Does anyone here like Ron Paul ?
Does anyone here like Ron Paul ?
Tax Cuts and Class Wars
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
President Bush unveiled a very modest tax cut plan last week that calls for the elimination of double taxation on dividends. Democrats immediately attacked the plan using class warfare tactics, clamoring that only the rich will benefit from a dividends tax reduction. This tired argument ignores the millions of middle class American investors who receive dividend checks and presumably don't consider themselves wealthy. It also ignores the stimulative effect that any form of tax cut has on the economy. When dividends are taxed only once, as corporate income, investment is encouraged and shareholder demand for dividends increases. This in turn encourages companies to increase profits, because it's hard to pay dividends if you're not making any money. But these arguments require some analysis, and the left would rather appeal to base emotions and attempt to paint the wealthy as sinister tax dodgers.
As with so many things in politics, the truth is exactly opposite. The so-called rich pay almost all of the income taxes in this country. In fact, the top 1% highest-earning Americans pay a whopping 37% of all individual income taxes collected. The top 10% pay 67%. In other words, 10% of Americans pay two-thirds of the taxes. Half of all taxpayers — those in the bottom 50% of earnings — account for less than 4% of income tax revenues. This means no matter how taxes are cut, it's nearly impossible for those cuts to primarily benefit lower-earning taxpayers. Tax cuts necessarily benefit those who pay the overwhelming bulk of the taxes. This simple truth allows the left to attack each and every tax cut proposal on the grounds that it disproportionately benefits the rich.
Yet we have exactly the kind of steeply progressive tax system championed by Karl Marx. One might expect the left to be happy with such an arrangement. At its core, however, the collectivist left in this country simply doesn't believe in tax cuts. Deep down, they believe all wealth belongs to the state, which should redistribute it via tax and welfare policies to achieve some mythical “social justice.” When people complain about having thirty to fifty percent of everything they earn devoured by taxes, the collectivists just shrug. They honestly believe it should be more, much more.
The class war tactic highlights what the left does best: divide Americans into groups. Collectivists see all issues of wealth and taxation as a zero-sum game played between competing groups. If one group gets a tax break, other groups must be rallied against it — even if such a cut would ultimately benefit them. Yet the class warriors forget that American wealth is not static, but rather very dynamic. Poor people become rich, and rich people lose all of their money. In fact, at no time in American history have more of the nation's wealthy earned rather than inherited their money. Rich family dynasties are increasingly rare, and are quickly destroyed by unproductive spendthrift generations. So when the left attacks the rich, they're attacking a fluid group that many poor Americans hope to join someday by moving up in life. Upward mobility is possible only in a free-market capitalist system, whereas collectivism dooms the poor to remain exactly where they are.
I'm in favor of cutting everybody's taxes — rich, poor, and otherwise. Whether a tax cut reduces a single mother's payroll taxes by forty dollars a month, or allows a wealthy business owner to save millions in capital gains, the net effect is beneficial. Both either spend, save, or invest the extra dollars, which helps all of us infinitely more than if those dollars were sent to the black hole known as the federal Treasury. The single mother desperately needs those extra dollars, and that's why we should reduce or eliminate her payroll taxes. As for the wealthy business owner and whether he “needs” the extra dollars, I'll simply relate the old adage of the man who said “I've never had my paycheck signed by a poor man.”
January 22, 2003
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul74.html
I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Paul last August. He was visiting his brother and he schedule a talk in E. Aurora N.Y. I find him likable enough but I have doubts if he can function as a commander in chief in a war situation. In any candidate I vote for I look for the "killer instinct". I will not vote for anyone who is not a warrior.
ruveyn
I don't agree with him on everything (especially foreign policy), but I really hope he wins the GOP nomination. His record presents a picture of a man with honest conviction. I'm very, very cynical about politicians, but if I were to ever trust one to govern as they promised, I would trust Ron Paul.
As someone who is has a bit of a history of representing the unpopular side on a number of issues I can sympathize with the supporters of Ron Paul and some others. One of the most difficult things to do is to separate a fashionable thought from a real one. Ron Paul does not have fashionable thoughts but neither does he have many real ones; thus his supporters are genuinely impoverished.
_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.
I think 100% implimentation of his policies would destroy the country, but he's one of the few amongst the Republican contenders that is sane about getting us embroiled (or out of, as the case may be) wars all over the world. I'd vote for him before I'd vote for Bachmann, Perry, or Gingrich.
An Obama/Paul debate would certainly be interesting to watch.
An Obama/Paul debate would certainly be interesting to watch.
Paul wouldn't be able to debate Biden successfully, let alone Obama.
Newt Gingrich is the only candidate running that can defeat Obama.
I didn't say he'd win the debate, I said that it'd be interesting to watch.
As for who can beat Obama, you are incorrect:
http://europeancourier.org/test/2011/11 ... elections/
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011 ... f=magazine
at leastGingrich isn't as stupid as the previous Republican front-runners, but he is an evil scam artist. Get over him.
As for who can beat Obama, you are incorrect:
http://europeancourier.org/test/2011/11 ... elections/
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011 ... f=magazine
at leastGingrich isn't as stupid as the previous Republican front-runners, but he is an evil scam artist. Get over him.
Jon Huntsman is a scam artist, he was Obama's ambassador to China and was endorsed by Michael Moore.
He's to the right of Ronald Regan, darling. The fact that he's 'left' of the rest of the Republican front-runners is only evidence of how extreme they are; independents wouldn't touch most of them with a 10-foot pole. Read the citations; I even threw in a right-wing one for you there.
Ron Paul is one of the politicians most over-rated by netizens and young adults in general. Being an isolationist paleoconservative isn't that much of an improvement over being a neoconservative.
You're being disingenuous calling him an isolationist. Non-interventionism ≠ shutting yourself off from the rest of the world and I think you know that. I figure you're probably more of an "internationalist" in foreign policy but I really don't know where you're coming from when you say Ron isn't much better than the "neoconservatives", that are present in both parties, who not only are interventionist(in other countries and our economy) but trample civil liberties and blatantly work to destroy our constitution. As a social democrat(correct me if that is the wrong label) I expect you to disagree on economic issues but not on foreign policy or civil liberties.
Ron Paul would destroy Obama in a debate btw. He already owns the GOP debates which you can tell by the amount of the GOP candidates over the last few years that try to rip off a few of his ideas. How many people did you hear about talking about the Federal Reserves a few years ago? Now it's a mainstream issue.
I like Ron Paul, but I like Gary Johnson better. Younger, less baggage, more executive experience, just generally more electable. Too bad people only notice him when he cribs one liners from Rush though.
_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.
- Rick Sanchez
He wants to dismantle parts of the Federal Government and hand a lot of the responsibilities to the states and communities.
He's not a war hawk, which would be a breath of fresh air, considering we were on pace to be at war, forever maybe?
He's against the forever War on Drugs, and stomping that program out would be beneficial internationally. He said many kids have less of a problem finding drugs than getting alcohol, and he's right. Plus if those kids future is looking as bad as it does now, it would be better that they familiarize themselves to the vices of drugs ![]()
