I have felt like I was going to through up all morning, ever since I went in to vote.
Sure glad I don't have to do that again until November.
Sure glad I don't have to do that again until November.
Been sick all day.
- Thread starter layoutshooter
- Start date
cableguymn
Seasoned Expediter
Your safe.. vote on a empty stomach.. less to come up.
In Nov we will have no real choice. There is no real difference between the parties. Both are socialist/fascist. Neither follows the Constitution. Both only care their own power, enriching themselves and controlling us.
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
<LIKE button>
Although Marxist/Leninist is more accurate.
2012: Ron Paul or not at all.
The lesser of two evils is still evil.
It is a horrible mix of all that is bad. Marxist/Lennist, fascist/socialist. It just does not get any worse that this.
Bartender54
Active Expediter
Oh boy.......... And just "in case" who do you suppose Dr. Paul will have as a running or in his case a walking mate??? Sorry guys but he's just waaaay too goofy... I'm not disagreeing with you on the corruption and general BS in government...BUT... just think, I mean really think what would happen..... Oh never mind, I don't even want to think of it. That's just plain scary.. And pray tell how we operate the government on his plan of a "zero tax rate"? HIS WORDS! And thats just one of his stupid comments.. Please think about it real hard before you vote.... Anywho... God Bless America...please
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
Generally, people who say that exhibit an ignorance of his real positions and the supporting facts behind them. For example, your next point:
Dr. Paul has demonstrated, and it's been verified by a prominent critic of his, that if we completely abolished the income tax, we'd only need to cut spending back to the level it was at in 1998. Other revenue provides the rest below that point.
Beyond that, you haven't heard anyone say recently that we need to cut spending have you? Only just about everybody excluding the most brain-dead, bleeding heart leftists, right? Well there's the impetus to do so, right there.
Aside from that, what abolishing a tax or slashing its rate would do isn't the primary issue. What one must consider is, is it a) legal, b) moral, and c) ethical to have that tax at all, or at the rate in question? If the answer is no, you adjust your actions as necessary to do without it, as Dr. Paul proposes.
America in its current form is not blessable. We're going to have to do some major repentance and restructuring before we're at the point at which we could ask God to bless us. A first step would be, "America, bless God.
The second step would be to elect someone who will, as a matter of policy, obey the sixth, seventh, and ninth commandments. That person is Ron Paul.
2012: Ron Paul or not at all.
The lesser of two evils is still evil.
Bartender54
Active Expediter
Well, with all due respect.... I guessing its going to be "not at all"... Good luck with cutting spending back to 1998 levels... This means crashing all unions to bring wages back to '98 levels.. machinery costs back to that level and on and on... Or have you forgotten that our infrastructure sucks and desperately needs major repair and with Pauls plans nothing would be fixed.. It would be reminiscent of when Reagan was Carter's predecessor and had to spend billions to bring our military back up to basic standards... Oh and I know that Dr. Paul doesn't need our military too.. but thats another day...Again Good luck
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Well first Reagan did not bring our military back, he increased spending for two purposes, one was to provide a means for his supporters to make money (don't forget that was the start of the open contract process for military suppliers and the start of the end of American made only) and a continuation of the cold war.
The second thing is that Paul does not want to do a Carter to the military but to remove the troops from doing other countries job by using the military for it is constitutionally required to do - defend our country.
I don't get the union or machinery thing, we don't need unions that stop economic progress and companies pass along any taxes they get hit with to the consumer.
The second thing is that Paul does not want to do a Carter to the military but to remove the troops from doing other countries job by using the military for it is constitutionally required to do - defend our country.
I don't get the union or machinery thing, we don't need unions that stop economic progress and companies pass along any taxes they get hit with to the consumer.
Carter was the president that continued the Cold War past it's time. Reagan COULD have pushed the end sooner but was playing world politics when he pushed the INF treaty. THAT treaty freed up Soviet arms money to help them hand on longer.
Here or there?
Here, Carter had the entire country 'bummed out' except for the 'kool-aid' drinkers.
Reagan put a LOT of money into the 'intel business'. Many new, improved systems went on line during Reagan/Bush. Some MAY still be in use today. Those intel systems allowed us to pull back a lot of troops and other people back from overseas sites.
Bartender54
Active Expediter
No more Vodka before posting!!!!!!
Ok, the union comment was in regard to Mr. Pauls wanting to go back to the 1998 spending. And if you go back to the 1998 spending limits, either (1 The infrastructure, that is already in disrepair will fall completely apart. (2 Our military will lose some of its strength, due to less money and I know very well that he wants to bring all of our troops home and more power to him(just not the Presidency!!!). (3 Our social programs will suffer a big hit(for the most part some need to).
The cost of wages,mostly union wages (as in construction workers) are a hell of a lot higher now than they were in 1998. The cost of machinery is considerably higher as are the cost of materials, ie. steel, concrete, asphalt and the like. All materials used to rebiuld what is wore out.
The point I was trying to make was that with the cost of virtually everything has gone through the roof and we will NOT be able to run the country on a zero tax rate..
I can't quote what it did cost to pave a mile of highway in 1998 but you can rest assured its going to be a hell of a lot higher now.. We NEED taxes to keep the country in one piece.
Dr Paul is pretty good at financials but there is no way that plan will fly...
And if you remember Mr. Carter did nothing to maintain or rebuild our military... And Reagan was criticized for spending too much....FOR WHATEVER REASON... How does that line go? The best defense is a strong offense?
Oh, and the $400. toilet seats and the $600. hammers and on and on? There were and are a few projects the our military have that cannot be listed in the budget... Like "Blackbird" and "Omega" or the "Drones" just to list a few. Whatever is in R and D and "top secret" cannot and will not be listed in the military budget and quite frankly shouldn't be.
And if this isn't any clearer for you I guess I'm sorry...
Ok, the union comment was in regard to Mr. Pauls wanting to go back to the 1998 spending. And if you go back to the 1998 spending limits, either (1 The infrastructure, that is already in disrepair will fall completely apart. (2 Our military will lose some of its strength, due to less money and I know very well that he wants to bring all of our troops home and more power to him(just not the Presidency!!!). (3 Our social programs will suffer a big hit(for the most part some need to).
The cost of wages,mostly union wages (as in construction workers) are a hell of a lot higher now than they were in 1998. The cost of machinery is considerably higher as are the cost of materials, ie. steel, concrete, asphalt and the like. All materials used to rebiuld what is wore out.
The point I was trying to make was that with the cost of virtually everything has gone through the roof and we will NOT be able to run the country on a zero tax rate..
I can't quote what it did cost to pave a mile of highway in 1998 but you can rest assured its going to be a hell of a lot higher now.. We NEED taxes to keep the country in one piece.
Dr Paul is pretty good at financials but there is no way that plan will fly...
And if you remember Mr. Carter did nothing to maintain or rebuild our military... And Reagan was criticized for spending too much....FOR WHATEVER REASON... How does that line go? The best defense is a strong offense?
Oh, and the $400. toilet seats and the $600. hammers and on and on? There were and are a few projects the our military have that cannot be listed in the budget... Like "Blackbird" and "Omega" or the "Drones" just to list a few. Whatever is in R and D and "top secret" cannot and will not be listed in the military budget and quite frankly shouldn't be.
And if this isn't any clearer for you I guess I'm sorry...
Last edited:
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Well I would consider a shot or two.
The infrastructure is not the problem of the federal government and if it does fall apart, then that is the fault of the states. The revenue derived for the infrastructure seems to be going like this, me (or you) to the state to the feds back to the states. I would think that elminating the part of the feds would reduce the costs of administrating the money and keep the money where it needs to be, in the state where it was derived. One of the problems with the fed is the use of money that they collect going for things other than roads, etc ...
You and others seem to forget that Paul is not saying not to eliminate the states or their departments but only at the fed level because that is where most of the problems are at.
I don't see this as a bad thing if he and others take the lessons learned in the 20's and keep the troops themselves ready. Remember when we were a young country, we didn't have a "military" but a militia so when Washington needed to screw people with taxing sprits, he called the milita not the military. SO I am thinking that the military's purpose is not to defend SK from their spin off country but to defend the US and only the US and we can do that without too many problems.
So, your point?
Until 1929, we didn't have federal involvement into our lives on any social programs but Hoover helped that get started.
I would like to see a lot of them just go away, my generation is going to screw the system so much that by the time I am able to get it, I won't have it there. So if we don't do anything, we will see more of a collapse of the system as a whole than if we just start shifting money back to where it was collected, the states.
True but so is everything else because our dollar is weaker.
True but our dollar is so much weaker.
BUT there is a difference between collecting federal taxes and that of the state. The state collects a lot in taxes so the shift can help out where it is needed and the cost of supporting the federal government can now be reduced or in many cases eliminated.
Take a hard look at how the money flows and where it ends up at, our government is returning a small percentage of the money we send to them, so where is the need to keep income taxes?
Actually I somewhat agree with you, his plan of zero taxes won't work but the Fair Tax seems to have somewhat of a chance. TO put this another way, it isn't really about the taxes for many of us, it is about taking back control that we gave to congress.
Well Yes that is true but what Reagan did wasn't increase spending to keep a strong defense, the numbers didn't increase that much but he spent money to spend money.
BUT here is the thing, that's not the $400 seat or the $600 hammer. I was sent to work at Brown (that's the name of the company) in the 80's by my employer (they made hydraulic equipment for the Navy) and that's where I saw a lot of money. It wasn't the $600 hammer but the $40 oring that my employer sold to the Navy. This oring was mil spec but it was also in the Parker-Hanifin catalog for 40 cents - same oring. The DoD purchasing department I later learned didn't care what the costs were, they were under orders to spend money by the Reagan administration and a lot of auditing went away for a long time. Now expand this a million times and you will get the picture.
The real problem has been the old way of doing things, like maintaining equipment didn't change until recently, and even now there are things that the military still have they will never need - like the korean era canteen covers that were just sold by the people handling the surplus we already paid for (which is another crock of crap).
I understand your point.