Congressman Ron Paul

[Solid Fro]

Ever watched American Idol?

The poll was stacked last night. It is quite obvious when the other candidates get less than 12% and Ron Paul is sitting at 37%. Huckabee barely got to 22% at the end of the night, a stacked response to Ron Paul's stacking? Remember, the question was "who won the debate", no your favorite candidate. Judging from the boos of the audience and the complete lack of interest from the polling group at then end of the debate, I sense that the 37% is just a bit off.

 

[Omnis]

Ron Paul's 'fans' padded the Fox News txt poll last night, as they have done on MSNBC's debates and conservative blogs in the past. What I mean by 'fans' is not people like Omnis who are truly committed towards Ron Paul, but those who want to derail the Republican party and are unhappy with the Democrat's flip flopping stances.



Sorry, no one liners from me.

So people disenchanted with what the Republican party has become are not legitimate? Of course people want to "derail" the party. They see it going in the wrong direction and are supporting the guy who stands for what the Republicans used to be all about only 7 years ago. (Mind you, the party had a much better track record back then.) There is no such thing as "padding" the vote; not in this case. Nobody's getting paid to cast their vote and it is impossible to vote twice. It just so happens that there is almost 40% of the people who voluntarily favor Ron Paul. That's not padding, that's just voting. You can't dismiss a poll just because you don't like the result. That's what Hannity has constantly been doing after these debates, although both Fox and Hannity have become a lot less hostile and more fair since the previous one.

 

[Omnis]

Ever watched American Idol?

The poll was stacked last night. It is quite obvious when the other candidates get less than 12% and Ron Paul is sitting at 37%. Huckabee barely got to 22% at the end of the night, a stacked response to Ron Paul's stacking? Remember, the question was "who won the debate", no your favorite candidate. Judging from the boos of the audience and the complete lack of interest from the polling group at then end of the debate, I sense that the 37% is just a bit off.

By that same token, judging from the boos of the audience, I sense that the other candidates padded the audience. Actually, it is quite true that the campaigns spend their money this way. That's why you see such discord between the audience and the polls. I think even the text message poll has more integrity than a $150-per-ticket paid-for event as to whom the entire country favors.

Personally, I have to laugh when key Republican values are booed at by the audience. To me, that says a lot about who those same people cheer.

 

[YSSMAN]

Ron Paul's 'fans' padded the Fox News txt poll last night, as they have done on MSNBC's debates and conservative blogs in the past. What I mean by 'fans' is not people like Omnis who are truly committed towards Ron Paul, but those who want to derail the Republican party and are unhappy with the Democrat's flip flopping stances.

Really? Really?

When one phone, and only ONE phone can text-in only ONCE, how exactly is that padding? That the Ron Paul supporters care, watch the debates, and make their decisions at the end of the show. Who knows, maybe other people who are watching like his ideas better than that of others? God forbid people actually pick who they want to represent them...

And please, explain how we're "derailing" the Republican party... Last time I checked, the Republicans are supposed to be about limited government, limited government spending, limited international intervention, the true separation of church and state, the power of the State over the Fed, etc.

If anything, its the religious nutjob Neo-Cons that have hijacked and derailed the Republican Party. They have alienated average Americans with their born-again religious fervor, preemptive wars without end, and general corruption unseen since the late years of Gilded Age. Sure, I supported some of these fools at one point in time, but I'm suck of the shenanigans. Its messy, unprofessional, and generally unappealing.

God forbid someone comes around to bring us back to where we need to be; All while reading the constitution and serving the people in the best way possible.

 

[Omnis]

And please, explain how we're "derailing" the Republican party... Last time I checked, the Republicans are supposed to be about limited government, limited government spending, limited international intervention, the true separation of church and state, the power of the State over the Fed, etc.

If anything, its the religious nutjob Neo-Cons that have hijacked and derailed the Republican Party. They have alienated average Americans with their born-again religious fervor, preemptive wars without end, and general corruption unseen since the late years of Gilded Age. Sure, I supported some of these fools at one point in time, but I'm suck of the shenanigans. Its messy, unprofessional, and generally unappealing.

Bingo.

 

[Azuremen]

Brad, I'd plus Rep you for that, but can't yet

Very well put, both of you. On another note not relating to Fox "News" and such, people seem to be interested in Ron Paul when I discuss his ideas, and find me somewhat insane when I say Republicans aren't really conservatives anymore. But, talk about curing apathy!

 

[Omnis]

Yeah, Bush became a Lyndon Johnson incarnate. Self-proclaimed neo-cons used to be democrats; they're sort of like parasites who need a host to survive. It's too bad the victim had to be the Republican party.

Anyway,

I wish I could make a cool formulaic representation of RP's name to make a similar shirt.

 

[YSSMAN]

The overall selection of Ron Paul tees have been pretty disappointing... Nothing really to draw attention in and to have people ask questions...

 

[Swift]

You're not totally wrong Yssman. But what you have to remember is that what, 30% of registered voters vote in a primary, maybe? And about 75% of them don't follow politics closely. Meaning unless there is a scandal or something from a political they don't see anything. Or very little. That's what we all and those commentators are saying. Sure, RP says good stuff. But his name simply isn't big enough to get the "mass" of voters needed.

Did you guys miss this reply? I think it makes a good point but didn't get any response.

 

[Azuremen]

Did you guys miss this reply? I think it makes a good point but didn't get any response.

Sorry, I think we all were focusing on Solid at that moment.

I agree more or less, but I'll have to elaborate later, I'm heading off to class.

 

[FoolKiller]

Did you guys miss this reply? I think it makes a good point but didn't get any response.

You have a point, but I am curious what will happen when a different candidate emerges in the primary and has a highly motvated base whereas the rest of the party's voters aren't paying a lot of attention and will be divided up amongst the other candidates.

I'm not saying it will or I even think it will but if everyone who did the phone poll shows up and then people who care, but not enough to bother with phone polls, show up as well because they are motivated for a primary, while the rest of the voters think it will obviously be Rudy, Fred, or Mitt and don't get motivated to vote we could see at least a few surprise primary wins.

Think Howard Dean and remove the scream. He may have gotten more than his one primary had he not done that. Of course, I'm in Kentucky and unless Ron Paul is putting up decent numbers in January I won't even have a chance to choose him.

 

[Swift]

Thanks guys.

FK, again. You're not wrong. But it's simply very unlikely. Ask someone 40+ that isn't online much who Ron Paul is and they probably won't know.

 

[FoolKiller]

Ask someone 40+ that isn't online much who Ron Paul is and they probably won't know.

Oddly, the only ones that do know who he is are Democrats, and then they have the, "Well, if you have to choose a (insert colorful term here) I guess he would be the one to go for."

 

[Omnis]

Thanks guys.

FK, again. You're not wrong. But it's simply very unlikely. Ask someone 40+ that isn't online much who Ron Paul is and they probably won't know.

Tell that someone who Ron Paul is and it's VERY likely they'll support him.

 

[Swift]

Tell that someone who Ron Paul is and it's VERY likely they'll support him.

That may be true, but it's not my point.

 

[Omnis]

That may be true, but it's not my point.

I know. It's mine. If you are so concerned that he won't do well, tell a few people about him and to look him up. Then, ask them to do the same.

 

[Swift]

IF he stops calling the Iraq war "illegal" I'll think about it.

 

[FoolKiller]

You know, he could be little known because he actually has yet to advertise.

That is about to change:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21484526/from/ET/

 

[YSSMAN]

Its about time that he actually starts putting a name with a face. Although some people are aware of who he is, many of them aren't aware of his position on certain topics, so this can only help I would assume. There is only so much positive press that can go around on Digg and GTP (just examples), so getting it into the mainstream may help our position.

 

[Keef]

It will help him get his name out. I've mentioned Ron to my dad at work before--we work together--and he has yet to do any research. The guys in the machine shop are pretty old-school and seem to lean towards the Republican party nearly ever time. Very few have even heard Ron Paul's name. They're always about Republican vs. Democrat because "it's always been that way", or "you can't win without money", or "the small parties never win", and all that. The guys aren't very open to new ideas. Mr. Paul is going to have to work to get himself noticed by the large amount old older adults who are...stubborn.

But besides that, within the past week I've seen quite a few Ron Paul bumper stickers on cars. I was quite surprised. I'd never seen any before, but it looks like people are getting the picture. Bumper stickers work, too.

 

[Vasco]

Its about time that he actually starts putting a name with a face. Although some people are aware of who he is, many of them aren't aware of his position on certain topics, so this can only help I would assume. There is only so much positive press that can go around on Digg and GTP (just examples), so getting it into the mainstream may help our position.

Doesn't he want to get rid of UNICEF? And make abortion illegal again? Not much of a comment I know but I was just wondering if these were indeed his stances.

And if he has pledged to never raise taxes that doesn't sound too good because what if the economic circumstances eventually required some to be raised? To be honest, I thought the support for him was sarcasm until seeing this thread (how embarrassing for me), but then again, I don't know that much about American politics. :\

 

[Omnis]

Doesn't he want to get rid of UNICEF? And make abortion illegal again? Not much of a comment I know but I was just wondering if these were indeed his stances.

And if he has pledged to never raise taxes that doesn't sound too good because what if the economic circumstances eventually required some to be raised? To be honest, I thought the support for him was sarcasm until seeing this thread (how embarrassing for me), but then again, I don't know that much about American politics. :\

He's said that UNICEF would probably be the last thing he would get rid of. He'd give abortion back to the states to decide.

Economic circumstances never require taxes to be raised. Ron Paul would save hundreds of billions on foreign policy alone, which would kill the need to tax. If the US cut its budget to the year 2000 levels, we could be revenue neutral without an income tax.

 

[Vasco]

Hmm okay. But if he saved 'hundreds of billions' on foreign policy, you would still need to have income tax surely? Here in Australia income tax is the main source of government revenue and the main form of redistribution of income (through transfer payments).

And America's CAD has been growing over the past few years right? So you'd want to be more than revenue neutral to increase confidence of foreign investors in the economy (which is pretty low right now).

 

[Omnis]

Hmm okay. But if he saved 'hundreds of billions' on foreign policy, you would still need to have income tax surely? Here in Australia income tax is the main source of government revenue and the main form of redistribution of income (through transfer payments).

And America's CAD has been growing over the past few years right? So you'd want to be more than revenue neutral to increase confidence of foreign investors in the economy (which is pretty low right now).

No, personal income tax needs to go permanently. Of course, before any changes can be made, there has to be major cuts in government spending like I've already said. Income tax is not the US's main source of revenue, however. I think it only accounts for like 14%. Not sure. Anyway, there are still ways to spend less money than what comes in without income tax. You'd have to, anyway, because entitlements would still be due for the people who choose not to opt out. If, for whatever reason, the government needed to make a tax, I'd much rather have them install a consumption tax. People would get to keep what they earn and only pay a small percentage of what they buy. We have a consumption tax here in Florida (6%) that works well. The tourists and people involved in shadow-economies contribute to the state too.

It is people, not governments, who run economies, though. The less strain on the people, the better. As far as foreign investors go, I think what first needs to happen is to have competitive currencies backed by gold and silver become legal tender. The Fed won't have to submit to the government's demand to print money to cover excessive spending, or, if they do, people can choose not to accept the inflated federal reserve notes. People would be able to actually save their money again and foreign investors would have confidence as their investments would be value-backed. Markets wouldn't have so much artificiality leading to bad investment. If the middle-class can be rebuilt, investors will come. Otherwise, we're looking at a nation of poor people and the few very wealthy who will subsequently have their money overseas and in other markets.

 

[YSSMAN]

I'm certainly in support of ditching the IRS and going with a Federal Consumption tax. While state ones aren't always that lovely (I believe we are raising ours here in Michigan from 6% to 7%), not having to pay the HUGE Federal taxes in every one of my paychecks will feel a bit more reasonable if I only have to pay on things I buy...

Don't want to pay taxes? Don't buy anything!

I'd be interested to see what kind of figures would be required to have the Feds take in enough money to keep the government running; Furthermore, if they would be able to tax food or not...

 

[Omnis]

According to the FairTax book, to completely rid the country of all taxes in all areas, it would take a 23% consumption tax to remain revenue neutral.

If personal income tax is 14% of income revenue, that means it is only 3% of that 23%.

 

[Vasco]

Interesting, thanks for the informative reply. I didn't know the government had resorted to printing money! And you guys think you have large income tax rates, have a look at Australia's (45% for the top bracket, which is currently at $150,000 I think)...although we do have a tax free threshold.
The idea of a federal consumption tax sounds very good. I was just looking at the wikipedia page for sales taxes and it looks like a total mess with so many different rates (some states don't even have a GST, amazing).

 

[YSSMAN]

It isn't as though our taxes are all that outrageous, but when we're paying for things that we obviously don't want (such as various bridges to nowhere, Woodstock Museums, etc), thats a problem. Changing the tax code would in theory make it easier for the average family to get by as well, but then of course the Liberals would complain that the rich are making far too much money.

As a side note, one of my economics professors had suggested that the tax system be extended to well over $1M a year for Americans, suggesting that a pay-in rate of almost 50% would be fair... Make $1M? The government takes $500K. Make $30M? Government takes $15M. He being the liberal optimist that he was, he assumed that people didn't deserve their money, and couldn't possibly use it to better use after a certain threshold.

Poppycock! Then I remembered that he supports the 9/11 Truth movement and thinks LBJ Killed JFK, so you can pretty much write-off his ideas anyway...

===

Generally speaking, the idea of tax reform for the next quarter century will likely come down to the election of a Democrat or a Republican. If the Democrats are elected, you can almost guarantee the institution of a Federal Healthcare system, a re-adjustment of taxes for the wealthy (probably similar to the 40%+ rates seen in the UK and Germany), and presumably a general slump in the economy. With the Republicans I generally forsee a "stay the course" method, maybe if Ron Paul gets a run a change to where things SHOULD BE, but that of course depends on a Congress that will aid that decision or not.

Tax rates are a mess nationwide, particularly in states that are already hurting economically (take Michigan and Louisiana for example). Going on the Federal level only screws things up even more...

 

[Omnis]

Interesting, thanks for the informative reply. I didn't know the government had resorted to printing money!

Yes, indeed. Insidiously, ever since 1913. That's why the USD is worth less than the Canadian Dollar now, and why today's dollar is worth like $.04 1913.

Ron Paul is an expert on monetary policy. Search for him talking about it on YouTube and stuff.

In other news, Ron Paul is going to be on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno on the 30th, and will be on The View soon.

 

[FoolKiller]

And make abortion illegal again?

That is the misconstrued definition given by his opponents. He is pro-life, yes, and he wants to repeal Roe vs. Wade because he recognizes that the federal courts have no jurisdiction on state matters. He has openly said he would rather abortion not be legal but would leave that up to the individual states and get the federal courts out of state related matters.

I don't know much about his UNICEF stance

Here in Australia income tax is the main source of government revenue and the main form of redistribution of income (through transfer payments).

Using redistribution of income as a reason for keeping income taxes, especially with libertarian minded opponents of income tax, is a big mistake. Redistribution of income is translated to government theft. It basically means taking money from those who earn more money and giving it to those who have earned little or nothing. Taking from the rich and giving to the poor sounds very noble and Robin Hood-like, but everyone forgets that Robin Hood stole from the rich that benefitted from unjustly taxed poor people and gave them back their money. He wasn't against rich people, he was against people benefitting from money unwilling taken from others (aka redistribution of income).

My stance on the idea is basically covered in my sig.