usurps state and local authority regarding authorization and regulation of tribal casinos in the states.


translation: we haven't raped the indians enough, let's take away the last thing we've given them.

Quote:
Pornography, at best, is a distortion of the true nature of sex created by God for the procreative union between one man and one woman in the holy bonds of matrimony, and at worst, is a destructive element


Quote:
We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy.


translation: free speech isn't free if it contains nipples. god said so...

Quote:
...we also believe that our collective representative body we call government plays a vital role in establishing and maintaining the highest level of decency in our community standards.


translation: at the end of the day, it's the government's job to make sure that we know what kind of free speech offends god and is not free.

Quote:
We deny that civil government has the authority to set wages and prices; so doing is inconsistent with principles of individual liberty and the free market.


translation: no workers' rights. here's your nickel, see you in four hours after you've gone home and slept.


don't get me wrong, buried in that mountain of crap are some things i agree with and care about, but i'm not getting anyone buried that deep for a few promises no religion could ever make good on, if history is any indication.

not to mention it's the most backwards political page i've ever looked at, unless you count all the other spew from the radical christian right.
0 Replies
 
john w k
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2007 06:35 am
tinygiraffe,

Well, you certainly posted a lot of your translations, and I appreciate your effort. Now, what about the issue of tax reform and making Congress accountable for its reckless spending and borrowing, which is the subject of the thread?

Are you content with the Washington Establishment and its millions of political plum job holders which live comfortable lives off the backs of Mary and Joe Sixpack which the Washington Establishment views as its personal tax slaves? Unlike the Constitution Party which you apparently view as a threat, the Washington Establishment and its millions of political plum job holders are very real and are already practicing a subjugation of our written federal Constitution.


JWK

The servant has become the master over those who created a servant and the new servant pays tribute by taxation to a gangster government which ignores our most basic laws ___ our constitutions, state and federal.[/i]
0 Replies
 
tinygiraffe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2007 07:31 am
just making sure we're on the same page/planet here.

how many political parties would be willing to implement this old-fashioned tax deal? besides the raving god nutters you posted a link to, i mean? i realize i haven't responded to every last point you've made, but i really have to think this is still on topic. i mean it's a response to your own post and link. let me make sure i'm clear, i'm astonished you're still asking. is anything on earth more important to you than tax reform?
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2007 08:47 am
John, you said: "Are you content with the Washington Establishment and its millions of political plum job holders which live comfortable lives off the backs of Mary and Joe Sixpack which the Washington Establishment views as its personal tax slaves?"

Would you please document this.
0 Replies
 
john w k
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2007 07:53 pm
Advocate wrote:
``
John, you said: "Are you content with the Washington Establishment and its millions of political plum job holders which live comfortable lives off the backs of Mary and Joe Sixpack which the Washington Establishment views as its personal tax slaves?"

Would you please document this.``
[/i]


Did you miss THIS POST[/u] I posted to you?

JWK
0 Replies
 
john w k
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2007 08:22 pm
tinygiraffe wrote:

``
just making sure we're on the same page/planet here.

how many political parties would be willing to implement this old-fashioned tax deal? besides the raving god nutters you posted a link to, i mean? i realize i haven't responded to every last point you've made, but i really have to think this is still on topic. i mean it's a response to your own post and link. let me make sure i'm clear, i'm astonished you're still asking. is anything on earth more important to you than tax reform? ``
[/i]

I see you are still hung up on, and beating you chest over, a political party you apparently scorn with every ounce of hatred you can muster up. But the subject is not about a political party, it is about tax reform and how to make members of Congress immediately accountable for reckless spending and borrowing. And now, I see you also have it in for the rule of apportionment which you refer to as ``old-fashioned``. Tell me, do you think the rule of apportionment is old-fashioned when it comes time to determine each State`s voting strength in Congress Assembled___ you know, that one man one vote deal?. Or, is the rule only old fashioned when it comes time to determine each State`s obligation in filling the national treasury when imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes on consumption are found insufficient to finance Congress`s reckless spending and borrowing?

The two rules, considering subsequent amendments to our Constitution may be represented as follows:


State`s Population
_________________X size of Congress (435)=State`s No.of Representatives
population of U.S.



State`s population
-------------------------------X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S SHARE
Total U.S. Population


JWK
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2007 09:04 pm
john w k wrote:
I see you are still hung up on, and beating you chest over, a political party you apparently scorn with every ounce of hatred you can muster up. But the subject is not about a political party, it is about tax reform

Huh?

It was you who referred to the Constitutional Party, and when Tiny said something disparaging about it, it was you who demanded her to "please provide the documentation" supporting her assertions. "Just curious," you said.

So she did. She documented all those nutty parts she had alluded to. Thats all.

Doesnt mean she must just "scorn the Constitutionalists with every ounce of hatred she can muster up". Just means she provided you with the documentation you had asked for yourself. And, not unreasonably, expected some kind of response.

So are you still going to address any of the points she made about that party that you were praising?
0 Replies
 
john w k
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2007 05:58 am
nihm wrote:


``Huh?

It was you who referred to the Constitutional Party, and when Tiny said something disparaging about it, it was you who demanded her to "please provide the documentation" supporting her assertions. "Just curious," you said. ``


Demanded? I was curious to know what she was referring to and asked for documentation.

nihm wrote:


So she did. She documented all those nutty parts she had alluded to. Thats all.


I think every knows that who has followed the thread.

nihm wrote:

Doesnt mean she must just "scorn the Constitutionalists with every ounce of hatred she can muster up". Just means she provided you with the documentation you had asked for yourself. And, not unreasonably, expected some kind of response.


The characterizations she used to describe the Constitution Party indicated an exceptionally strong feeling toward it.

nihm wrote:

So are you still going to address any of the points she made about that party that you were praising?


Praising? Stating a fact and praising are two entirely different things. No! I will not address any of the points she posted, They have nothing to do with tax reform.

Now, are you interested in tax reform and how to control the reckless spending and borrowing habits of Congress or is it your aim to misdirect the subject matter as seems to be the pattern in this thread? I noticed you did not comment on tax reform. What is your purpose here? What do you think about our Constitution`s fair share formula? How would you make members of Congress immediately accountable for reckless spending and borrowing? Do you enjoy being a tax slave for the Washington Establishment and its millions of political plum job holders?


JWK

``He has erected a multitude of new offices (Washington`s existing political plum job Empire) , and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance`` [/i]___Declaration of Independence
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2007 09:22 am
John, I read your linked stuff, and it does not support your statements. Employees of contractors are hardly political plum jobs. Of course there are many contractor jobs. Do you expect govt. employees to make the planes, humvees, bullets, etc.? And the people who do make those things are mostly factory workers, not political appointees.

All your arguments are nonsense.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Ron Paul on tax reform
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/26/2022 at 05:13:46