Ron Paul's economic revitalization plan - Page 6 - Miata Turbo Forum - Boost cars, acquire cats.

Welcome to Miataturbo.net   Members
 


Insert BS here A place to discuss anything you want

Reply
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-27-2008, 12:46 PM   #101
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
Loki047's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,145
Total Cats: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB View Post
Loki,

The constitution protects inalienable rights to life, liberty and property. The Constitution says all men are equal in the eyes of the law.

Re: government "supporting" hetero marriage, and "not supporting" same sex marriage... government should not be "supporting" hetero marriage either - it should not stick its nose in marriage which is a social contract. There should be no favors or tax breaks to married couples - heck, there should be no income tax on wages to begin with. What the government is doing is that it is subsidizing certain types of social behavior (e.g. getting married). Government should not be trying to regulate morality or behavior. The function of government is to protect individual rights. If one were to allow gov't to regulate this behavior, or that behavior, where does it stop? 55 mph speed limits? No cars >250 hp? The Constitution enumerates the powers that the Federal gov't can have, and says those are its ONLY powers. Remember that the design of the Constitution is to limit government powers specifically to prevent abuse. The Founding Fathers knew from history that governments have a tendency to grow in size and scope, and to abuse its powers and violate the rights of its citizens. The size of gov't was 12% of GDP in 1930 and has grown to 45% now. Where does it stop? Not only does gov't take and control 45% of the nation's economic output, it owes $9 Trillion! http://mwhodges.home.att.net/debt.htm

Taxes are so huge these days... government takes all this money from us, then we're supposed to be happy they're giving $800 back?
Yeah but I haven't heard Ron Paul say anything about marriage. Cuase yeah the government shouldn't get in the way and innocent people shoudln't go to jail. But in reality (in case you forgot) doesn't work that way. This is where we are.

If i remember ron paul wants to make it a states right. Since some states will outlaw same sex marriage (regardless of sexuality) the federal government will have to step in if all men are created equal in the eyes of the law how can laws be different for two people?
Loki047 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2008, 02:01 PM   #102
Elite Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,454
Total Cats: 80
Default

So answer this - you prefer a president that promotes the welfare warfare state, and continues the economy down the path we are, as long as they are "for equal rights"? You don't think the economy is the single most important factor that affects us all?
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2008, 02:08 PM   #103
Elite Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,454
Total Cats: 80
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exhondaman View Post
Unfortunately, Isolationism (I know, RP is not all about strict Isolationism, but still) is not the proper way to deal with foreign countries that have an ideology of Sharia law.
Do you think we can afford to continue to be policeman of the world? Do you think countries like that even want democracy or are ready for it?

Quote:
Didn't the Dems promise to "Bring our troops home" or "not vote for more funding" when they were running for seats on Capital Hill? What happened? Didn't Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy tell General Patreaus that he was "lying" when he gave his report in September that the war is improving? Wait, what happened to the War debate? Why is everyone so quiet about it NOW?
This is a whole 'nother topic.
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2008, 02:46 PM   #104
Elite Member
iTrader: (3)
 
AbeFM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 3,048
Total Cats: 8
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB View Post
One of Ron Paul's stands is to get rid of the Federal income tax on WAGES.
-------
The Four-Point Plan

1. Tax Reform: Reduce the tax burden and eliminate taxes that punish investment and savings, including job-killing corporate taxes.
Let's see. Cut taxes on wages, on investment, savings and corporations.

That leaves? Yes, the gasoline tax. You supported that. I guess we can run the whole country on that. [irony] And, when you think about it, it makes sense.[/irony] A guy earning 25,000 a year has to buy the same amount of gas as a rich guy racking in 100 times that much. So they'll both be pouring in the same $250 a year into the system. No matter that this is 1% of one man's income, and 0.01% of the other's.

Taxing goods IS a tax on the poor. The poor have to spend their money. And they get much less value for the money they do spend. You are taxing the people inversley proportional to their income with a flat or goods based tax.

Something we'd probably both agree on, the tax system needs to get a lot simpler. If it were harder to get out of paying taxes, the system could be a lot more fair. The second richest guy I know (know well) was up in arms because he had to pay $355 in taxes a couple years back. He'd never had to pay so much before, and he is NOT a poor man. In the mean time I'm giving up a good solid 1/3 of my income.


Quote:
The Four-Point Plan (cont)

2. Spending Reform: Eliminate wasteful spending. Reduce overseas commitments. Freeze all non-defense, non-entitlement spending at current levels.
Ah, so... Get the military out of Iraq, but still pour more money into it? That's confusing. Why do they get the only exception?

Quote:

His other tenet is that you CANNOT cut taxes unless gov't cuts spending. The easiest place to cut spending is with the overseas military.
Is point #2 in his plan to REDUCE military spending? It sounded like increase. That's something I could go for!


Quote:
Gov't controls 45% of GDP now, and that is outrageous. Government is a virtual monopoly on many things, and everyone agrees government is very wasteful and squanders money.
I've worked in acedamia, government, big business, small business, and tiny business. They are all wasteful, but the worst are big businesses. At least the few I worked for. Government would be a solid second. But just letting Apple run the country won't make us any better off.


Quote:
One of the basic tenets of capitalism is that savings get plowed into investment. If you leave money in the bank, this money can get lent out to businesses to start investment, and investment generates wealth. SPENDING, on the other hand, while allowing money to change hands, doesn't produce nearly as much investment.
This I'll have to read up on. It seems to me telling the cattle farmer from my example that he could put his money in the bank and maybe someone else will borrow money and start their own cattle farm seems kinda roundabout.


Quote:
I've posted many times on the Compound Interest Paradox, and explained it MANY times in MY own words, on miata.net. You cannot accuse me of doing a "pathetic, uninformed, misunderstood cut-and-paste job." Here is the miata.net thread:
Well, I hadn't seen it here, and I'm glad you're starting to respond. Maybe we'll both learn something.

Quote:
The biggest beneficiary will be the working poor, not the rich. The rich don't get paid wages and typically pay a much lower % of their income as taxes.
I'm just not seeing where you want to cut wage taxes, investment taxes, corporate taxes, etc... Let's play a little game. You tell me what tax to cut and which tax you would raise to keep the field level.
The net amount we can adjust seperately by raising/lowering all taxes together. But right now let's see:

DROP death tax RAISE medications tax
DROP corporations tax RAISE social security income tax
DROP wages tax RAISE eliminate tax break for poverty line workers
DROP cigarette tax RAISEgasoline tax


Not those taxes, you fill it in. But I'm not understanding how this system works, and if you could explain which taxes (even if they don't exist yet) are better than the current ones, it will go a long way to making me see this as a viable plan. It's a basic tennant that government will need SOME income. Forget the amount, I just want to know how to get it.
AbeFM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2008, 04:14 PM   #105
Elite Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,454
Total Cats: 80
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AbeFM View Post
Let's see. Cut taxes on wages, on investment, savings and corporations.
Abe you are misunderstanding the details of his proposed tax cuts. Look at the very specific HR's and HJ's he wants passed, such as HR 191 and 192:

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/prosperity

Quote:
Ah, so... Get the military out of Iraq, but still pour more money into it? That's confusing. Why do they get the only exception?
You misunderstand - he says the military budget can be cut hugely by getting out of the 100+ countries we're in. He wants to re-shore up the bases ON U.S. SOIL which are being decommisioned. He wants a strong DEFENSE, strong bases on US Soil, and things like a strong submarine force (a very, very effective deterrent). NOT a military presence overseas that costs taxpayers a lot of money and pisses a lot of people off in other countries. Overall the military spending would be cut greatly.

Quote:
I've worked in acedamia, government, big business, small business, and tiny business. They are all wasteful, but the worst are big businesses.
I strongly disagree. Big business has some modicum of competition that keeps them from being as wasteful as government. The favors that the large corporations get from government, a manifestation of corporatism, is a whole 'nother topic. Note how Ron Paul wants to pass legislation that reduces regulations on small businesses. Small business has gotten the short end of the stick vs. the large corporations when it comes to costly regulations.


Quote:
This I'll have to read up on. It seems to me telling the cattle farmer from my example that he could put his money in the bank and maybe someone else will borrow money and start their own cattle farm seems kinda roundabout.
It's a LOT less roundabout than getting Mr. Cattle Farmer buying a Samsung big screen TV at Circuit City. In the former, if he kept his money at a local bank that likes loaning out to locals, the money gets invested mostly locally. In the latter, how much money ends up in the US Economy at all?? This is why Ron Paul is gung ho on removing regulations that discourage local banks from lending to local businesses. (one of the latter points in his list)

Quote:
Well, I hadn't seen it here, and I'm glad you're starting to respond. Maybe we'll both learn something.
Thank you. May I point out that you are responding in theh manner of someone who attacks a person knee-jerk style rather than thoughtfully considering his points before responding?

Quote:
Let's play a little game. You tell me what tax to cut and which tax you would raise to keep the field level.
It doesn't matter specifically what I think point by point. I am trying to point out that in general, Ron Paul's proposal is the real deal, unlike the misguided, simplistic "let's print more money and give it to the consumers to spend". Look at the specific HRs and HJs he is pushing. You can read more about this economic philosophy by reading up on what a guy named Peter Schiff has written about for years and years. Schiff endorsed Ron Paul many months ago. He's a fund manager that has made his clients wealthy by betting against the US economy. Listen to what he says:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UuivYdiS5w
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2008, 06:00 PM   #106
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
Loki047's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,145
Total Cats: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB View Post
So answer this - you prefer a president that promotes the welfare warfare state, and continues the economy down the path we are, as long as they are "for equal rights"? You don't think the economy is the single most important factor that affects us all?
Jason you didn't answer my question again. You keep ignoring them and reading from your Ron Paul punch card.
Loki047 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2008, 06:11 PM   #107
Elite Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,454
Total Cats: 80
Default

"If i remember ron paul wants to make it a states right. Since some states will outlaw same sex marriage (regardless of sexuality) the federal government will have to step in if all men are created equal in the eyes of the law how can laws be different for two people?"

Let's say a state decides to give tax breaks to married people. A gay couple is denied this same break. Couple takes it all the way to the supreme court. If the courts are fair, they will tell the state they can't deny the tax break. BTW Do you think the Federal courts are more fair than the State courts? Hmm, let's see, CA has decided that medical marijuana is legal. Federal judge decides it isn't....

Now WTF does this all have to do with the economy? This thread is about the economy and Ron Paul's proposal. You keep saying Ron Paul "isn't promoting equal rights" by being mum on gay marriage.
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2008, 06:19 PM   #108
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
Loki047's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,145
Total Cats: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB View Post
Please explain.
You asked. You might want to get that memory taken care of.

So instead of the Federal government supporting the constitution from the beginning (ensuring equal rights) you want more cases going before courts? Who pays for the courts? I guess we would have to raise taxes for to pay for more judges and such.

But hey whatever you messiah ron paul wants.
Loki047 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2008, 06:26 PM   #109
Elite Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,454
Total Cats: 80
Default

Loki,

The Federal Gov't doesn't need to explicitly spell out "supporting the constitution from the beginning and insuring equal rights" on every issue. ONE case brought to the courts will set a precedent. Don't forget that the way I described it is exactly what the courts are supposed to be for anyway.

Again, how is this favorite issue of yours so much more important than the economy?

BTW is a big beef you have with RP that he wants to cut foreign aid to Israel? If so, you have to realize that the US sends 2x as much money to Israel's Arab neighbors than to Israel, and all that should be cut.
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2008, 06:29 PM   #110
Elite Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,454
Total Cats: 80
Default

<deleted>

Here is Ron Paul on gay marriage:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2008, 06:40 PM   #111
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
Loki047's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,145
Total Cats: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB View Post
Loki,

The Federal Gov't doesn't need to explicitly spell out "supporting the constitution from the beginning and insuring equal rights" on every issue. ONE case brought to the courts will set a precedent. Don't forget that the way I described it is exactly what the courts are supposed to be for anyway.

Again, how is this favorite issue of yours so much more important than the economy?

BTW is a big beef you have with RP that he wants to cut foreign aid to Israel? If so, you have to realize that the US sends 2x as much money to Israel's Arab neighbors than to Israel, and all that should be cut.
My issues with ron paul again(or any canidate)

A) No support Equal Rights
B) Short sighted Foreign Policy
C) Heavy taxing of the poor (which your all sales tax system would cause)
D) Lack of social programs
Loki047 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2008, 06:58 PM   #112
Elite Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,454
Total Cats: 80
Default

B) What's short sighted about shoring up DEFENSE and getting out of foreign lands?
C) Ron Paul does not support any sales tax system. He wants to get rid of the income tax on wages which will be the best thing to do for the working poor.l
D) See (C), and remember, he's the only Congressman to consistently vote against spending SS money on non SS benefits. I see now, you like socialism. That's a whole 'nother topic. I will just say that Socialism isn't what it seems....
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2008, 07:01 PM   #113
Elite Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,454
Total Cats: 80
Default

How about the "social program" of having a FAIR monetary system, instead of one that confers a huge subsidy on the entire financial industry?
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2008, 07:06 PM   #114
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
Loki047's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,145
Total Cats: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB View Post
C) Ron Paul does not support any sales tax system. He wants to get rid of the income tax on wages which will be the best thing to do for the working poor.l
So there won't be a higher sales tax to make up for the non existing income tax?

And no I don't like socialism. But lets back up in the conversation (i really didnt think i would have to have this talk with a grown man.) I will say what I like and don't like, what i think is best for the country etc.... You say what you like and don't like, and what you think is best for the country etc... I won't put words in your mouth you don't put words in mine. If you can't handle that the discussion will be by yourself.

I just know its better to spend .50 cents now on education than 3 dollars later down the road on prices

Your really poor at explaining your view (although its becoming clearer and clearer you don't truly understand them)
Loki047 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2008, 07:08 PM   #115
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
Loki047's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,145
Total Cats: 0
Default

Jason, Please refer back to earlier in the thread for reasons that pulling our troops out of all foreign lands is poor for our country and the entire world. I will not go over that again with you. Please reread it. When you don't understand it please ask questions.
Loki047 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2008, 07:09 PM   #116
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
Loki047's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,145
Total Cats: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB View Post
B) What's short sighted about shoring up DEFENSE and getting out of foreign lands?
C) Ron Paul does not support any sales tax system. He wants to get rid of the income tax on wages which will be the best thing to do for the working poor.l
D) See (C), and remember, he's the only Congressman to consistently vote against spending SS money on non SS benefits. I see now, you like socialism. That's a whole 'nother topic. I will just say that Socialism isn't what it seems....
You forgot about no equal rights, just a heads up.
Loki047 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2008, 07:42 PM   #117
Elite Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,454
Total Cats: 80
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki047 View Post
So there won't be a higher sales tax to make up for the non existing income tax?
No, he wants to CUT gov't expenses. Foreign military operatiosn is the easiest way to cut expenses.

Quote:
And no I don't like socialism.
If you don't like socialism, well, Ron Paul isn't proposing to shut down SS. He wants to allow people to opt out. I would!
[/QUOTE]
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2008, 07:44 PM   #118
Elite Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,454
Total Cats: 80
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki047 View Post
You forgot about no equal rights, just a heads up.
No I didn't. I made my points already. Look, he never said "no equal rights". As a Constitutionalist, he will be the first to defend our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property.
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2008, 07:47 PM   #119
Elite Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,454
Total Cats: 80
Default

Why would the Middle East be worse off if we got out and ended all foreign aid? Do you think Israel would be attacked, given that they have nukes?
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2008, 08:22 PM   #120
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
Loki047's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,145
Total Cats: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB View Post
Why would the Middle East be worse off if we got out and ended all foreign aid? Do you think Israel would be attacked, given that they have nukes?
Israel is attacked on a daily basis as it is. Us leaving and not giving support to a nation that will be savaged by its neighbors is cowardly.

I guess it comes down to being "a man" and unselfish.
Loki047 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Expected intake temps on the track? tazswing Race Prep 20 10-03-2015 12:04 PM
Is my swirl pot design okay? FrankB Race Prep 10 10-02-2015 10:00 PM
New M62 Miata owner Pist0n Meet and Greet 4 10-01-2015 09:18 PM
Time to start learning and play with tuning The Gleas MEGAsquirt 3 10-01-2015 10:30 AM
Any pnp megasquirt for 2001 Big_gumby WTB 0 09-30-2015 04:34 PM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:44 PM.