I would be for raising taxes and attempting to balance the budget if at the same time we cut alot of unnecessary federal programs and stop policing the world.
I would be for raising taxes and attempting to balance the budget if at the same time we cut alot of unnecessary federal programs and stop policing the world.
It's a shame that Ron Paul gets characterized as "looney" by those who do not understand the ideological basis for his viewpoints, which happens to be the ideological basis upon which this country was founded--limited constitutional government, personal liberty, free markets, non-interventionist foreign policy, etc. The Republican party claims to adopt the same ideology, but we know this is not the case on many issues. Because of his unwavering commitment to his beliefs, some of his viewpoints differ from the other candidates on the stage, but that doesn't make Ron Paul a "nutjob". If anything, it makes me question the commitment that the other candidates have to their beliefs.
It's better to take the time to think about the overriding ideology to which you'd like to see the government adhere, and make your policy decisions based on that rather than to look at each issue case by case without a philosphy to anchor your decisions. This is what liberals do. They see a problem in our country and automatically assume that it's the job of the government to fix it. Ron Paul might say in that case, "Sure this issue is a problem for some people, but I don't believe that it's the role of the government to intervene in this situation."
Stupid Lefties wrote:
there is it wrote:It's a shame that since so many people in this country have such little understanding of the constitution and foreign affairs Ron Paul sounds "looney."
What does understanding the constitution and foreign affairs have to do with Ron Paul being looney? I already agreed with RFXCrunner when he said there is a lot to like about Ron Paul. He is good to have in the national debate, as he does create conversation. That doesn't take away from the fact that Ron Paul, on stage spouting out about inter-continental superhighways running through your backyard, is looney. Or the believing that isolationism against radical islamic terrorists, when they have already attacked us on our own soil, is looney.
You are wrong as so many levels I don't know where to begin. First of all, Paul is for non-intervention, not isolationism. Second, Paul is dead on by stating that blowback is the reason for Islamic terrorist attacks on US soil and on US interests abroad. I am no defender of Islam: like all religions, it is based on ridiculous supernatural notions and hurts every society in touches. But to think that Islamic terrorism would be an issue here if the US had no pressence in the Middle East shows a total lack of historical perspective.
oftenrunning52 wrote:
By 2000, the country was in an economic recession which was worsened by September 11, 2001. The tax breaks created since then have created the economic prosperity enjoyed over the last few years. While it seems paradoxical, tax cuts raise the federal revenue because it encourages large income citizens to reinvest and use their money instead of hiding that money in shelters or offshore. If you look back at former adminstrations like Kennedy and Reagan, you'll see the evidence that tax cuts do raise federal revenues.
Tax cuts were a very minor stimulus to the economy. The thing that has kept the economy going since 2000 has been the ridiculously low interest rates. It allowed tons of new people to enter the housing market. This inflated housing prices, which allowed people to sell or refinance and pull out a ton of money they didn't previously have. It created a lot of jobs in mortgage financing, realty, and construction. All construction supplies, appliances, furniture, and landscaping industries got a boost. It was just amazing. And now it's coming to an end.
Wealthy citizens already pay pretty low taxes. The tax rate on capital gains is 15% or something. If you cut income taxes it only has a tiny effect on investment levels.
bro fro wrote:
I would be for raising taxes and attempting to balance the budget if at the same time we cut alot of unnecessary federal programs and stop policing the world.
If we cut unnecessary federal programs and stopped policing the world, we could balance the budget without increasing taxes. In fact we could balance the budget while significantly DECREASING the tax rate.
oftenrunning52 wrote:
By 2000, the country was in an economic recession which was worsened by September 11, 2001. The tax breaks created since then have created the economic prosperity enjoyed over the last few years. While it seems paradoxical, tax cuts raise the federal revenue because it encourages large income citizens to reinvest and use their money instead of hiding that money in shelters or offshore. If you look back at former adminstrations like Kennedy and Reagan, you'll see the evidence that tax cuts do raise federal revenues.
the last part of this post is misleading at best and completely untrue at worst. every reputable study, government or private sector, on the topic has shown that the lost revenue as a result of lower tax rates has been larger than the revenue gained from those lower rates. the gross government revenue can increase anyway because of inflation and otherwise expected growth in the economy.
and to the person who said that a third or more of one's paycheck goes to the federal government, that is also highly misleading and only true for a tiny segment of the population. around half of all american taxpayers pay nothing or next-to-nothing to the federal government in terms of income taxes. they'll pay around 10% for social security and medicare taxes.
as for the remaining half, the highest marginal tax rate is around 35%, but if you understand how marginal taxation works, not all of that person's income is taxed at 35%, so the average rate is very rarely above 30%. with respect to payroll taxes, social security taxes don't apply to income above around $95,000 and medicare taxes are small, around 2%. so even very high earned income americans pay around 33% at most, and that's before deductions are taken into account (and also before the AMT, but that is at 28%). this is also ignoring that wealthier folks often "earn" much of their income from dividends and capital gains, which are taxed at a 15% rate.
all told, maybe 1% of americans pay more than 33% of their paycheck to the federal government (perhaps 2-5% if you consider dividends/capital gains income to be excluded from your "paycheck"). the large majority of americans pay under 25% of their paycheck to the federal government in taxes.
as for the debate, i didn't watch it, but the articles i have read make huckabee's performance seem quite positive.
boredman wrote:
Should I be surprised? Calling a candidate a "looney" because they're either parroting ABCNBCCBSFOXCNN, or because of some deep rooted fear of realities they have no grasp of? So much for critical thought.
You do understand that there is a difference between isolationism and non-intervention, or perhaps you don't?
The reserve banking system and it's proxy wars are, and should be, living on borrowed time. Ron Paul isn't the alone in understanding this concept, he just happens to be the only politician who's brave and honest enough to properly address it.
Once again Ron Paul wins the debate.
You are correct, I should have used "non-interventionism" instead of "isolationism" since I was only speaking militarily. That doesn't change my arguement that Paul believing NON-INTERVENTIONISM against radical islamic terrorists is looney. He is advocating pulling back and wait to get attacked (AGAIN!) before doing anything. Tell me how that makes sense.
As for Paul winning the debate, he was probably the worst debater/public speaker on the stage last night.
You Paul supportors remind me alot of the rabid Deaniacs of 2004. We all know how that ended up...HYAAA!!!!
rpia wrote:
If we cut unnecessary federal programs and stopped policing the world, we could balance the budget without increasing taxes. In fact we could balance the budget while significantly DECREASING the tax rate.
Truth! The problem with todays Federal government is not that is is in control of the armed forces or regulates our economy, it is that it wastes so much damn money on stuff that we don't need. And all I hear from a lot of liberal types is for more government intervention in peoples lives (ban smoking in public places! higher taxes for the rich! make all illegals citizens(and therefore eligible for government aid)!), more programs for more people, and all that translates to is even more money that the government will either have to borrow from other countries or tax us for.
RFXCrunner wrote:
Truth! The problem with todays Federal government is not that is is in control of the armed forces or regulates our economy, it is that it wastes so much damn money on stuff that we don't need.*1 And all I hear from a lot of liberal types is for more government intervention in peoples lives (ban smoking in public places! higher taxes for the rich! make all illegals citizens*2(and therefore eligible for government aid)!), more programs for more people*3, and all that translates to is even more money that the government will either have to borrow from other countries or tax us for.
*1: under a Republican regime the goverenment grew larger than it has in any other time in history, adding even a whole new branch.
*2: what liberal says this?
*3: stupid vague.
Winner?I would say Huckabee,McCain and Paul were not as embarassing as the others.Especially Romney and Giuliani acted like 5-year olds.
madarin wrote:
You are wrong as so many levels I don't know where to begin. First of all, Paul is for non-intervention, not isolationism. Second, Paul is dead on by stating that blowback is the reason for Islamic terrorist attacks on US soil and on US interests abroad. I am no defender of Islam: like all religions, it is based on ridiculous supernatural notions and hurts every society in touches. But to think that Islamic terrorism would be an issue here if the US had no pressence in the Middle East shows a total lack of historical perspective.
You say I am wrong on so many levels but cite one example of something I wrote being wrong. Over dramatize much?
First of all, I stated Paul favors "isolationaism against radical islamic terrorists". You are correct, I should have said non-interventionism. My Bad. But does that mean he would want trade, economic ties and cultural exchange with radical islamic terrorists. I hope he doesn't want that. So, really insert either "-ism" and the argumant remains the same.
I don't disagree that blowback is a major reason for terrorist attacks on us, but unless Ron Paul has a time machine to take us to back to when Isreal was formed, no amount military retreat from the middle east will change Islamic hatred towards us. Because as long as there is even a perceived friendship with Isreal, that will remain. To think otherwise shows a total lack of historical perspective. Or is Ron Paul advocating severing ties with Isreal, opening one hell of a can of worms.
Stupid Lefties wrote:
madarin wrote:You are wrong as so many levels I don't know where to begin. First of all, Paul is for non-intervention, not isolationism. Second, Paul is dead on by stating that blowback is the reason for Islamic terrorist attacks on US soil and on US interests abroad. I am no defender of Islam: like all religions, it is based on ridiculous supernatural notions and hurts every society in touches. But to think that Islamic terrorism would be an issue here if the US had no pressence in the Middle East shows a total lack of historical perspective.
Or is Ron Paul advocating severing ties with Isreal, opening one hell of a can of worms.
He would indeed advocate severing certain ties to Isreal. Since he has what you don't, historical perspective, he knows that taking Jefferson's advice (commerce with all nations, alliances with none), would end the blowback the US has faced from Islmaic terrorism. It may be a can of worms, but it is not the US's can.
Ron Paul says some good things, but also blames the US for 9/11 and couldn't say who controls the northern part of Iraq (it's the Kurds, Ron). He is a bit whacked out I would say.
Hey "stupid lefties", time to change your name to "stupid RIGHTIES", because it is the libertarian wing of your party supporting Paul, and last time I checked, that was considered pretty far right on lots of stuff, correct? Yup.
And why don't the Repubs just come out and say, "we hate gays" ? It would be honest. Yes the "don't ask don't tell" policy was Clinton's, but at least now, the DEMS support overturning it. Not a single Repub does as I can tell. That is a completely unconstitutional position. How can you tell someone in the military serving their country that they can not perform a legal sex act on their own time, or even worse, SIMPLY STATE that they are gay to others??!? Freedom of speech?? If you are gay and in the military, you can't even TELL anyone in your unit you are gay or they will kick you out? Incredible. And why? Because the others in your unit are all supposedly arch-conservatives and therefore they would be so disgusted it would tear apart the unit. What if someone in the unit said they supported legal abortions, should they be kicked out too? Apparently, because that viewpoint would also disgust the conservatives in the group.
"don't ask don't tell" is unconstitutional bias against someone for their legal behavior in private and for something they were likely born to be and do. It is a disgrace for repubs to have this viewpoint. But I expect nothing less from that party.
I believe that we already are allies with and have substantial trade with the most radical and fundamentaist Islamic regime in the middle east, that being Saudi Arabia. Yes Saudi Arabia, the country who's population hates the USA more so than any other.
BTW, isn't Saudi Arabia home to the "terrorists" who pulled off 911?
As for Isreal, cut funding (not ties) and see how long it takes them to figure out how to get along with their neighbors.
madarin wrote:
He would indeed advocate severing certain ties to Isreal. Since he has what you don't, historical perspective, he knows that taking Jefferson's advice (commerce with all nations, alliances with none), would end the blowback the US has faced from Islmaic terrorism. It may be a can of worms, but it is not the US's can.
Dude, do you have any idea how many Jews are in the US? Do you have any idea how fast a conflict btween Isreal and Arab countries would escalate? Does NUCLEAR mean anything to you?
Not the US's can...Ha!...you're delusional
It was a big mistake for the U.S. in 1948 to steal Palestine. We all know that now. 9-11 would not have occurred if the U.S. respected the Arab people and let the British Empire withdrawl in utter shame from the Middle East. We have spent trillions, and for what, now the Arabs are positioning Chinese Tactical Nuclear weapons to launch into Israel.
Stupid Lefties wrote:
RFXCrunner wrote:The worst thing is, I like a lot of what Ron Paul Says- I\'m a small federal government kind of guy, lets the states have control over how they run themselves and take care of the regional needs that can actually be targeted. Unfortunately, I couldn\'t ever vote for him for two reasons- I don\'t agree with his Iraq policy and the changes he proposes will never ever happen, especially not all at once. The current political atmosphere of congress would shoot down his proposals faster than you can imagine.
I agree. Ron Paul is an honest, stick to his convictions guy, which is what we need more of. He\'s just looney. He can\'t be taken seriously. He\'s the Dennis Kucinich of the Republican side.
There\'s no virtue in being honest and sticking to your convictions if you are wrong. Bush sticks to his convictions and I despise him (honesty is a different matter. I don\'t think he\'s been particularly honest). I don\'t like politicians who change their positions with the shifting of the polls but there is a virtue in changing your position when new facts come in. Ron Paul is like a religious fundamentalist. He has the right answer and nothing will ever change his mind. That\'s not a characteristic I want in a leader.
W. Bush has been named by the people the worst President in U.S. history. But Ron Paul is no solution. The dude is wierd, and a Jesus Nazi. That's the last thing the U.S. needs is some wacko who takes his lead from the Pope. We need an American as president this time.
Romney has my vote. Not even close.
It was all BS. It's always ALL BS. Tell me they didn't cherrypick the questions and questioners?
Please.
We are all cannon fodder for them.