Do you want ABSOLUTE life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

[stanmrak]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

Yeah, that's not a conspiracy theory in the slightest.... They said the same thing about Obama.

I haven't heard a peep from Obama about auditing the Federal Reserve, much less getting rid of it, like Ron Paul would. He also won't legalize currently-illegal drugs (a major source of profit for not just the banks, but the CIA) like Ron Paul would. These are the kinds of things that really scare the Washington insiders and the banks.

Obama's biggest campaign contributor was Goldman Sachs. He's one of them. Ron Paul is not.

[garentee]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

Do you understand what losses are, and what caring over losses means? As well as making money overseas and making money here?

They are not paying any Federal income tax this year, because they took massive losses last year, and carried it forward.

I'll give you an example of how that works, and why "Carrying forward" losses is a good idea. Take a research company. They spend 10 years developing a product, incurring severe operating losses all of those years. (Say $10 Million a year). They then make the product, and sell the patent for it for $100 Million.

They've actually made no money over 10 years. But their one year profit is $100 Million.

So, the headlines would be " Research company makes $100 million dollars!!! Yet, they did not pay a dime in federal income tax, while their secretary had to pay 35% of her income in taxes!! ".

See how silly that sounds, now that it's explained?

They did not profit domestically, but they did internationally from their lending. They don't bring home the money they make overseas so they don't have to pay taxes on it. As far as a corporation doing what it is legally obligated to do (maximize profits) they're doing great. Is that the best thing for America? Probably not. But when you get pushed into paying for the bottom 51% of non income tax payers, you tend to push back.

I'd like to add, that I haven't paid income taxes in a few years. Why don't I have to, and you do ? Because I have a business, and can show losses, where as an individual has no true losses, aside from cost of gas, and a few other tax write offs that they can use. My neighbor, uses his home as his business as well his car. He was paying a ton in income tax, working the same job, for some other guy. Now, he's working for himself, doing the same job, and paying barely any income tax. The reason you don't want to over tax business, is because it will squelch innovation, and there will be less jobs for people, who would have then paid income tax. If there is income tax, then this is the way it needs to be done. If we get rid of income tax, then we'll do things a different way. At the moment, this IS fair.

Yes I understand all of that... I too own a business.. a profitable farm business at that.. I pay my taxes and do not think that the taxes squelch innovation.. Do I pay too much in taxes? no. not if I budget for it..
I feel that the tax system is not fair right now because loopholes are available far more frequently for the wealthy then the "middle class" When push comes to shove the wealthy pay less taxes as a percentage of their incomes when all the loopholes are employed..

[garentee]

Originally Posted by scorpio1980

That's the point. We should have no income taxes. If you do that it is fair. Ron Paul is not for the wealthy or the poor. He is for individual freedom. You seem to be for the poor, and that is class-ism. I am for everybody being equal, and I say this as your everyday average American, far from being rich.

OK so NO income taxes? How is this country going to run? Seriously..

What the heck is wrong with speaking in defense of the poor? I advocate for the poor because I am so grateful for what I have...

[scorpio1980]

Originally Posted by garentee

OK so NO income taxes? How is this country going to run? Seriously..

What the heck is wrong with speaking in defense of the poor? I advocate for the poor because I am so grateful for what I have...

We didn't have an income tax before 1913. We would simply pay for government with through excise taxes and tariffs. We already get 55% of our revenue through these means anyways. Cut government spending and you don't need an income tax. Nothing wrong with helping the poor. I do it by donating my time, and money to the local rescue mission. You do the poor a dis service when they are treated as victims. Give them a hand up, not a hand out. Giving money to washington so they can spend it killing innocent people over seas, and housing illegal aliens is not what I want to fund.

[garentee]

Originally Posted by scorpio1980

We didn't have an income tax before 1913. We would simply pay for government with through excise taxes and tariffs. We already get 55% of our revenue through these means anyways. Cut government spending and you don't need an income tax. Nothing wrong with helping the poor. I do it by donating my time, and money to the local rescue mission. You do the poor a dis service when they are treated as victims. Give them a hand up, not a hand out. Giving money to washington so they can spend it killing innocent people over seas, and housing illegal aliens is not what I want to fund.

So you would advocate getting rid of all safety nets? What about people who are unable to work? What about people who have had severe unemployment issues? The jobless rate is higher then the 8.6% unemployment rate suggests, that is just the amount of people who are looking for work and getting benefits..Do you just let those people go by the wayside? I might add that the corporate welfare subsidies are higher then the social welfare programs.

corporate welfare

Lets be honest here for a minute...Ron Paul hasn't got a prayer. The game is rigged. Corporations have long since bought the politicians.. and elections. It aint going to happen. Not a chance. It is too late. this country has been an oligarchy for a long time..For the corporations by the coporations and of the corporations .. That is why RP does not get any traction or media attention. Without media attention he is sunk.
I agree with some of Dr. Pauls policies, but not enough to vote for him.. at this point I think I might vote for No one for President. I am sick of shat I see in Washintoon and while Dr. Paul has some good attributes my mind is set against voting for him....Though I do like his message about the ideas I do like to be included in the debate.. so for that I am glad to see him in there...

[stanmrak]

Originally Posted by garentee

OK so NO income taxes? How is this country going to run? Seriously..

I have heard that not a single dime of our income taxes goes towards running anything. There are over 100 other taxes that pay for that.

Revenue from income tax all goes into 2 places:
1. paying interest on the national debt
2. A part of the defense budget called "Undocumentable Overages", basically a secret black hole to funnel money into.

[scorpio1980]

Originally Posted by garentee

So you would advocate getting rid of all safety nets? What about people who are unable to work? What about people who have had severe unemployment issues? The jobless rate is higher then the 8.6% unemployment rate suggests, that is just the amount of people who are looking for work and getting benefits..Do you just let those people go by the wayside? I might add that the corporate welfare subsidies are higher then the social welfare programs.

corporate welfare

Lets be honest here for a minute...Ron Paul hasn't got a prayer. The game is rigged. Corporations have long since bought the politicians.. and elections. It aint going to happen. Not a chance. It is too late. this country has been an oligarchy for a long time..For the corporations by the coporations and of the corporations .. That is why RP does not get any traction or media attention. Without media attention he is sunk.
I agree with some of Dr. Pauls policies, but not enough to vote for him.. at this point I think I might vote for No one for President. I am sick of shat I see in Washintoon and while Dr. Paul has some good attributes my mind is set against voting for him....Though I do like his message about the ideas I do like to be included in the debate.. so for that I am glad to see him in there...

I recommend any "safety nets" be coughed up at the state level. I believe most of these "safety nets" shouldn't exist. I believe truly disabled people should have the ability to receive assistance. Corporate welfare shouldn't exists, but it exists because of the current system we have in place. Ron Paul is polling second in Iowa right now, and 3rd in the country. He also wins almost every straw poll. Not to mention his supporters do not leave him like the others. He doesn't ever fall in the polls, just a steady gain. I agree the system is rigged, and like you I sometimes feel hopeless about it. I won't give up on Ron Paul though. If he isn't elected I see no hope. We will just get more of the same if he isn't. I don't agree with everything RP says, but you can see his 30+ year voting record, and he votes with principles, not for lobbiest or money.

[garentee]

Originally Posted by scorpio1980

I recommend any "safety nets" be coughed up at the state level. I believe most of these "safety nets" shouldn't exist. I believe truly disabled people should have the ability to receive assistance. Corporate welfare shouldn't exists, but it exists because of the current system we have in place. Ron Paul is polling second in Iowa right now, and 3rd in the country. He also wins almost every straw poll. Not to mention his supporters do not leave him like the others. He doesn't ever fall in the polls, just a steady gain. I agree the system is rigged, and like you I sometimes feel hopeless about it. I won't give up on Ron Paul though. If he isn't elected I see no hope. We will just get more of the same if he isn't. I don't agree with everything RP says, but you can see his 30+ year voting record, and he votes with principles, not for lobbiest or money.

I do not feel hopeless about it, I am grateful for what I do have..and enjoy my life despite the state of politics.. as I know it could be a lot worse... A LOT. More later

[Brutha]

Maybe this would be a better starting point for this discussion. What can we reasonably expect from a president who has no support from his colleagues?

Ending the wars (including the drug war).

Restoring the rule of law where no part of the executive goes against the law but complies with all laws.
Government transparency.

Starting criminial procedings for the war crimes that various US politicians and official committed in the last decade.

Especially the last point will shake up the political system of the US.

[garentee]

Originally Posted by stanmrak

I have heard that not a single dime of our income taxes goes towards running anything. There are over 100 other taxes that pay for that.

Revenue from income tax all goes into 2 places:
1. paying interest on the national debt
2. A part of the defense budget called "Undocumentable Overages", basically a secret black hole to funnel money into.

What about this then? Tax Report: Where Do Your Tax Dollars Go? - WSJ.com

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by James Fletcher

So did FDR with the New Deal. And Obamacare.

True. It's interesting that they're two democrats, pure coincidence I suppose. There's tons of examples of politicians trying to make the world better and runing it in the process. That's why we should look at Paul's likely consequences as opposed to his intentions. Or any politician really. I do appreciate that he advocates something that is radically different from the others, but I don't know if it would be the best course of action.

Also, Obama was fairly independent and wasn't afraid of speaking his mind before Goldman Sachs bought him out during his campaign. Who's going to buy Ron Paul? Sorry if I sound jaded, I just don't trust these people anymore to be frank.

[stanmrak]

Originally Posted by garentee

What about this then? Tax Report: Where Do Your Tax Dollars Go? - WSJ.com

Take another look at this list. You can subtract social security and medicare expenses - those are additional payroll taxes, separate from income tax. I was talking federal income tax only. Take what's left on the list and calculate how much of it is for military spending and interest. It's somewhere near 90%.

[garentee]

Originally Posted by scorpio1980

I recommend any "safety nets" be coughed up at the state level. I believe most of these "safety nets" shouldn't exist. I believe truly disabled people should have the ability to receive assistance. Corporate welfare shouldn't exists, but it exists because of the current system we have in place. Ron Paul is polling second in Iowa right now, and 3rd in the country. He also wins almost every straw poll. Not to mention his supporters do not leave him like the others. He doesn't ever fall in the polls, just a steady gain. I agree the system is rigged, and like you I sometimes feel hopeless about it. I won't give up on Ron Paul though. If he isn't elected I see no hope. We will just get more of the same if he isn't. I don't agree with everything RP says, but you can see his 30+ year voting record, and he votes with principles, not for lobbiest or money.

Why do you believe that safety nets should not exist?.. What was life like before we had safety nets in place?..

[garentee]

Originally Posted by stanmrak

Take another look at this list. You can subtract social security and medicare expenses - those are additional payroll taxes, separate from income tax. I was talking federal income tax only. Take what's left on the list and calculate how much of it is for military spending and interest. It's somewhere near 90%.

So the place to start cutting spending IS the military.. the interest on the debt we cannot touch.. has to be paid down.I am in full agreement that something has to give, I am wary of Ron Paul though. Before we start cutting taxes we could pay down the debt ...

[JSB]

Originally Posted by garentee

Why do you believe that safety nets should not exist?.. What was life like before we had safety nets in place?..

Terrible for large numbers of people, though more of the population lived in rural areas in the past and were able to survive off of subsistence farming.

Welfare, food stamps, etc. --- think of them as riot insurance. Paying someone a pittance that allows them to survive (albeit in great poverty) isn't that expensive. If 5 to 10% of the population suddenly coudln't buy food, what would they do? They wouldn't sit around and die. They'd steal it, or mug people, or riot or whatever.

Paying for extra policing and repairing damage from large-scale rioting and looting would be a lot more expensive than handing out food stamps to people.

[garentee]

Originally Posted by JSB

Terrible for large numbers of people, though more of the population lived in rural areas in the past and were able to survive off of subsistence farming.

Welfare, food stamps, etc. --- think of them as riot insurance. Paying someone a pittance that allows them to survive (albeit in great poverty) isn't that expensive. If 5 to 10% of the population suddenly coudln't buy food, what would they do? They wouldn't sit around and die. They'd steal it, or mug people, or riot or whatever.

Paying for extra policing and repairing damage from large-scale rioting and looting would be a lot more expensive than handing out food stamps to people.

yup..

[ZaneEckle]

This piece dissects and dispells the idea that Paul is a strict constitutionalist, or that he will "give" you the freedom you think he would

Classically Liberal: Ron Paul signs pledge that would keep most libertarians out!


here's a sample

Paul whined because the court ruled "that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protect under the 14th amendment 'right to privacy.'" Actually Paul is ignorant, yet again, of the facts. The ruling was made on the basis of unequal status before the law. Texas had repealed the sections of sodomy laws that applied to everyone and only had laws that now applied to gay people, excepting heterosexuals. It was a case of inequality before the law. Conservatives embrace such inequality, not libertarians. Ron Paul embraces such inequality, not libertarians.


Take a real legal scholar like Randy Barnett, instead of the usually befuddled Paul, as more aware of the libertarian position on the constitution. Barnett has argued that the "equal protection clause" of the 14th Amendment, along with the 9th and 10th Amendments create a "presumption in favor of liberty." He argues that this legal foundation means the courts should presume that liberty is the favor position in ANY ruling, even the rulings that confused, old men of Christianist bent don't like.

[CroMagna]

If Ron Paul is such a freedom fighter, then how is it that's he's strongly pro-life?

[MeatisMurder]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

Do you know why G E paid no taxes ( which, you actually meant to say, no INCOME taxes. They paid a ton of taxes, FYI), or are you just against the thought of someone paying no taxes and don't care to bother investigating in case it goes against your point?

RUSSIANROCKET... SHUTUP. You dont know what you are talking about.

Don't be a selfish coward, go to the zoo...
and throw yourself into the bear habitat and let them eat you raw. Its good for them!

[James Fletcher]

Originally Posted by MeatisMurder

RUSSIANROCKET... SHUTUP. You dont know what you are talking about.

Don't be a selfish coward, go to the zoo...
and throw yourself into the bear habitat and let them eat you raw. Its good for them!

Seems during a rule reiteration on a forum the trolls fight back with a vengeance.