Ron Paul 08

Page 1 of 13 [ 208 posts ] Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 13 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

snake321
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,135

27 Nov 2007, 10:08 pm

Ron Paul for president

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4KFjIwpJWs

DejaQ
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Feb 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,719
Location: The Silver Devastation

27 Nov 2007, 10:13 pm

Amen, bro.

richardbenson
Xfractor Card #351
$Xfractor Card #351$

Joined: 30 Oct 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,553
Location: Leave only a footprint behind

27 Nov 2007, 11:33 pm

i'll be voting for ron paul in 2008

KristaMeth
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 1 Oct 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 926
Location: Hick town near Harrisburg?Pa

28 Nov 2007, 1:36 am

Ron Paul is the reason I'm considering registering to vote.

Never, ever thought a politician could do that to me.

_________________
Push the envelope, watch it bend.

frankwah
Deinonychus

Joined: 5 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 325

28 Nov 2007, 10:16 am

Yes, I'll be voting for him.

ed
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Dec 2004
Age: 79
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,788
Location: Whitinsville, MA

30 Nov 2007, 1:04 pm

Ron Paul, for all his good points, advocates replacing the income tax with a consumption tax. This would be (another) boon for the weralthiest Americans, who spend a much smaller portion of their income than the poor. This is nothing but an attempt to reverse the tax tables, so that the poorer you are the higher the tax percentage you must pay. Typical pro-wealthy Republican!

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

30 Nov 2007, 1:37 pm

ed wrote:

Well, the idea of this tax is to promote savings because savings lead to greater economic growth and economic growth is typically seen as improving all people's positions. If greater economic growth is the result of this tax change then can we really call this nothing but an attempt to reverse the tax tables?

nbxyz
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

Joined: 25 Nov 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 53
Location: Long Island, NY

30 Nov 2007, 1:47 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

ed wrote:

You can promote savings all you want, but some people just live week by week, and can't afford anything out of their routine necessities. And others live off pensions which basically pay for you to live.
Savings is a nice concept, but I know many to whom savings is a very, very far away reality.

And savings does not promote the economy, spending does. Thats why you have the consumer spending index. More people spend, more money goes around, better things are. If everyone kept their money to themselves, then people won't be buying things, then the people selling things can't earn a living, and the companies making things can't pay their employees.
More spending = better economy.
Why does the economy go up usually good in times of war? Because the government is spending money.

I like Ron Paul, but I do have issues with the universal sales tax concept.

ed
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Dec 2004
Age: 79
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,788
Location: Whitinsville, MA

30 Nov 2007, 1:51 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Well, the idea of this tax is to promote savings

I guess you're lucky to earn enough money to be able to save. Congratulations. My AS traits prevent me from getting a job that pays that well. If his plan goes through, my tax rate will skyrocket!

I'm opposed in general to the philosophy "tax the poor and give it to the rich."

ed
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Dec 2004
Age: 79
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,788
Location: Whitinsville, MA

30 Nov 2007, 2:19 pm

I agree that it would be easier. I would rather keep the current tax tables, but eliminate all exemptions... everybody would get the same deductions. It's the exemptions that create all the paperwork. And, i don't see why some rich guy should get a higher exemption than I get.

Of course, this is impossible, the rich people set the rules.

Last edited by ed on 30 Nov 2007, 2:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

30 Nov 2007, 2:19 pm

At least among the Republicans, Ron Paul may be the best looking candidate. His name also rhymes with that of a recent pope.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

30 Nov 2007, 2:33 pm

ed wrote:

Well, eliminating most of the exemptions would be an improvement, however, still, promoting investment is something that a tax code can do and that would help as well. Even if greater inequality is a result, is progress something to be scorned? I mean, without investment we do not accumulate more capital and more capital leads to economic growth, and economic growth is typically considered a good thing.

Also, one of my posts was removed... I find that weird.

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 30 Nov 2007, 2:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ed
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Dec 2004
Age: 79
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,788
Location: Whitinsville, MA

30 Nov 2007, 2:36 pm

Taxes should not be used to promote anything. Taxes should be used to fund the government. period.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

30 Nov 2007, 2:38 pm

ed wrote:

Taxes should not be used to promote anything. Taxes should be used to fund the government. period.

Um.... by that logic then all taxes are equal whether they are flat in amount of money taxed or levied purely on the rich. That is ridiculous. The fact that we have different tax schemes that can be used means that we must choose between different schemes based upon other parameters than funding the government as we won't get a solution with that one parameter.

ed
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Dec 2004
Age: 79
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,788
Location: Whitinsville, MA

30 Nov 2007, 2:41 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

The fact that we have different tax schemes that can be used means that we must choose between different schemes based upon other parameters than funding the government as we won't get a solution with that one parameter.

Translated into English, that means that the wealthiest Americans should get to eliminate their taxes.

Last edited by ed on 30 Nov 2007, 2:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

30 Nov 2007, 2:43 pm

ed wrote:

Translated into English, that means that the wealthiest Americans should get to eliminate their taxes.

Nope. Translated into english, that means that taxes are by their nature more than funding the government. If they weren't more than that then you wouldn't care if the wealthiest Americans could eliminate their taxes.

Page 1 of 13 [ 208 posts ] Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 13 Next

Jump to:

Ron Paul 08 Post Reply New Topic

Ron Paul 08