Posted on 09/26/2007 11:45:25 AM PDT by traviskicks
In fairness you should note the Paul version of starve the government involves defaulting on our debt and stripping virtually all services. Perhaps we can maintain a small semblance of government and perhaps a military 20% of todays size.
He should have had a plan yesterday.
You're right that some other candidates don't have detailed plans. But they don't make the radical proposals Paul does.
As an example, I believe both Gingrich and Giuliani have advocated shrinking government by only replacing half the federal retirees through their term. That would have an impact, an I'm not that concerned that they may not have addressed a disparity in retirements in one area versus another.
I'm comfortable that a candidate advocating closing the Department of Education could formulate plans once in office. Obviously many functions might persist elsewhere.
There's extensive planning out there regarding a flat tax, or a fair tax, VATs, and federal sales tax; none mentioned in the Constitution.
Paul advocates a repeal of the "unconstitutional" income tax, amendments being unconstitutional by nature, with no replacement.
Essentially requiring a default on our debt and a virtual shutdown of all government functions. Much depends on whether or not Paul wishes to cease SS taxes and benefits immediately as well.
That's thoroughly irresponsible.
The lack of a plan doesn't surprise me.
Because it's a bunch of BS, I doubt Paul even belives it, he just knows his supporters, and tosses them fresh meat.
As a Congressman from Texas, he's an amusement, as a Republican Presidential candidate, he's an embarassment to the Party.
Simple challenge to you Paulites. With NO slogans. NO demagoguery. NO sliming everyone else who doesn’t share your faith. Tell me HOW Paul would do anything. Here is his “Issues page”. NOT a word about what or how he would do anything. Just a bunch of slogans strung together basically screaming bile at everyone and everything.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/
So, you Paulites want civility? Then explain to us WHAT and HOW a Paul Administration would do. Do that with OUT sliming any one. No name calling, no hysteric hyper emotive rhetoric. None of the usual Paulite personal attacks in place of reason argument. No cut and pasting of sound bite statements from Paul speeches. NO statements of what YOU think Paul means. REAL plans with documented links so we can read them for ourselves.
That's consistant with his worldview.
There's no ideological component to Islamic terror.
Mideast terror is a reaction to American abuses in the region.
They're doing nothing more than any patriot would do.
In this case killing Americans. But in their own, non-ideological self interest.
We'd do the same thing.
You forget the founders suicide bombing squads.
Johnnie, I'm not playing. I'm not shilling for Paul on this Forum. All I'm doing is stating a FACT. Paul has extensive grassroots support, across the Internet, at colleges and universities, and from independent and swing voters disgusted with the two-party establishment. Reports are coming out that he may wind up with $10 million dollars for the 3Q. How will the GOP establishment, and the posters here who oppose Paul vehemently, are going to deal with this?
BTW Johnnie, you should take your own advice, click on the link, read some of his stands on the issues and learn something.
(chuckle)
No big deal, he’s had his ‘moment’ and now rational thought is prevailing and he’s being ignored by the forum’s hosting debates.
Simply by telling the truth about L.Ron more often, more loudly, more vigorously.
Congratulations Tribe! AL Central Champs)
They better enjoy it, because that's as far as they're going to get.
Maybe.
LOL
Riiiiiiiiiight.
I’ll play again, though it’s instructive that you didn’t address any of the actual numbers.
Does the Income tax pay for roads? No, gas taxes do.
Actually gas taxes are siphoned off for other purposes, but OK, we’ll direct them to the roads as we should. Taxes on airline tickets too. As you know we’re dealing with a piddly amount of $
Does the Income tax pay for education? No, local levys and property taxes do.
Yes, the states may continue to function. Local taxes and local expenditures don’t appear in the Federal budget, which is what we’re discussing.
Does the Income tax pay for Social Security? No, Social Security taxes do…. Does the Income tax pay for Medicare? No, Medicare taxes do.
More or less, you appear to believe in that lock box. But I acknowledged that, you get to $190 billion from $120 billion to spend by raiding social security. But still, you won’t play, what are you going to spend your $190 billion on>
Does the Income tax pay for defense? No, Corporate income taxes do.
There’s no connection, but $220 billion in un-Constitutional corporate income tax pays for a $512 billion Defense Department. Is Paul now in favor of retaining the IRS to collect an income tax on corporations?
Paulenomics at it’s best.
What does the Income tax pay for?
Nothing if we eliminate it.
Answer: 1) Interest on debt borrowing, largely from the non-federal money printer calling ifself the ‘Federal’ Reserve.
No problem, I’ve acknowledged the Paul “plan” includes a default on our debt. If banana republics can do it, so can we.
2) Waste. Is the Department of Education necessary? How about the Department of Housing and Urban Development? And so on ad infinitum.
The numbers Paul, and tell me how you’re going to do it.
The Income tax is a scam foisted on a small percentage of very wealthy Americans in 1913 …. But the greed of bankers would not put up with even 7% maximum. Over the decades they shifted the income tax burden to the middle class and used it to vacuum dollars out of circulation while they manufactured federal reserve notes to put into circulation….Ron Paul is aware of all that and more….Is there a better way? You damn right there is. Start by federalizing the Federal Reserve and stop paying interest on nothingness immediately. Enact the FairTax which will abolish the IRS and move immediately to repeal the 16th Amendment.
Thank you, the heart of the Paul argument.
It’s a scam, aka a conspiracy.
Cult leader Paul is aware of all that and more.
BTW, is Paul in favor of the Fair Tax, citations would be nice, who will administer it (the Fair Tax Revenue Service?) and where does it appear in the Constitution.
Dems don’t like what Limbaugh says either.
Historically corporate taxes always paid for military spending. Corporate tax rate cuts have forced the federal government to borrow manufactured notes from the Federal Reserve to take up the slack.
Add corporate tax revenues and debt borrowings to get 23% of all federal dollars. The military is exactly 23% of federal dollars. This is not a coincidence. And it is not associated with Ron Paul, it’s a fact, look it up.
And calling people names brings you no support.
As far as your FairTax questions, they are all answered thoroughly here:
Simple challenge to you Paulites. With NO slogans. NO demagoguery. NO sliming everyone else who doesn’t share your faith. Tell me HOW Paul would do anything. Here is his “Issues page”. NOT a word about what or how he would do anything. Just a bunch of slogans strung together basically screaming bile at everyone and everything. http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/ So, you Paulites want civility? Then explain to us WHAT and HOW a Paul Administration would do. Do that with OUT sliming any one. No name calling, no hysteric hyper emotive rhetoric. None of the usual Paulite personal attacks in place of reason argument. No cut and pasting of sound bite statements from Paul speeches. NO statements of what YOU think Paul means. REAL plans with documented links so we can read them for ourselves.
I support the Iraq war but I am curious where you and others get the idea that Ron Paul would cut and run, or that he is a coward.
He has a different opinion I know but that does not make him a person to cut and run or a coward in my view. Where do you get your view from?
Ron Paul may be the best congressman we’ve ever had, but he lacks the understanding of military and foreign policy issues necessary to be president.
Why bother publishing it? Those that are against him are not against him because of his stance on limited government. As I said he could lay it out tomorrow and you'd still be railing against him
As an example, I believe both Gingrich and Giuliani have advocated shrinking government by only replacing half the federal retirees through their term.
Oh well you didn't mention you believe in fairy tales. You should have said something before starting this conversation
Essentially requiring a default on our debt and a virtual shutdown of all government functions. Much depends on whether or not Paul wishes to cease SS taxes and benefits immediately as well. That's thoroughly irresponsible
Well I believe he's said that it would take time to get rid of SS and I honestly believe he understands that it would take time to get rid of the IRS. However trying to pass off 'privatization' of 1-2% of SS as some sort of huge change isn't very responsible, or truthful.
But I don't see why you say it would be irresponsible to get rid of SS tomorrow either. It was irresponsible to rely on government in the first place. I'm not related to those getting it so why should I have to pay for it? There used to be these things, charities and churches I believe they were called, that took care of the elderly as the Bible tells us. However I don't remember the Bible requiring the government to take care of us.
As a Congressman from Texas, he's an amusement, as a Republican Presidential candidate, he's an embarassment to the Party
To the party of big government that has no plan to pay anything more than lip service to limited government I imagine he is.
"What are you guys going to do if it turns out that the disembodied brain of William Shakespeare, kept alive by Nazi scientists all these years in a secret underground government bunker, actually dictated every last episode of Jake and the Fatman?"
"What are you guys going to do if Celine Dion becomes an ace reliever for the Houston Astros next year?"
"What are you guys going to do if it turns out that Batman and the Easter Bunny are actually real?"
Notice what all four of the queries listed above have in common.
Oh, come on. He was a major sponsor of the bill, one of the original three, along with McCain and Feingold. He helped shepherd the bill through the Senate.
He was against the restrictions on advertising and he was proud to have raised the amount that ordinary voters can donate to their candidates (hard money). He is also proud to have taken down the direct soft money contributions. This has the effect of curtailing the bribing and buying of politicians. That is a good thing which cannot be validly criticized.
Bulloney. Any infringement of free speech can be validly criticized, and bribery has always been illegal. CFR did nothing new to curtail that, but did limit the speech of free citizens in support of political viewpoints. Here is a particularly strong criticism of McCain-Feingold by JimRob.
Here is a detailed timeline of Thompson's involvement in CFR, by a member of Romney's camp. If he "was against the restrictions on advertising", then why did he include it in the original legislation and file a brief in support of the restrictions in the SCOTUS case four years ago? This is a valid criticism, but instead of addressing it, the Fred supporters on that thread just attacked the messenger.
As far as his supporters, I said their actions are childish and border on criminality (re: vandalism of currency, on-line gambling) because those actions are considered illegal under the law, as is smoking pot. IF he gets into office, then you can change those laws to your liking, but until then, I will hang with a more law abiding class of people.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.