Having his cake and eating it to!!

[RLENT]

Too bad, at least to my limited knowledge, that there is not one single candidate putting this forth. All, at least that I know of, just want to change (or at least pretend too) change the tax system of the Federal government, not eliminate it.

From the link below:

As President, Ron Paul will support a Liberty Amendment to the Constitution to abolish the income and death taxes. And he will be proud to be the one who finally turns off the lights at the IRS for good.

Capital gains taxes, which punish you for success (and interfere with your efforts to hedge against inflation by purchasing gold and silver coins), should also be immediately repealed.

Struggling college students and those working to support their families would be greatly benefited and receive an immediate pay raise by eliminating taxes on tips.

As a congressman, Ron Paul has consistently endorsed legislation to let Americans claim more tax credits and deductions, including on educational costs, alternative energy vehicles, and health care. He also believes it is immoral to tax senior citizens twice by requiring them to include Social Security benefits in their gross income at tax time. A first step to eliminating that requirement would be to repeal the 1993 increase in taxes on Social Security benefits. Then we must abolish that tax entirely.

While a Flat Tax or a Fair Tax would each be a better alternative to the income tax system, Congressman Paul believes we would have to guarantee the 16th Amendment is repealed to avoid having both the income tax and one of these systems as an additional tax.

But there is a better way. Restraining federal spending by enforcing the Constitution’s strict limits on the federal government’s power would help result in a 0% income tax rate for Americans.

The answer to spending and debt is to return to a constitutionally limited government that protects liberty – not one that keeps robbing Peter to pay Paul.​

Ron Paul: Taxes

 

[layoutshooter]

It needs done. It likely won't be, even IF Paul is elected. Again, not knocking Paul, the congress will NEVER do it and one man can't.

I continue to stock up on ammo.

 

[RLENT]

It needs done.

Indeed.

It likely won't be, even IF Paul is elected. Again, not knocking Paul, the congress will NEVER do it and one man can't.

I live in hope ...... because without it .... there is little point in living.

I continue to stock up on ammo.

A wise move.

 

[layoutshooter]

I have "hope" but live in the real world.

I also am stocking up on fish hooks, fishing line, sinkers, lures etc. I need two or three more guns to have what I need. Even have a flintlock, can make gunpowder and hunt with that if I have too! I can grow a bit on my "massive" half acre "spread"! Would love to have a place "up north" maybe on Big or Little Bay De Noc.

 

[RLENT]

I have "hope" but live in the real world.

That is best reason to have it

 

[layoutshooter]

That is best reason to have it

I "hope" for better and plan for what is likely.

It's kinda like smoke and C02 detectors. I HOPE that I will never have a fire or C02 problem but put in detectors because it is likely that someday those problems WILL occur.

 

[tbubster]

He votes no on the spending bills, not the earmarks. If there was a way other than earmarks to bring money back to his district, he'd do it, but there's not. It's earmarks or nothing. The fact that you are so closely equating earmarks and spending bills is the clearest indication that you don't understand either one. The spending bill and the earmark are two distinctly different things.

Paul votes no on the spending bills, because he things the money either shouldn't be spent at all, or because the spending bill isn't a wise use of the money.

He adds earmarks to bills because that's the mechanism for bringing money back to the Districts.

Two different issues.

People say we need to eliminate earmarks from all bills spending. And that's great. But now you have to come up with a different mechanism for bringing money back to the 435 Congressional Districts. How do you propose to do that?

Yet he says "I have never voted for an earmark"His words not mine.Try and spin it anyway you like but the fact that he feels the need to say EARMARK and not SPENDING BILLS says something.

 

[tbubster]

I think when you live in his district, you can complain about his voting record but until then I think it really doesn't matter much.

Using this train of thinking then you should have nothing to say about NEWT,ROMNEY,SANTORUM,or anyone else running right??????????????

 

[greg334]

Using this train of thinking then you should have nothing to say about NEWT,ROMNEY,SANTORUM,or anyone else running right??????????????

No not really, the point is the record of Paul as a representative and his actions within congress, not as speaker of the house, or as one who is running on his record as governor.

The point is that unless Paul himself brings it up as a selling point in his campaign as one point I worry about, like others have made it a point to bring up what they did (Gingrich is one who doesn't fail on that), then it is a concern but overall I am looking for consistency in a candidate, not "flip-flopping like a dying fish on the bank of the political river' as does Romney, et al has been doing.

Overall it doesn't matter, even with Gingrich and Santorum because we are not like those in the religious right who are concerned about issues we can't have our way over or those issues that are actually not as important as say jobs or the economy. I truly think that someone like Paul is still two steps ahead of the others combined with most of the issues and speaks to those who feel trapped in the system that doesn't give a crap about the country and the issues but just remaining in power.

No matter, in Gingrich's eyes we need to step back to the 80's which was good for that time but won't work now. In Santorum's eyes, we need leadership but he's a senator and is part of the problem with no new ideas. Romney isn't the great white hope that people keep talking about and is void of real ideas because he is like Obama - a puppet. So what's the other choices? Bachmann who seems to be an alien to the independent voter or Perry who doesn't seem to tell everything about his governorship and how he "saved" texas?

 

[Turtle]

Yet he says "I have never voted for an earmark"His words not mine.Try and spin it anyway you like but the fact that he feels the need to say EARMARK and not SPENDING BILLS says something.

I'm not spinning anything. I'm merely laying out the facts on a foundation of reality. When he says he's never voted for an earmark, that's true. I don't know what context you puled that from, but no one, and I mean no one, has ever voted for an earmark. Earmarks are not brought up for a vote. It's impossible to vote on a earmark. The fact that he feels the need to say EARMARK and not SPENDING BILLS does indeed say something, it says he was responding to a stupid question from someone who also doesn't understand the difference between the two.

I'm not sure why you are do obsessed with this earmark thing, especially since the more you post about it the more it becomes clear you don't understand it all, and have made no attempt to understand how the spending, allocation and appropriations processes work. But even with all that, earmarks are at the bottom of a very long list of what's important. And it's even on the list at all because one of the major jobs of a Congressman is to bring money back to his District. For some reason, you think that's a bad thing, despite it being part of the job description of a Congressman. I don't understand it. Why are you do obsessed with something that doesn't even matter?