GOOGLE RON PAUL
 

From a liberal rag, some Ron Paul. I recommend you read it, but it's hella long, so here are some exerpts:

Now, I know what some of you are going to say. If you want to see the special newsletters, they have 'em.

So how do you feel about this? Is it a smear campaign, or did you already know how fucking insane Paul is? :gonk:

I don't think much of Ron Paul, but I'm not exactly about to take anything from The New Republic at face value.

I just skimmed through, but his suggested alternate names for New York made me laugh.

knk msnbc also has a copy of the newsletters, although I didn't see them on their website when I last looked. I have no doubt that they're real.

To be fair to Paul, it's highly possible that someone else (like Lew Rockwell) wrote them and used his name, and that Paul doesn't actually believe what's in them.

At the same time, what does it say about Paul if he couldn't bother check what was being published with his name on them, and just what kind of people he had let use them? The fact that he said he "doesn't know" who wrote them and that he somehow can't find out seriously damages his credibility.

This, combined with his poor finish in the New Hampshire primary, effectively ends his campaign.

The thing of it is that Paul did know who wrote the letters. He was an aide who was fired, and the style of writing in the letters and statements from former Paul staffer Eric Dondero confirm that the author was Rockwell, who has been an advisor to Paul in the past.

I talked about this a lot already in my chocojournal, but the Mises Institute is pretty fucking awful. There was an Austrian economics organization in Romania that considered calling themselves the Hayek Institute because Rockwell has so thoroughly smeared any association with Mises. Mises himself fled the Nazis, and now Herman Hoppe, a Mises Institute author, is a holocaust denier.

Around 1988 Rothbard suddenly became anti-semitic and started appealing to far right paleocon sentiments. The idea was that using a message of hate would foment a class war that could overthrow the state. Of course it was fucking insane and would never work, but it's smeared Rothbard's positive contributions and Rockwell has carried on the tradition.

I doubt that Paul is a racist and just has a lot of racist friends, but he is practically a neoconfederate, which basically means he shouldn't be president ever.

The fact that libertarians have known about these letters for a long time but their support has only waned once it's become an MSM talking point is very telling about the dangers of personality cults.

I doubt this fine bit of propaganda is aimed at libertarians. It's aimed at progressives who are breaking off from the Democrat candidates to support Paul, or openly calling for a break with the Democrats because of the War. The liberals must be pretty worried about losing progressive support. They probably should be. The Republicans really got hurt politically when Roosevelt pulled them out of the party.

Not sure if I'm breaking this to you, but this isn't propaganda. Everything I know about Rockwell and the Mises Institute suggests that Paul is probably a neoconfederate, especially considering his We The People Act.

What happens to libertarians is the association with Paul. Libertarians latched themselves onto his bandwagon before everybody understood that he's more of a paleoconservative than a real libertarian, and the association of Paul with libertarianism in the public sphere will discredit the movement since libertarians have come to the defense of Paul in the past. Even if, to be fair, that defense has usually been an answer to criticisms of his foreign policy, and not allegations of racism, though I was a denier when the news of the letters first broke.

Again. This little bit in the New Republic is meant to discredit progressives calling for support of Paul. That's where the real propaganda resides. It's aimed at under-minding progressives supporting Paul.

"HOW DARE THEY SUPPORT A CANDIDATE THAT IS SO RACIST, ANTI-CHOICE, ANTI-IMMIGRANT, VOTE DEMOCRAT!"

Libertarians have no other viable candidate to support. Progressives on the other hand are a different story.

Ah, I see what you're saying. Regardless, libertarians shouldn't be supporting a candidate just because he wants to end the war in Iraq and the War on Drugs. We shouldn't have to form a coalition with 9/11 Truthers and Stormfront to do so, either.

Ok look, I've seen you describe yourself as a progressive several times. Could you please clarify your core stances and whatnot and why you identify yourself as progressive? Maybe I've been incorrectly thinking of you as a massive right winger. Progressives fight for things like animal and gay rights and whatnot right?

Oh no, I'm not trying to describe myself as a progressive. I don't think I have said anything to the contrary either. Just because I read their stuff doesn't make me one.

And yeah progressives fight for that kinda stuff. As well as certain state issues like Death with Dignity or Medicinal Marijuana laws which are very agreeable to my mindset. Despite being a Republican.

Brady I think he really is racist, if not as racist as many of his supporters and the excerpts suggest. I don't have any interest in arguing how much, quantitatively, he hates darkies, wimmin and the gays, because that really isn't the main thing. Reading the article I was surprised how much of a conspiracy crackpot survivalist he is, and as you said, the neoconfederate business is terrifying. It really says some big things that he was able to have a political career for this long.

Honestly, it really doesn't take that much to discredit a bunch of newly minted college students who think the Iraq war is bad, taxes are high and that we should legalize it.

I still get newsletters from the campaign, and it seems like there are more and more codewords for the Infowars people to pick up on.

I don't fear racism or homophobia. I don't like them, and wouldn't vote for politicians who blatantly support them, but they don't affect me and I'm rather selfish. What I do fear is Paul gutting all of the actual useful federal agencies such as the EPA and running around acting like a retard screaming 'the South will rise again'. Which is why I despise the man. Kucinich is everything everyone loves about Paul minus the batshit insanity.

That's charming, it really is. Do you think racists give you some sort of special bump since you're a white heterosexual male? You're also a fucking atheist who doesn't hate gays, jews or darkies. You're a liberal which means you love Big Government. You believe in evolution - not saying Ron Paul doesn't but a lot of these types don't and they hate anyone who does. They hate people who are pro-choice, and I'm presuming you are.

basically you're selfish but also not very well educated

birds of a feather I guess

RON PAUL

I accept your apology.

Boy, that William Jennings Bryan sure was a card, huh? :)

This is what I don't get. Why are all these lefties supporting Paul when Kucinich or even Gravel share their anti-war views, and align with their other issues?

Because a lot of lefties are stupid. Also we cling to this idea that a Libertarian being the Republican candidate would be better thana conservative, to make the election a win win.

But yeah, any self respecting socialist endorses Kucinich and Gravel.
I'm sure we're all familiar withthe political compass
http://photos-d.ak.facebook.com/phot...AAAAAAAAA:.png
I'm the big dot obviosuly, the one just belowand to the right of me, she reckons Ron Paul is top shit, despite his veiws falling well in the purple corner. I told her that she's stupid.

Gravel supports the Fair Tax.

Kucinich endorses a bill that would ban psychotronic space weapons.

Batshit insanity, what?

My point was that there are far better reasons to not support the man without having to dig to things other people said in his newsletter.

No, your point was that since you're white, racists don't have a thing on you.

I mean I really don't have to embellish that, I think it stands on its own.

So does Huckabee and a lot of other conservatives. The Fair Tax is something a lot of left and right wingers can agree on. Just for different reasons.

Dude, we're totally gonna need those against the aliens.

That does not make the Fair Tax any less crazy.

Why is the Fair Tax crazy again, Brady?

The primary appeal of the Fair Tax to conservatives is the opportunity to get rid of the IRS, and while the eradication of the IRS has its own utility, the problem is that it necessitates a new bureaucracy to monitor reported consumption and transfer the necessary payments. That would be the case if we implemented tax credits for perishables, but even if we simply did not place excise taxes on edible goods, you'd still need a new agency to monitor and collect the excise tax.

Yet even with the absence of a belligerent tax collection agency (belligerent to the average joe maybe), the concept of a Fair Tax along with any other tax on consumption runs into an inevitable problem: it's regressive. The wealthy do not consume their incomes the same way that the poor or middle income earners do, and even if you except the poor from taxation you've effectively shifted the tax burden to those who earn a middle income.

Not saying you're wrong here (even though I've read Boortz' tax book, I'm still not convinced that this is the greatest idea after a bit of thought), but what makes you believe that the tax burden will magically be shifted upon the middle class instead of the rich?

Do the rich not spend more than the middle class?

They spend a far lower percentage of their income. The lower classes spend much more of their income, and so taxes on consumption (sales taxes et. al) affect them much more than the upper class when compared to an income tax.

Ok -- I understand that, but you didn't answer the question. I asked if the rich spent more than the middle class. With the Fair Tax, as I've come to understand it, the sales taxes on spending up to the poverty level on the essentials of life (though I'm interested on how the government would define 'essentials of life') are offset by a monthly prebate.

So I really fail to see how the FairTax becomes a regressive tax given what you and Brady have said.

Addendum:

This is only a somewhat mildly related question, but I admit I'm not very learned in the area of economics, and a flat tax has always seemed like a great idea to me. You just flat up pay a certain portion of your income, and that's it. That goes to the government to be redistributed, and you keep everything else. One tax, period. I know a lot of people think this is a bad idea, but why? Even with the different spending habits of people of different income classes, it seems as though it would work. I mean, sure, maybe it'd get a bit iffy on what you call income, but we'd certainly get around all the sick loopholes, and solve at least a few of the problems with the current tax system. A flat tax may not be without it's problems, but I can't forsee any being so bad as to not want to switch to a system like that.

Because liberals argue that a flat tax increases the tax burden of the poor and middle class, because a person earning $30k a year paying 20 percent of his income feels that much more than a person earning over $200,000 paying the same rate.

Liberals love progressive taxation because it allows them to effectively buy the votes of the lower classes by promising them new gov't benefits at the expense of the upper classes. You can't do that if everyone pays the same tax rate.

Of course the same is true in reverse. Tax cuts for the rich help buy campaign funding quite nicely.

Except that ever since the inception of the income tax, the wealthy have always paid the overwhelming majority of income taxes. In truth, even though you liberals always cry about 'tax cuts for the rich' you neglect the fact that an ever-increasing portion of the population has virtually no tax burden whatsoever.

The idea is that people should not be taxed so heavily that they are unable to meet basic requirements for living. Is this a bad idea? Is this an idea you want to abolish?

What the fuck are you talking about? Resorting to attributing arguments to me that I never made isn't a valid debate tactic.

Even if the wealthy HAVE paid the majority of income taxes in terms of gross numbers, that still doesn't change the fact that they pay a lot less of their total income out to Uncle Sam.

Let me put it this way: The lower and middle classes pay a far, far higher opportunity cost than the wealthy in taxes, simply because the wealthy generally spend a far lesser amount of their total income. What they don't spend accrues interest (and in several cases, the interest from that wealth is what the person lives off of, not the wealth itself), and generally sits there doing nothing. Compare this to you or me. I make around 800 dollars a month working part-time delivering pizza (minimum wage plus tips and commission). Of that, 4-500 is immediately set aside for monthly expenses, most of it being gas due to my job. I'd say that's about $250 dollars a month (60 dollars a week, filling up the gas twice; and I drive a Honda Civic, which is fairly fuel efficient. Imagine if I drove a minivan or SUV). The rest of that 4-500 dollars is set aside as discretionary spending, and the remaining 300 dollars is deposited into savings (usually to be spent a few months later on books and tuition).

In other words, easily 95% of my income is eventually spent, compared to roughly 3-4% for your millionaire type (who, by the way, is also able to afford luxuries I could never dream of owning).

Basically, a fair tax places a much, much higher burden upon the lower/middle class (which already has trouble) than it does the wealthy.

I'm sorry, I thought I was fairly clearly responding to something you just said. Allow me to clarify:

The top tax rate is 35 percent (for anything over 350k). A married couple that makes 48,201 (the median income in 2006) pays at the 25 percent rate.

However, now let's look at a real telling statistic: Who Pays America's Tax Burden, and Who Gets the Most Government Spending?

So not only do the wealthy pay more gross income taxes, are taxed at a higher rate, but they receive $0.41 cents on every tax dollar they spend in government services. In contrast, the lowest levels of wage eaners receive over eight dollars.

But that's right...the burden is clearly upon the middle and lower class.

Let me rephrase that: under the Fair Tax, the lower/middle class would have a much higher burden of tax than the wealthy would.

Oh, so wealthy people should get their even share of government services. Okay, I guess you could give wealthy neighbourhoods first priority in fire situations, and maintain their roads better and shit. Maybe spend more on wealthy inmates than on poor inmates. We'll need some talent to figure out how to get the military to protect the wealthy better than the poor, but I'm sure it can be done.

What figure makes you believe that? See, tax burden means that the middle and lower classes would pay more in taxes than the wealthy would, but wait -- the Fair Tax is designed to tax not income, but WEALTH, because your wealth is what you take to the store to purchase items.

Even you say this in your previous post:

Guess what? These luxuries get taxed under the Fair Tax, and since you and I both agree that wealthy people are more keen to spend their wealth on luxuries than the lower and middle classes, then why wouldn't their tax burden be more?

Now, in fairness I did post this statistic earlier:

Now while the percentage of federal taxes for the lower and middle classes rises to just under 7 percent and the upper class drops to 45 percent, the fact still remains that the wealthy's tax burden is significantly higher.

Your argument just doesn't make sense.

Additional Spam:
Your entire argument is mired in fallacy and bullshit.

Are you even going to attempt to actually address what I said or just try and attack my arguments with bullshit emotional distortions?

The fact of the matter is this: The wealthy receive less government services (by the dollar) than what they pay in, while everyone else receives substantially more per dollar than what they pay in -- ranging from 30 percent to over 800 percent depending on their income.

And yet you STILL complain that the wealthy aren't being soaked enough, you pompous bitch.

Why are you attributing arguments to me that I am not making? Answer my question, chirping bird. How would you make the shift from (roughly) need-based public service allocation to a more wealth-based model?

That's a faulty argument because wealth can also remain sedetary or be invested, which the wealthy do far more of than consume. A real tax system based on wealth would require taxation based on all payment transfers, including the purchase of stocks and bonds, and in that case I bet you conservative support for a "wealth tax" would bottom out.

The point is that an increase of the tax burden on the poor and middle income earners is bad because it reduces their purchasing power. Even if the gross tax income from lower incomes is smaller than the tax on that wealthy 1% the actual tax rates will still factor into people's concepts of justice, and if the poor and middle income earners consume at a higher rate than the wealthy then they are paying a higher tax rate, and that's stupid.

Yes, the wealthy do allow their money to sit in banks and invest it more than others, but that's only because they have more money to work with. It does not, however, mean that because the wealthy tend to invest more that they do not spend money on the retail level at a far higher rate than the lower income brackets, because me and you both know that's not the case.

Actually, I'm not even sure if that's true, because under the Fair Tax system, since they aren't getting hit with payroll taxes, their purchasing power actually increases (maybe, I'd have to look at the figures more thoroughly) because they get all of their money instead of having it looted before it gets to them. When you factor in the prebate, I really don't see how you can say that their purchasing power is effectively reduced.

NP, what do you expect the Fair Tax to fix? If you think the Fair Tax will fix the rich paying disproportionately more of their income as taxes, then the Fair Tax must increase the tax burden on the lower classes. That's basic math. If you don't think it fixes that, then why do you love it so much?

I don't understand why the progressive tax system is such a problem for some people. A person who makes $250,000 annually and is taxed 33% ($82,500) is not going to lose so much overall than a person who makes $35,000 annually and taxed 25% ($8,750). Sure, that $82,500 is a shit-ton of money, but for that particular wealth bracket, it isn't much of a pain to give up than the $8,750 for the lower income earner.

One might say that the extra money kept were it not for income taxes would encourage the wealthier to spend more. But that's not necessarily true. A smart person of that bracket would prefer to invest their money rather than spend it. Sure, the rich do spend a lot, but those of the middle and lower class have the greater likelihood overall of spending that extra money, so I see the Fair Tax concept as an additional burden for lower and middle class people.

Then again, I'm not a person who likes spending money on things all the time, so I may be an isolated case. (Way to be patriotic Republican, Dull . . .)

I'm not sure I'm in love with it at all. Though I like the idea of being taxed more on what I spend than rather on what I earn -- I always think it's a more fair way to tax than hijacking your paycheck for 20 percent off top then later coming back and getting you for an additional third.

I was merely arguing against the assertion by others that the FairTax would totally flip flop the system and make the poor pay all of the taxes when that's an outright fallacy.

Because it effectively punishes you for making more money than someone else and it is the basic catalyst for more and more government spending; once people realize they can continually vote themselves more and more services at someone else's expense, it's a never-ending cycle. Remove progressive taxation and you eliminate a lot of that bullshit.

FairTax punishes people for spending their money.

I'm afraid that you are wrong and you have a poor argument here, you see the thing of it is

You're not quite framing it in the correct manner. See it like this way, taxation is an investment (albeit a mandatory one) in the government. The wealthier who are taxed more, and therefore ending up contributing a far larger portion of the total investments than those less wealthy, are the majority shareholders. Therefore, governmental control should go towards those who have a larger stake in it: the wealthy.

The savings rate in the U.S. is in the negative, and the people skewing that number are not the ones in the top 1%.

The point is not that the wealthy do not spend money at retail, the point is that as a percentage of their income, consumption for the wealthy is not nearly as much as it is for lower income earners. This basically means that middle income earners pay higher rates of taxation than the wealthy do.

If the Fair Tax is intended to replace the current income tax system then it will reduce their purchasing power because the government will attempt to achieve similar levels of collection. Imagine being taxed 33% on all of your purchases.

In everything is politically realistic fantasy land, I don't see how the Fair Tax is more appealing than, say, setting a flat tax rate on all income above 90,000.

Isn't that why it's mostly the wealthy that run the government? They make up their minority in the population by being disproportionately represented in our government.

The Fair Tax wouldn't shift the burden to the impoverished. They would benefit from monthly "tax rebates" that would essentially constitute a form of social welfare. Hence some liberals support the legislation. This isn't a liberal/conservative issue.

I don't see how it is even a class issue. It would even out the tax burden based on personal consumption habits. Not discriminating against how much you make, but how much you spend. Except for those that are in poverty and of need of social assistance. It would also abolish redundant taxes, and simplify the tax system. I would like the Fair Tax system more if I didn't think it was a knee-jerk reaction to current economic events.

That being said, I'm not too comfortable with the Fair Tax. It absolutely reeks of the ideology of some neo-liberal economist. It also might make it easier for local/state/federal governments to jack up tax rates across the board. Simplicity has it's drawbacks.

So?

Capital gains taxes punishes investing.
Payroll taxes are redundant. In that they're already taxed as an income tax.

I can keep going if you want. Pointing out flaws in the current system is easy.

I don't understand how so many people equate taxation with punishment. If the money you give to your government isn't being used the way you want, it's a pretty clear indication that there are far greater problems at hand than the taxation rate.

There's no way to track the money that's been taxed from you in the first place. Not to mention that government projects are not always financed from a tax pool.