Ron Paul Critique

[guartz]

My support of Ron Paul is mostly based off what I learned in my American Government Honors class in college. We were very heavy on talking about the constitution and what the Founding Fathers believed should be the way the country is run.

I think a number of things Ron Paul proposes would have some more immediate negative effects than positive ones, I think anyone who actually know what they're talking about will agree. But Ron Paul and many supports I'm sure will tell you that after some time, it'll be far more positive than the way things have been going.

Yes, yes... this post I like.

[Eaglestrike]

Didn't even notice all the misspellings and such in that post, oops XD

[guartz]

Didn't even notice all the misspellings and such in that post, oops XD

The point is, if Ron is magically elected, and he magically pulls off the reduction, what he is doing is taking us back to point X (the happy days?) which will eventually leads us back where we started. Andrew Jackson did something similar, (and there was an attempt on his life) but then again, killing THE bank then, was much, much easier then killing the giant of a monster now, since it's infinitely larger now.

Do you see what I'm trying to say here? I don't wanna actually go on and say it, because i'll be e-lynched.

[Erza]

I support him because of his non-interventionist foreign policies and until the US gets a president that can keep their finger off the war button I predict more planes or something to that degree.

[evilbau]

Didn't even notice all the misspellings and such in that post, oops XD

The point is, if Ron is magically elected, and he magically pulls off the reduction, what he is doing is taking us back to point X (the happy days?) which will eventually leads us back where we started. Andrew Jackson did something similar, (and there was an attempt on his life) but then again, killing THE bank then, was much, much easier then killing the giant of a monster now, since it's infinitely larger now.

Do you see what I'm trying to say here? I don't wanna actually go on and say it, because i'll be e-lynched.

seeing as this is all academic (since ron paul has no chance) i will indulge you a bit. FairTax, destroying the Fed, moving away from fiat currency to some commodity-backed one; all these things are somewhat radical & drastic solutions to our current economic problems (and in his view, fundamental flaws in our system). I don't like being the 'sky is falling' guy but unless a very good transition is put into place, they could destroy the U.S. economy. Our people, our companies, our government is so leveraged that disrupting it now in any of those ways would make our current credit crisis look like fun times by comparison. But in no way is this an acceptable way for us to operate as a nation so we can't let it continue, but the answer is certainly not these proposed extreme solutions.

We need stricter regulations, and untangle what basically amounts to a financial house of cards, where if any one thing fails, our economy is fucked. But at the same time not forgo the advantages of credit which enables growth. We definitely need to fix things to get the best of both worlds.

Sure our constitution describes how the role of government plays into all this, but they didn't forsee the amount of change and growth that would take place, so its interpretation has evolved. I'm happy that it changes with the times, I don't feel a need for us to follow the constitution so strictly. Its just my personal opinion.

[Blarg]

I give Paul a pass on the not believing in evolution, like he would even admit he believed in it if he does. The guy is like 70 years old, he grew up in such a different time that I'm sure the idea of creation is ingrained in him. In his case I think that the creation belief has less to do with how much of an idiot he is, but for the other younger guys it is more disappointing. To base your vote on that one fact is pretty stupid itself, your vote is for president not for a high school biology teacher job. You can count it as a strike against them but to put so much emphasis on creation/evolution is pretty silly to me.

[evilbau]

I give Paul a pass on the not believing in evolution, like he would even admit he believed in it if he does. The guy is like 70 years old, he grew up in such a different time that I'm sure the idea of creation is ingrained in him. In his case I think that the creation belief has less to do with how much of an idiot he is, but for the other younger guys it is more disappointing. To base your vote on that one fact is pretty stupid itself, your vote is for president not for a high school biology teacher job. You can count it as a strike against them but to put so much emphasis on creation/evolution is pretty silly to me.

well said i completely agree. my dad is a chemistry professor and probably the smartest guy I know and 100% man of science. He was raised catholic and believes in god and creationism (and of course evolution). Faith (or lack of it) is neither a strike for or against someone. I suppose this idea is in short supply hehe

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Didn't even notice all the misspellings and such in that post, oops XD

The point is, if Ron is magically elected, and he magically pulls off the reduction, what he is doing is taking us back to point X (the happy days?) which will eventually leads us back where we started. Andrew Jackson did something similar, (and there was an attempt on his life) but then again, killing THE bank then, was much, much easier then killing the giant of a monster now, since it's infinitely larger now.

Do you see what I'm trying to say here? I don't wanna actually go on and say it, because i'll be e-lynched.

seeing as this is all academic (since ron paul has no chance) i will indulge you a bit. FairTax, destroying the Fed, moving away from fiat currency to some commodity-backed one; all these things are somewhat radical & drastic solutions to our current economic problems (and in his view, fundamental flaws in our system). I don't like being the 'sky is falling' guy but unless a very good transition is put into place, they could destroy the U.S. economy. Our people, our companies, our government is so leveraged that disrupting it now in any of those ways would make our current credit crisis look like fun times by comparison. But in no way is this an acceptable way for us to operate as a nation so we can't let it continue, but the answer is certainly not these proposed extreme solutions.

We need stricter regulations, and untangle what basically amounts to a financial house of cards, where if any one thing fails, our economy is fucked. But at the same time not forgo the advantages of credit which enables growth. We definitely need to fix things to get the best of both worlds.

Sure our constitution describes how the role of government plays into all this, but they didn't forsee the amount of change and growth that would take place, so its interpretation has evolved. I'm happy that it changes with the times, I don't feel a need for us to follow the constitution so strictly. Its just my personal opinion.

The Fairtax was how our government was funded up until like 1916, so its not really that drastic.

Why do people think there is a credit crisis right now? What is it, like 95% of the people are paying their mortgage and not being foreclosed on. On a side note this is another example of how government intervention fails.

[Charla]

95% sounds great until you remember that 1% one way or the other represents about a hojillion dollars of loss to lenders who have to keep their own lenders happy with continuous good news. As evilbau said, it's all a house of cards. That's just the morgatage crisis though. What I think of as the credit crisis is the 763 billion dollars of credit card debt that we spend most of our time ignoring.

As for fairtax: it would probably work just fine as long as everyone involved plays by the rules. I just believe that's [urlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff]too much to ask[/url].

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Question on the credit crisis as I know nothing about it, but if I have $100 on my credit card is that counted in it?

What does Jack Abramoff have to do with the Fairtax?

[*Shinzon*]

Why is this guy still being discussed. I clearly showed in the post before this one about Ron Paul that the items he votes on does not support his views. Hes nothing more than a politician receiving anonymous donations and claiming that he has a larger amount of supporters than he actually does.

We also established the reasons that his ideals won't work, mainly the idea of giving the states back a majority of the power, because it doesn't work, most states would go bankrupt. This is a stupid topic that keeps being brought up. HE WONT WIN DROP IT.

Edit: In response to the credit thing, thats not so much related to the government, but related to the laws that govern bank loans. And Alot of those foreclosures are caused by people not being responsible for their financial situation, which is nothing new. The reason its getting attention is because theres so many more idiots buying houses that can't afford them or don't know how to manage their finances.

[Neosutra]

I give Paul a pass on the not believing in evolution, like he would even admit he believed in it if he does. The guy is like 70 years old, he grew up in such a different time that I'm sure the idea of creation is ingrained in him. In his case I think that the creation belief has less to do with how much of an idiot he is, but for the other younger guys it is more disappointing. To base your vote on that one fact is pretty stupid itself, your vote is for president not for a high school biology teacher job. You can count it as a strike against them but to put so much emphasis on creation/evolution is pretty silly to me.

You want the guy that leads 300 mil people and makes decisions that effect the entire planet to have a toddlers understanding of what humanity even is, or even the basics of our planet? Its people like that who think we can piss oil and pollution for the next 1000 years and not have an influence on our planet because "god gave it to us". There is a difference between asking our leaders to be biology phds and having them be at least above a high school lvl in understanding of life as we know it.

I havent met a Ron Paul supporter yet that didnt come off as at least partially mentally handicapped or at least completely unaware of anything related to reality.

[Charla]

I think they count the unpaid balance on all credit cards when the bank/credit union/whatever files their report to whoever keeps track of it, so yes that $100 would be counted. Jack Abramoff represents the corrupting effect of money upon politics. I used his page to indicate that I don't believe it's possible for politics to exist without corruption, and that corruption would have much worse consequences with fairtax than with income tax, because fairtax as I understand depends on giving taxes back before collecting them to those who need it, to turn an essentially regressive structure into an effectively progressive one. Because progressive taxation is the correct approach, this then turns fairtax from a good thing into a bad thing as soon as people like Mister Abramoff get involved.

@shinzon: I think we derailed Ron Paul.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I think they count the unpaid balance on all credit cards when the bank/credit union/whatever files their report to whoever keeps track of it, so yes that $100 would be counted. Jack Abramoff represents the corrupting effect of money upon politics. I used his page to indicate that I don't believe it's possible for politics to exist without corruption, and that corruption would have much worse consequences with fairtax than with income tax, because fairtax as I understand depends on giving taxes back before collecting them to those who need it, to turn an essentially regressive structure into an effectively progressive one. Because progressive taxation is the correct approach, this then turns fairtax from a good thing into a bad thing as soon as people like Mister Abramoff get involved.

@shinzon: I think we derailed Ron Paul.

I'm not quite sure what your critique of the Fairtax means. The Fairtax relies on businesses that already collect sales taxes at the time of purchase to collect more.

How would corruption increase with the Fairtax or be much worse? There will be a lot less tax evasion under the Fairtax.

[Ushallbeasgods]

I've never understood US politics (and I'm a politics major up here in Canada). Why is America so anti-bureaucracy? I'm sorry but there are some things in this world that I would NEVER trust a private firm who has profit first, people second to run. Some things are just too big or too necessary to trust the private sector to deliver.

For example a mass transportation system should be accessible to all who need it. The majority of users of public transportation are either too poor to afford the upkeep of a car, physically disadvantaged in someway or want to reduce their personal green house emissions. In order to ensure consistent, reliable service (including odd hours of the day when ridership is low) you need government to run it. For that odd shift worker who doesn't get off till 12:00 they need that bus to run to get home and a private firm will not deliver it.

Bureaucracies get an unfair rap. Its not that they want to be slow and inefficient its just the politicians put in all these rules that they have to follow to the letter. And guess what? If they used logic and tried to be efficient you'd bitch that they wasted your money and didn't take proper care to make sure it was spent well. Its really a lose lose situation. Either your slow and inefficient but you follow ALL the rules or your corrupt/stupid but at least you move fast.

I'm talking from personal experience here because I work for the Department of National Defense in Canada. We have some fucking stupid rules that make us slow and inefficient. We don't dare break them though because not only would we get fired but the media and the public would be on our asses about how we're breaking rules and not being careful with the public's money. But by following the rules we're bashed by our media about being slow and ineffective.

Basically I'm trying to say you don't need to love the bureaucracy. Just understand that there are some things the government can deliver better than the private sector. You might go as far as calling it a necessary evil.

[Charla]

I think they count the unpaid balance on all credit cards when the bank/credit union/whatever files their report to whoever keeps track of it, so yes that $100 would be counted. Jack Abramoff represents the corrupting effect of money upon politics. I used his page to indicate that I don't believe it's possible for politics to exist without corruption, and that corruption would have much worse consequences with fairtax than with income tax, because fairtax as I understand depends on giving taxes back before collecting them to those who need it, to turn an essentially regressive structure into an effectively progressive one. Because progressive taxation is the correct approach, this then turns fairtax from a good thing into a bad thing as soon as people like Mister Abramoff get involved.

@shinzon: I think we derailed Ron Paul.

I'm not quite sure what your critique of the Fairtax means. The Fairtax relies on businesses that already collect sales taxes at the time of purchase to collect more.

How would corruption increase with the Fairtax or be much worse? There will be a lot less tax evasion under the Fairtax.

A tax structure solely dependent on sales tax is essentially regressive on income, because those with lower incomes spend a greater fraction of that income. Therefore, in order to make fairtax progressive instead of regressive, the idea is to give a "prebate" to approximately everyone, to account in advance for the eventual taxation. This would theoretically negate a greater portion of the tax burden for those who spend a greater portion of their income. Calculating and distributing that prebate, therefore, is a very important part of the fairtax, and someone has to do it. This is where corruption enters the picture (whether or not it involves lobbying is irrelevant. I take it on faith that anything inolving money will attract people who want that money). And when corruption affects the calculation and distribution of the rebates, the rebates will be delayed or denied, and the tax will again become regressive. That's bad both economically and socially, not to mention morally, for those who care about such things.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I think they count the unpaid balance on all credit cards when the bank/credit union/whatever files their report to whoever keeps track of it, so yes that $100 would be counted. Jack Abramoff represents the corrupting effect of money upon politics. I used his page to indicate that I don't believe it's possible for politics to exist without corruption, and that corruption would have much worse consequences with fairtax than with income tax, because fairtax as I understand depends on giving taxes back before collecting them to those who need it, to turn an essentially regressive structure into an effectively progressive one. Because progressive taxation is the correct approach, this then turns fairtax from a good thing into a bad thing as soon as people like Mister Abramoff get involved.

@shinzon: I think we derailed Ron Paul.

I'm not quite sure what your critique of the Fairtax means. The Fairtax relies on businesses that already collect sales taxes at the time of purchase to collect more.

How would corruption increase with the Fairtax or be much worse? There will be a lot less tax evasion under the Fairtax.

A tax structure solely dependent on sales tax is essentially regressive on income, because those with lower incomes spend a greater fraction of that income. Therefore, in order to make fairtax progressive instead of regressive, the idea is to give a "prebate" to approximately everyone, to account in advance for the eventual taxation. This would theoretically negate a greater portion of the tax burden for those who spend a greater portion of their income. Calculating and distributing that prebate, therefore, is a very important part of the fairtax, and someone has to do it. This is where corruption enters the picture (whether or not it involves lobbying is irrelevant. I take it on faith that anything inolving money will attract people who want that money). And when corruption affects the calculation and distribution of the rebates, the rebates will be delayed or denied, and the tax will again become regressive. That's bad both economically and socially, not to mention morally, for those who care about such things.

At least your only criticism is that there could be corruption problems.

I think that statement I bolded is wrong though. If someone spends $1 million in a year versus someone who spends $10k in a year, how does the prebate negate a greater portion of the person who spent $1 million? The prebate is based on something the government already does, what amount of food does someone need to survive, nothing else. Essentially, the only thing a poor person would pay taxes on that they need to survive is clothes, if they don't go to the goodwill, guardian angel, etc. Hell, if all someone buys is used goods, they wouldn't pay any taxes at all. It's also clear who gets the prebate as well, everyone.

The Fairtax is pretty simple as it stands, but so was the income tax when it was first introduced. When the income tax was first introduced, AFTER WE HAD TO GET A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT FOR IT BECAUSE IT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, it was pretty simple to. Only the top 1% of income earners have to pay it. Not so simple now is it? So your right, its possible politicians could fuck up the Fairtax, but I think it will be harder to fuck up a tax on spending versus income.

[Charla]

I think that statement I bolded is wrong though. If someone spends $1 million in a year versus someone who spends $10k in a year, how does the prebate negate a greater portion of the person who spent $1 million?

That is actually the exact opposite of what I meant. Someone who makes 20k a year and spends, let's say 15k of it will get the same rebate as the person who makes 5 million a year and spends about 1.2 million of it. 15k/20k is a greater fraction than 1.2M/5M. And because they both get the same thing prebated (per individual supported), the prebate reduces the 15/20 guy's tax burden more than the 1.2/5 guy's.

The Fairtax is pretty simple as it stands, but so was the income tax when it was first introduced. When the income tax was first introduced, AFTER WE HAD TO GET A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT FOR IT BECAUSE IT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL,

Slow down there, captain capslock:

the usual[/url]]a new income tax statute was enacted as part of the 1894 Tariff Act.[1] However, in 1895 the Supreme Court struck down a portion of the statute as unconstitutional — specifically, the tax on income from property — as an unapportioned direct tax.

The United States Constitution specified Congress could impose a "direct" tax only if it was apportioned among the states according to each state's census population.[2] In its 1895 decision the Supreme Court held that a tax on income from property was a direct tax under the Constitution, and so had to be apportioned.

As you can see, it was income tax on property that was ruled to be unconstitutional, not on earnings. Capital gains and whatnot didn't exist at the time, so I'm not sure how they would have worked out.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I think your saying that the prebate eliminates the problem of the poor person paying more of their income towards taxes, is that correct? If so, then we agree right? lol?

The income tax was also ruled unconstitutional right after the civil war as well. I don't have the Fairtax book in front of me, but I think the income tax was declared unconstitutional once before, or it might have been just twice.

The reason in your example it was declared unconstitutional is because a tax on the income of property is a direct tax. And taxing income i.e. earnings is the same thing, so yes it was a tax on earnings, and thus a direct tax and a violation of the constitution.

[Charla]

I think your saying that the prebate eliminates the problem of the poor person paying more of their income towards taxes, is that correct? If so, then we agree right? lol?

The income tax was also ruled unconstitutional right after the civil war as well. I don't have the Fairtax book in front of me, but I think the income tax was declared unconstitutional once before, or it might have been just twice.

Yes, the original income tax levied to pay for the civil war was repealed shortly after it ended, which might have been upon threat of a Supreme Court ruling.

The reason in your example it was declared unconstitutional is because a tax on the income of property is a direct tax. And taxing income i.e. earnings is the same thing, so yes it was a tax on earnings, and thus a direct tax and a violation of the constitution.

Well, if the Supreme Court decided it wasn't, it was probably on some technicality like "taxing the employer for paying employees instead of taxing the employee on his income". And either way, it's a hundred-year-old version of the constitution we're talking about. The amendment system is in place specifically to account for changes over time. Acting like what the Framers originally wrote is somehow more important or valid than what was added later is inconsistent with the premise of a constitutional amendment itself. And doing so in all caps doesn't help either.