|
|
#11
11-21-2007, 04:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Washington Post Fact Checker Questions Paul\'s plans.
[ 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. [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, me pointing out that Ron Paul is making false statements about the history of the income tax in the US = me saying that income tax is good? AndI disagree that the fact that there was an income tax for ten years is unimportant, because it shows that during the worst crisis in the US during those years that Paul is referring to the government actually did introduce income tax. And your .794% number is neat and all, but for those paying 10% of their income in income tax from 1864-1872 I dont believe that number is worth much. 
|
|
#12
11-21-2007, 05:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Washington Post Fact Checker Questions Paul\'s plans.
[ QUOTE ]
Kaj, I noticed that myself. I'm pretty sure the cost of the Iraq war is $100 billions more than the fact checker stated. [/ QUOTE ] The numbers are right basically, spending on the Iraq war is "off budget" spending. I'm too lazy to explain anything else about government spending to you though. This guy's analysis is badly flawed though IMO and I find it amazing that people can't see how it is flawed but I guess I shouldn't be given the apathy about how the government collects taxes and spends money.
|
|
#13
11-21-2007, 05:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Washington Post Fact Checker Questions Paul\'s plans.
Thanks for posting. As I said in another post, his analysis is badly flawed IMO. I don't think Paul would be successful in dumping income taxes entirely but he'd get us going in the right direction.
|
|
#14
11-21-2007, 05:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Washington Post Fact Checker Questions Paul\'s plans.
Would be nice to see a rough outline from the ron Paul campaign about what the US Federal Budget would look like if it was up to him. It might be too complicated and time-consuming to do, but it would definatly help when trying to understand what his vision is.
As it is now the "get rid of the IRS" seem too radical for most people, but if he provided an out line of a budget where income taxes were abolished and showed where he would cut government spending and how much he envision a VAT/Fair Tax (if thats something he would like to introduce) would bring in for the government. If people were presented with a rough outline of how Ron Pauls governent would look like it would be easier for people to understand where hes coming from and where hes hoping to go.
|
|
#15
11-21-2007, 06:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Washington Post Fact Checker Questions Paul\'s plans.
[ QUOTE ]
Would be nice to see a rough outline from the ron Paul campaign about what the US Federal Budget would look like if it was up to him. It might be too complicated and time-consuming to do, but it would definatly help when trying to understand what his vision is. As it is now the "get rid of the IRS" seem too radical for most people, but if he provided an out line of a budget where income taxes were abolished and showed where he would cut government spending and how much he envision a VAT/Fair Tax (if thats something he would like to introduce) would bring in for the government. If people were presented with a rough outline of how Ron Pauls governent would look like it would be easier for people to understand where hes coming from and where hes hoping to go. [/ QUOTE ] Good points and good post. I think it's fair to say that on constitutional grounds Paul probably has problems with the way the IRS operates.
|
|
#16
11-21-2007, 10:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Washington Post Fact Checker Questions Paul\'s plans.
I don't get why people aren't more troubled about this. Getting rid of the IRS is one of the centerpieces of his campaign, as well as one of the hugest policy changes in the last 50 years. Many of the arguments he's using to support it are misleading at best, and false in a lot of cases. When I started a thread about this a month ago, a lot of RP supporters believed that the IT could be completely eliminated just by cutting some discretionary funding. Probably better than 90% of RP supporters now still believe that. And we still have no specifics on what "Dr. Paul" would replace the income tax with.
It's really kind of frightening. Just because the guy says he loves the Constitution doesn't mean you should automatically trust him when he makes vague, misleading statements to explain why he should be given an enormous amount of power.
|
|
#18
11-21-2007, 10:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Washington Post Fact Checker Questions Paul\'s plans.
[ QUOTE ]
I don't get why people aren't more troubled about this. Getting rid of the IRS is one of the centerpieces of his campaign, as well as one of the hugest policy changes in the last 50 years. Many of the arguments he's using to support it are misleading at best, and false in a lot of cases. When I started a thread about this a month ago, a lot of RP supporters believed that the IT could be completely eliminated just by cutting some discretionary funding. Probably better than 90% of RP supporters now still believe that. And we still have no specifics on what "Dr. Paul" would replace the income tax with. It's really kind of frightening. Just because the guy says he loves the Constitution doesn't mean you should automatically trust him when he makes vague, misleading statements to explain why he should be given an enormous amount of power. [/ QUOTE ] Completely eliminating the income tax would only cut our spending back to 199X levels. Ron would cut more spending than that. No need to replace it with anything.
|
|
#19
11-21-2007, 10:52 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Washington Post Fact Checker Questions Paul\'s plans.
[ QUOTE ]
Because it was true for 116 years. [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Ron Paul was basically saying the country paid 0% income tax 1787-1913 [/ QUOTE ] 1913 - 1787 = 126 btw.
|
|
#20
11-21-2007, 10:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Washington Post Fact Checker Questions Paul\'s plans.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I don't get why people aren't more troubled about this. Getting rid of the IRS is one of the centerpieces of his campaign, as well as one of the hugest policy changes in the last 50 years. Many of the arguments he's using to support it are misleading at best, and false in a lot of cases. When I started a thread about this a month ago, a lot of RP supporters believed that the IT could be completely eliminated just by cutting some discretionary funding. Probably better than 90% of RP supporters now still believe that. And we still have no specifics on what "Dr. Paul" would replace the income tax with. It's really kind of frightening. Just because the guy says he loves the Constitution doesn't mean you should automatically trust him when he makes vague, misleading statements to explain why he should be given an enormous amount of power. [/ QUOTE ] Completely eliminating the income tax would only cut our spending back to 199X levels. Ron would cut more spending than that. No need to replace it with anything. [/ QUOTE ] NO IT WOULDN'T!! RON PAUL IS LYING WHEN HE SAYS THIS!! (and I guarantee when he says that he's planning to tax 2009 dollars and spend them in 1998) Look at the numbers. Setting payroll taxes and SS aside, money raised from non-income tax sources wouldn't cover interest payments.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
