Ron Paul on tax reform

No silence! Eisenhower is responsible for Nam. He set up a demarcation line, and set up our puppet Diem as the South's president.

0 Replies

Advocate: Don't stick the Iraq situation on me. I was against that one right from the git go, despite being a Viet Nam Vet AND (some of the time, anyways) a Republican.

This probably because I suspected it would play out politically just the way it has.... besides didn't a lot of Dems vote for military action? (Then) Including some of the most vociferous anti war types? (Now)

Both Partys, frankly, dissappoint me. I seek a Moderate in a sea of bleating advocates. I seek a Uniter in a madhouse of finger pointers. I seek a Leader in a group of pandering, fence sitting, politicians.

Alas, like Socrates, I feel that my search will end up in futility.

Halfback

0 Replies

Of course Bush defrauded everyone on Iraq. He had intell that Iraq was not a threat, and didn't share this. Further, some defrauded Dems went along with the resolution, which only gave Bush authority to invade should the situation warrant this. It did not direct him to invade.

BTW, how did I stick you with Iraq?

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

The Dems brought us social security, Medicare, and Medicaid. The Reps took us to Iraq and gave massive tax cuts to the super-rich.

I thought everyone got a tax cut. (I did.) Silly me. Unless, of course, I am forced to conclude that I number in the category "super rich". (Now, THAT IS a real knee slapper!) Laughing

I can see, however, that your mind has been made up on the matter of political polarity for some time. Nothing I say is gonna budge that in the least. Not bad considering my initial post was an attempt to discover a little moderation, and a little less polarization.

Halfback

0 Replies

Besides, you never did reply to my offered "Balanced Budget" solution. :wink:

Halfback

0 Replies

Halfback wrote:

Advocate wrote:
The Dems brought us social security, Medicare, and Medicaid. The Reps took us to Iraq and gave massive tax cuts to the super-rich.

I thought everyone got a tax cut. (I did.) Silly me. Unless, of course, I am forced to conclude that I number in the category "super rich". (Now, THAT IS a real knee slapper!)

I can see, however, that your mind has been made up on the matter of political polarity for some time. Nothing I say is gonna budge that in the least. Not bad considering my initial post was an attempt to discover a little moderation, and a little less polarization.

Halfback

The tax cuts were wildly disproportionately favoring the very wealthiest.

What was your balanced-budget solution?

0 Replies

See my 01 Oct, 2007 11:28 am post Nr. 2879795.

I suspect, however, that you may have already read it, but your mindset filtered it out as unworthy of consideration. :wink:

Halfback

0 Replies

You will note of course that one of the first bills passed by the new Dem congress reinstated the pay-as-you-go rules - you know, the ones the Republicans got rid of.

Any balanced budgets have to include wartime spending as well, I might add. Otherwise, you're just lying about the amount of debt.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

There was quite a bit of talk about having a balanced budget amendment a few years ago. It went nowhere, probably because Bush would veto it.

There may be some merit in having such an amendment, provided it is well-crafted.

Who would be dumb enough to give the likes of Bush a line-item veto power?

0 Replies

Advocate: Aw, come on now..... I offer a proposal and all I get is "who would be dumb enough to give Bush a line item veto?" The same could be said vis-a-vis Hillary (probable next Pres US), but I did not. I offered it as a solution to balanced budget problems, everyone's problem, not limited to political affiliation. Not only that but you will note that the solution is contingent on a Democratic Congress and President, possible after the next election. It was noted that efforts have been made before in this area. I suggest that if the effort be made in the next Congress, there just might be enough power centralized in one party to get it through. The next question is... will they make the effort?

Hell, I wouldn't trust Bush with a potato gun. On the other hand I don't like keeping the Congress empowered with unchecked earmarks either.

It has been said that a democracy begins to fail when the voters realize that they can vote themselves more money from the public coffers. :wink:

I go back to my original post... an effort to find less hype and party line and more common ground. Sad

Guys, if I wanted to hear the "Party Line" and hype, I would turn on c-span and that holds for both parties. I don't need to hear it in here.

Halfback

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Quote:
Dave, you might be a liberal.

Yes; I might.
From some things, I deviate;
from some things, I extirpate.
From other things ( like truth and honor ) I rigidly and inflexibly adhere.
A deviationist is a liberal; from some things I veer away and deviate.

Quote:

You certainly make liberal interpretations of the very wording
of the second amendment, as well as the holdings in a number of cases.

That is a false assertion;
presumably a product of your ignorance
( rather than deceptive intention ).

David

`

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Halfback wrote:
Advocate wrote:
The Dems brought us social security, Medicare, and Medicaid. The Reps took us to Iraq and gave massive tax cuts to the super-rich.

I thought everyone got a tax cut. (I did.) Silly me. Unless, of course, I am forced to conclude that I number in the category "super rich". (Now, THAT IS a real knee slapper!)

I can see, however, that your mind has been made up on the matter of political polarity for some time. Nothing I say is gonna budge that in the least. Not bad considering my initial post was an attempt to discover a little moderation, and a little less polarization.

Halfback

The tax cuts were wildly disproportionately favoring
the very wealthiest.

The rich were the most severely abused by the graduated tax rates,
in exchange for NOTHING.

Accordingly, thay most deserved tax relief.
If justice were to be served,
thay shud have gotten retroactive refunds, at hi rates of punitive interest,
against the plundering ultra vires government.

0 Replies

My thoughts on the line-item veto were not party related. They were related to Bush, whom I consider to be a moron.

Further, and I repeat, I think the presidency already has too much power, and should not be given this powerful budgetary weapon. BTW, the president is still free to veto the entire bill, saying it should be revised to exclude the offending items, and then sent back.

0 Replies

Advocate:

That is how it is handled now. You are in favor of the status quo, it appears. With the system so prone to grotesque overspending as it stands, I don't feel "status quo" is the best for the country. (That IS what we are talking about, I hope.) Confused

Counter suggestions?

Halfback

0 Replies

Advocate:

That is how it is handled now. You are in favor of the status quo, it appears. With the system so prone to grotesque overspending as it stands, I don't feel "status quo" is the best for the country. (That IS what we are talking about, I hope.) Confused

Counter suggestions?

Halfback

Oooops, double post, sorry 'bout dat!

0 Replies

First tell me exactly what type of taxation system you would prefer. Would you keep the income tax (corporate and individual)? Do you want a national sales tax? Etc.

0 Replies

For my part,
I 'd like the 16th Amendment to be repealed
ending income taxation,
in favor of financing all government operations
by sales taxes and importation tarriffs
( and when aliens provoke us to war, as Saddam did,
taking spoils of war, as reparations in compensation for our taxpayers' expenses )

That is fair,
because the poor will stop screwing the middle class n the rich,
and getting a free ride for themselves.
When America was founded it was based upon libertarianism & individualism.

America was NOT supposed to become a charity project for the poor
and the poor were not supposed to be able to use democracy
as a weapon in support of parasitical dependence upon the middle class & the rich.

David

0 Replies

My previous posts were more concerned with fiduciary control as it is concerned vis-a-vis Congress and the Pres.

I haven't even delved into Tax reform yet. I've been looking into some propositions that have caught my attention.....

One that may interest you is the "Fair Tax" proposal. This has received but lukewarm reception in the House and but Two Senators have expressed interest in it.

On the surface, it seems pretty good, but I have been trying to think through all the economic ramifications before I start trying to "sell" it.

Try "Fair Tax.com" (I think it's the right one.) Anyway, you can search for it. That's how I came across it.

Halfback

0 Replies

Chruchill is also the same person who had branded Mahathma Gandhi as a half naked fakir.

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID wrote:

For my part,
I 'd like the 16th Amendment to be repealed
ending income taxation,
in favor of financing all government operations
by sales taxes and importation tarriffs
( and when aliens provoke us to war, as Saddam did,
taking spoils of war, as reparations in compensation for our taxpayers' expenses )

That is fair,
because the poor will stop screwing the middle class n the rich,
and getting a free ride for themselves.
When America was founded it was based upon libertarianism & individualism.

America was NOT supposed to become a charity project for the poor
and the poor were not supposed to be able to use democracy
as a weapon in support of parasitical dependence upon the middle class & the rich.

David

Not bad! I say we institute serfdom in the USA, much like what was done in Russia before the revolution. That will keep the poor from nagging us for an equal shake. BTW, whatever happened to the last Czar, who thought the serfs were his property.

0 Replies

Ron Paul on tax reform

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know