Who's with me?
Edited 4 time(s). Last edited Wednesday, October 17, 2007 6:43 PM
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about
the former." - Albert Einstein
im actually a pretty big ron paul fan. he actually makes sense! how crazy is that for a candidate to do?? if the election were today, yes, i would actually get up off my ass and go out an vote for the man.
but those videos? ugh, a bit much for me. they were pretty much sensationalist propaganda. there's no need for the hippie music or a sad song playing over a montage of the iraq war. if you want to let people know what RP stands for, just post links to regular vids such as debates or interviews with him. the man actually has good ideas.
note to self...have a cup of Jow before readin War forum...
I thought it said "Ru Paul, 2008".
Goodbye Callisto & Skađi, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
If the election were held today...we'd be really surprised! Anyway, I'm planning on voting for him as of now, but I don't see me getting that chance. He'll probably be gone by then and we'll have to choose between Rudy or obamillary. Two sucky choices in my opinion.
as a TEXAN, I proudly support Ron Paul!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! he just makes sense.
I would not be opposed to a Colbert/Paul candidacy.
He is a excellent canidate for the job.The only problem is money is what drives our political system and not a person who has all the qualities rp exibits.It would be nice to see him win the nomination but,with those other two front running idiots have the bank of fools funding them and will prolly win the nomination.
[quote=Keeper Of The Light™ (Strazca)]note to self...have a cup of Jow before readin War forum...
I thought it said "Ru Paul, 2008".
I think you mean Joe... and I thought that at first too...
I mean, they let upperclass twits galore run... why not get a cross-dresser in Office? It'd at least be interesting to hear their stance on same sex relationships.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Yes, i did mean Joe
Spelling > KOTL
Goodbye Callisto & Skađi, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
Im still curious to hear how his whole "banish the IRS" deal would work. I've only heard it in statements, but no actual explination or "plan" on how to do so and how it would affect/change how the system works now.
i read his website briefly but its quite vague
anyone have a link or anything with articulated responses to his plans?
please forgive me, but i really dont watch any TV so I miss out on all the debates/political recaps, etc
If you want to "Banish the IRS" you likely have little idea about what the Government actually does, or the fact that you wouldn't have clean water, police, roads, a military or 2/3 of all the fun stuff you take for granted... because no one would have been able to PAY for that.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
i dont believe he is trying to "banish the irs", but instead wants to do away with the income tax. i could be down with that...or at the very least reform it. poor people shouldnt have to pay as much (percentage wise) as rich people and companies.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:If you want to "Banish the IRS" you likely have little idea about what the Government actually does, or the fact that you wouldn't have clean water, police, roads, a military or 2/3 of all the fun stuff you take for granted... because no one would have been able to PAY for that.
thats exactly my thought. and exactly why i was looking for his plan on how he would do that. but then again i would assume whoever i seen that quote from mis-spoke by using the word "banish".
Tabs - thats probably more realistic than what i read from some other posts.
I believe Alan Keyes wanted to end income tax as well. I think the result was increased sales tax, and several other options.
In general, it's not going to "cost" less, you just only get taxed on the money when you spend it, IE, Once. If you actaully calculate it a USD is worth about 65 cents after taxes, IIRC.
I like Ron Paul but not enough to vote for him.
He makes some good agreements, I especially like his foreign policy ideas. From what I understand he doesn't want to "get ride of" all the departments but rather see if private business can do it better, i.e. airport security. Now some people might jump on this idea because they think that the government is too involved with their lives. There are two sides of this argument. Yes there are some places that private markets could do a better job.
For example look up FEMA and New Orleans and Walmart. Walmart was there before anybody with food, water and supplies, they were able to mobilize and were more efficient. But the flip side you can look at the USPS, SSI (monthy checks) and a ton of governmental work that is way to huge for any private business to get into (currently the major I am going into Public Service) and is also very efficient.
I also like his constitutional stances, but since most people don't have a !$!##ing clue of how stuff came about and that the government isn't just the constitution people believe him . I know he keeps talking up the preemptive war and how we shouldn't have gone blah blah blah, but the power to stop the "invasion" of Iraq falls on Congress. They have the power of the purse and after, I think 30 or 60 days they could have stopped it. So for the past 5 years or so congress has kept tossing money to the war. They have to authorize the money, and as we have seem the newly elected pussy democrats still can't do anything to stop it.
He makes sense to a point but and a major but, if people where smart about who they elect they need to research and understand the so call talking points that each candidate makes and understand the pros and cons. He's got balls thats what I like about it, I really can see him in the cabinet or in the staff somewhere but not as president.
zero wrote:If the election were held today...we'd be really surprised! Anyway, I'm planning on voting for him as of now, but I don't see me getting that chance. He'll probably be gone by then and we'll have to choose between Rudy or obamillary. Two sucky choices in my opinion.
Are you going to vote in the primary? That is the real challenge, If he does not win the primary he will not win the election, even if he runs as an independent.
Emor8t wrote:I would not be opposed to a Colbert/Paul candidacy.
I know you were joking, but Colbert is probably a socialist. They would be polar opposites.
Joey Baggs (Eazy716) wrote:Im still curious to hear how his whole "banish the IRS" deal would work. I've only heard it in statements, but no actual explination or "plan" on how to do so and how it would affect/change how the system works now.
i read his website briefly but its quite vague
anyone have a link or anything with articulated responses to his plans?
please forgive me, but i really dont watch any TV so I miss out on all the debates/political recaps, etc
Ron Paul does want to abolish the IRS ENTIRELY, not partially. You can't simply do away with it and expect that to work. The first step would be to reduce spending dramatically, probably by cutting all of the federal government programs to a bare minimum. Now, this sounds brash, but the states could pick up some of the responsibility that the federal government would lose. You have more of a say-so in local affairs and local governments are less wasteful. The income tax was launched to pay for the civil war, but was never abolished. The income tax, while enforced, is unconstitutional. The 16th Amendment was not ratified by the required 3/4 of the states.
[GAM (The Kilted One)]If you want to "Banish the IRS" you likely have little idea about what the Government actually does, or the fact that you wouldn't have clean water, police, roads, a military or 2/3 of all the fun stuff you take for granted... because no one would have been able to PAY for that.
I disagree. Local governments already manage police departments, fire departments, water resources, roads and schools. They get some of the money from the federal government but not all. Even if they got all of their money from the federal government, we could to away with federal income tax and send the money to the local government without the middleman. The bottom line is that the federal government really just takes the money from us and hands it over to the local government, after taking their cut. The military is one place that the federal government should be involved. The feds should do the things that citizens and local governments can't, not much. Local governments should only do things that we can't, not much. Every power that you give them, you lose.
________________________
Ron Paul in 2008!
Constitution > Politics
Quote:
I disagree. Local governments already manage police departments, fire departments, water resources, roads and schools. They get some of the money from the federal government but not all. Even if they got all of their money from the federal government, we could to away with federal income tax and send the money to the local government without the middleman. The bottom line is that the federal government really just takes the money from us and hands it over to the local government, after taking their cut. The military is one place that the federal government should be involved. The feds should do the things that citizens and local governments can't, not much. Local governments should only do things that we can't, not much. Every power that you give them, you lose.
Sigh!! Yes local government manage emergency services (fire, police, EMS), but now they all fall under Homeland Security. They all follow the same FEDERAL regulations, standards in addition to local government statues.
I agree that there is a lot of wasted money and bureaucratic BS and we could debate what to get rid of for hours. Like i said in the other post there are a lot of things that the federal government should do and not states.
produce, issue and standardize money - treasury
FDA, SSI, USPS (far more work then private, UPS, etc), FEMA, I could go on. Point is this isn't the 1700's and States do have right but I don't ever foresee any president or congress for the fact of the matter getting rid any or most of the the federal departments.
Want to save money, look at the wars, 2.1 Trillion in spending!! Do you know how much other stuff that would pay for?
I think Ron Paul has a lot of good idea but I think some of his claims would be challenged in Congress and also by the Supreme Court.
mclonedogmcwad wrote:Sigh!! Yes local government manage emergency services (fire, police, EMS), but now they all fall under Homeland Security. They all follow the same FEDERAL regulations, standards in addition to local government statues.
Yes, they have to comply with the DHS when asked to, but that's pretty rare and is only supposed to happen in matters of homeland security. The DHS was not needed and is wasteful and ineffective. We already had measures in place to protect ourselves and those should have been strengthened by other means. Emergency services do have to follow certain standards but, aside from some funding and "special programs", the feds rarely get involved. The truth is that the local government handle virtually all emergency services and could handle more.
mclonedogmcwad wrote:I agree that there is a lot of wasted money and bureaucratic BS and we could debate what to get rid of for hours. Like i said in the other post there are a lot of things that the federal government should do and not states.
produce, issue and standardize money - treasury
FDA, SSI, USPS (far more work then private, UPS, etc), FEMA, I could go on.
Sure, there are some things, not many though. FDA? Well, they should make recommendations, but I don't believe that they should be able to keep drugs off the market. People should decide what drugs to take while taking the FDA's recommendations seriously. Companies would still be held accountable if drugs were harmful by the courts and the price of medicine would decrease.
SSI? Yeah, I want to send my money to the feds so that they can use it as they wish and I will have not right to it. SSI money comes from tax payers. I guarantee you that we could do better with our own money if they would just give it back to us. I will likely not have it when I get old enough to use it and that's not right. I EARNED that money and it should not be STOLEN from me to pay for other peoples problems. Is it wrong to be that selfish? No, I give to charity, but forced charity is theft, it's MY money.
USPS? Your joking, right? The main thing that the USPS has over UPS is that it is ILLEGAL to really compete with them by delivering regular mail. I believe in a free market, I don't think that the federal government should be as involved as they are now.
FEMA? No, local governments would be way better at responding to most emergencies(especially with the same funding), they could even combine their efforts should the need arise. If each state had a FEMA like organization, funded by people who live in that state, we would be better off.
mclonedogmcwad wrote:Point is this isn't the 1700's and States do have right but I don't ever foresee any president or congress for the fact of the matter getting rid any or most of the the federal departments.
Your right, this isn't the 1700s and the government would resist ANY measure that would decrease their power. Its strange that the opposite rarely happens, isn't it? After all, they would lose their jobs and we would keep more of OUR money. That doesn't mean that it would not be a good move thought.
FDA - 1900s
SSI - 1900s
USPS-1700s to "establish post offices and post roads"
FEMA- 1900s
mclonedogmcwad wrote:Want to save money, look at the wars, 2.1 Trillion in spending!! Do you know how much other stuff that would pay for?
I agree 100%, as does Ron Paul. Don't worry, the current administration used war as a last resort. *cough-Iraq *cough-Iran
mclonedogmcwadI think Ron Paul has a lot of good idea but I think some of his claims would be challenged in Congress and also by the Supreme Court.[/quote wrote:
MANY would be challenged by congress(most bills have some resistance) and some might be taken to the supreme court. Again, that doesn't make the ideas bad. As a matter of fact, it's about time that we make them earn our money and justify their habits. I think it's time to change our our outlook on the government's role and change our system up a bit, that's all.
________________________
Ron Paul in 2008!
Constitution > Politics
bigj480,
I agree and disagree, honestly thats why I love politics! Everybody is entitled to our own opinion. I don't want to keep beating the same horse.
On the subject of Ron Paul completely agree he has some ideas good or bad, depending on your political ideology. I don't think he will get elected let alone get even close but who knows anything could happen.
Also one more note, I mentioned the FDA, more on the food side. The govn't should be involved. Health codes, standardization, enforcement, etc. My roommate is a restaurant manager and also assistant director of safety and security for the company he works for....told me some crazy and sick story's.
It's not the federal government's job to provide clean local water, police and road paving. This is the job of local and state governments, neither of which are funded via the IRS.
Other Republican candidates (possibly excluding Tancredo) are just going to be a continuation of GWB. I don't want big government Democrats or big government Republicans. The threat of Hillary doesn't scare me anymore and I won't be frightened into voting for the lesser of two evils. It's either Ron Paul or I stay home. This is what I've written on the donation slips mailed to me by the RNC (aint prepaid postage grand?). I donated $100 two days ago to Dr. Paul and will never regret doing so. It makes me mad how the media outlets give Paul the cold shoulder, but it makes me happy when he triumphs anyway. Perhaps this will be the first election since the TV was invented where a candidate gets elected despite the newsmedia, making them irrelevent.
2002 Cavalier 2200 5spd
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:If you want to "Banish the IRS" you likely have little idea about what the Government actually does, or the fact that you wouldn't have clean water, police, roads, a military or 2/3 of all the fun stuff you take for granted... because no one would have been able to PAY for that.
Actually, it is you that have little idea about what the Government actually does.
Ron Paul wrote: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?
Some Blogger wrote:He is talking about what would happen if we were to completely abolish the IRS today. What would happen? The US would have 1/3 less cash than it would otherwise, but the remaining 2/3 would still be more than the entire 2000 budget. This points out two things to me:
1. The IRS would be really easy to reform, if not outright abolish. The Government would still have a plethora of avenues to aquire revenue, including constitutional methods: tarrifs and excise taxes. Even if we just abolished the IRS and did nothing else, the government would still have as much incoming revenue as it did in 2000!
2. If the government would have the same revenue as it did in 2000 by cutting out an entire 1/3 of the budget, what does that say about the government's spending habits?? That means a massive increase in the budget in just the past six years.
What is so important that we're doing now that we weren't doing back in 2000? The war? Not many today will argue that anymore. We can end the war, we can get rid of all the pork spending in Washington if our Congressman are allowed to at least read the bills before they're passed and by so doing we can easily restore this nation to using constitutional methods of taxation.
Besides, the FEDERAL government DOES NOT provide clean water, police or roads... that is all provided by STATES and in some cases by PRIVATE or PUBLIC COMPANIES.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edited Thursday, November 15, 2007 3:20 PM
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about
the former." - Albert Einstein
The answer to the irs is a national sales tax.U can check out this site and make up ur own mind
http://www.fairtax.org
everyone very internet based is all about ron paul..he's got quite the internet following but i still dotn know
My car may run 18s, but I can do your taxes in 10 seconds flat.
JBO lube - they would never have enough in stock and we'd never see RodimusPrime again
Ill vote for the first canidate that says they will mandate drug testing of anyone receiving state aid...
