Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > Other Topics > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-21-2007, 02:53 AM
Zygote Zygote is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,051
Default Washington Post Fact Checker Questions Paul\'s plans.

I dont endorse this guy's analysis but do feel Paul should be more detailed about where he'd specifically like to start making cuts outside military spending.

if i have time tomorrow id like to do some fact checking of my own and see what's feasible and suits Dr. Paul's ideas.

Anyways, share your thoughts...

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-....html#comments
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-21-2007, 02:59 AM
Scary_Tiger Scary_Tiger is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,590
Default Re: Washington Post Fact Checker Questions Paul\'s plans.

Paul has mentioned he would support a VAT like the Fair Tax to help transition. He just doesn't want either, and especially doesn't want both. But a VAT would be an improvement to a federal income tax.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-21-2007, 03:15 AM
xorbie xorbie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: far and away better
Posts: 15,690
Default Re: Washington Post Fact Checker Questions Paul\'s plans.

I'm lazy, so I'd be interested in someone doing some fact checking on the claims about the portion of taxes that come from income tax and the spending cuts.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-21-2007, 03:21 AM
Kaj Kaj is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bet-the-pot
Posts: 1,812
Default Re: Washington Post Fact Checker Questions Paul\'s plans.

Considering the only military spending cuts the "fact checker" included were Iraq/Afghan ops, I think somebody needs to fact check the fact checker. Not to mention he just assumed that Paul would advocate no spending decreases in other areas (including the billions in Congressional pork every year). His whole analysis was a weak attempt to smear Paul with that same tired tactic of "if [x] doesn't have every possible answer, then [x] has no answers". As if the status quo is somehow the only option despite its glaring failures unless another option emerges which fixes every failure *immediately*. Yeah, things will really change with that attitude.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-21-2007, 03:25 AM
xorbie xorbie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: far and away better
Posts: 15,690
Default Re: Washington Post Fact Checker Questions Paul\'s plans.

Kaj,

I noticed that myself. I'm pretty sure the cost of the Iraq war is $100 billions more than the fact checker stated.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-21-2007, 03:31 AM
ZeroPointMachine ZeroPointMachine is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 753
Default Re: Washington Post Fact Checker Questions Paul\'s plans.

How exactly did the individual income tax collected jump $162 BILLION in one year?

I think every member of congress should have the graphs from this wiki page branded on them.

budget wiki
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-21-2007, 03:37 AM
Bedreviter Bedreviter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 456
Default Re: Washington Post Fact Checker Questions Paul\'s plans.

How can Ron Paul claim that the US did "just fine" without a federal income tax the 126 first years of the nations history when there was an federal individual income tax in place from 1862-1872?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-21-2007, 03:45 AM
Scary_Tiger Scary_Tiger is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,590
Default Re: Washington Post Fact Checker Questions Paul\'s plans.

[ QUOTE ]
How can Ron Paul claim that the US did "just fine" without a federal income tax the 126 first years of the nations history when there was an federal individual income tax in place from 1862-1872?

[/ QUOTE ]

??? Nit much? Did this tax somehow matter to the government in 1787-1862 or 1872-1913? Is 116 years less evidence than 126 years? That income tax was also 3% for incomes under 10,000 (the vast majority) and 5% for larger incomes. Hardly the situation we're in today.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-21-2007, 03:57 AM
Bedreviter Bedreviter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 456
Default Re: Washington Post Fact Checker Questions Paul\'s plans.

It actually increased to 10% for income above 5000$ in 1864.

How am I being a nit for pointing out that Pauls assumption about the country doing fine without the federal income tax the first 126 years when it is an invalid statement?

So its ok for politicians to lie or be ignorant about the history of one of their most important topics as long as you support that politician? Im sure its ok if a democrat say that the rich in this country only pays 25% in income tax when it is really 35%, because 10% doesnt really matter much?

Truth is that when America was at war congress found it neccessary to introduce an income tax, and Ron Paul is cleary wrong when he states that the nation did well without it. But sure, pointing out a politicanīs lies or lack of knowledge about one of his primary issues makes me a huge nit.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-21-2007, 04:29 AM
Scary_Tiger Scary_Tiger is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,590
Default Re: Washington Post Fact Checker Questions Paul\'s plans.

[ QUOTE ]
How am I being a nit for pointing out that Pauls assumption about the country doing fine without the federal income tax the first 126 years when it is an invalid statement?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because it was true for 116 years. A nit is a small, usually unimportant imperfection in something.

[ QUOTE ]
So its ok for politicians to lie or be ignorant about the history of one of their most important topics as long as you support that politician? Im sure its ok if a democrat say that the rich in this country only pays 25% in income tax when it is really 35%, because 10% doesnt really matter much?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ron Paul was basically saying the country paid 0% income tax 1787-1913, when really, giving a generous 10% flat income tax for all ten years 1862-1872, it paid .794% income tax. I'm sure someone like you might rip into whoever if someone was off by <1%, but it really doesn't matter.

[ QUOTE ]
Truth is that when America was at war congress found it neccessary to introduce an income tax, and Ron Paul is cleary wrong when he states that the nation did well without it. But sure, pointing out a politicanīs lies or lack of knowledge about one of his primary issues makes me a huge nit.

[/ QUOTE ]

So we need an income tax to wage war... the income tax is therefore good? Hurray war. I think America did just fine not warring.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.