I do not for the life of me understand the earmark thing with him. Proposing earmarks for your home district and then voting "no" on them while they end up passing makes no sense.

If he doesn't want to spend federal tax dollars on his district, then why waste time proposing them? If your intent is to not spend money, why even put the matter up for a vote?

If he does want to spend the federal tax dollars on his district, and if he really does believe they're a "tax refund", then why not vote "yes"?

If you're going to stand up and beat your chest about how you never vote for earmarks, it might behoove you not to propose them in the first place. By proposing earmarks, Ron Paul knows that there is a likely outcome that tax dollars will be spent. But as long as he can cast his symbolic "no" while the measure passes, he gets to grandstand while his true intent is carried out.

Yep, sounds like presidential material.

Cagey B: Yep, sounds like presidential material.

Don't try to make Ron Paul seem reasonable. He's a quack candidate who was picked up by the internet noise machine. His popularity has nothing to do with reason or rationality.

The following is the gist of subby's headline: Waaaaahh!!! Waaahhh!!!

I like what he's saying. I like it a lot.

The "Fair Tax" is anything but fair.

Cagey B: I do not for the life of me understand the earmark thing with him. Proposing earmarks for your home district and then voting "no" on them while they end up passing makes no sense.

Let's say there is a dorm fund that is supposed to be used for the repair and upkeep of the building. A majority of the residents decide to use a portion of the money for a pizza party, despite your objection. Would you rather eat a piece of pizza, or eat the lost money? And is it hypocritical to request Canadian bacon and pineapple, instead of letting the RA choose anchovies for everyone?

Ron Paul makes excellent sense for a crazy man.

CageyB.: I do not for the life of me understand the earmark thing with him. Proposing earmarks for your home district and then voting "no" on them while they end up passing makes no sense.

Don't hate the playa, hate the game. Ron Paul is working toward changing the game, but in the meantime we all have to play by the existing rules. He and his constituents still have to pay existing taxes even though he clearly opposses them.

/Ron Paul is THE internet president

//Sadly, in the real world, this means nothing

Cagey B: If you're going to stand up and beat your chest about how you never vote for earmarks, it might behoove you not to propose them in the first place. By proposing earmarks, Ron Paul knows that there is a likely outcome that tax dollars will be spent. But as long as he can cast his symbolic "no" while the measure passes, he gets to grandstand while his true intent is carried out.

Yep, sounds like presidential material.

nicely put.

Lionel Mandrake: The following is the gist of subby's headline: Waaaaahh!!! Waaahhh!!!

BUT THE MEDIA IS BIASED AGAINST HIM!

Cagey B

I don't really agree with most of what Ron Paul says but I do see his reasoning for adding the earmarks in and then voting against them.

He doesn't believe there should be any earmarks and this is why he votes against them. If the earmarks do go through some of that money should go back to his district. In essence he does a fairly good job at keeping his principles and the people he is representing don't get screwed because of his principles.

I thought it was a good interview. Russert hit him with every shot he could dredge up and Ron Paul did a nice job responding to it.

SpeshilEdjukashin: The "Fair Tax" is anything but fair.

Ah, but the system we have now... "the rich" must pay more, that is fair? My wife and I pay more in taxes each year than my parents gross, and the percentage of our income is more as well. What, we don't have bills to pay?

I'll take the Fair Tax, please.

clancifer: SpeshilEdjukashin: The "Fair Tax" is anything but fair.

Ah, but the system we have now... "the rich" must pay more, that is fair? My wife and I pay more in taxes each year than my parents gross, and the percentage of our income is more as well. What, we don't have bills to pay?

I'll take the Fair Tax, please.

You make more ~ you pay more. What, so you can only get 1 lexus and can't get heated seats? Cry me a river.

clancifer: Ah, but the system we have now... "the rich" must pay more, that is fair? My wife and I pay more in taxes each year than my parents gross, and the percentage of our income is more as well. What, we don't have bills to pay?

The tax should be a flat % and not vary. Then everyone would essentially be paying the same.

gimmedaloot: clancifer: SpeshilEdjukashin: The "Fair Tax" is anything but fair.

You make more ~ you pay more. What, so you can only get 1 lexus and can't get heated seats? Cry me a river.

That will still be the case with the fair tax as I'll also spend more. But it will be based on consumption, not a punishment for making more.

clancifer: gimmedaloot: clancifer: SpeshilEdjukashin: The "Fair Tax" is anything but fair.

You make more ~ you pay more. What, so you can only get 1 lexus and can't get heated seats? Cry me a river.

That will still be the case with the fair tax as I'll also spend more. But it will be based on consumption, not a punishment for making more.

Eh- not quite.

gimmedaloot:

Eh- not quite.

Well, can't argue with that.

Ryan2065: clancifer: Ah, but the system we have now... "the rich" must pay more, that is fair? My wife and I pay more in taxes each year than my parents gross, and the percentage of our income is more as well. What, we don't have bills to pay?

The tax should be a flat % and not vary. Then everyone would essentially be paying the same.

I like this, but I feel better about a sales tax as opposed to an income tax. And yes, the rate should be the same.

Land value tax!

^/sorry

Oh look.
Its tonight's mandatory I Love/Hate Ron Paul thread.
I wonder how this will turn out.
I'm sure it'll result in a calm discussion of the political process and the issues at hand.
Or we could all just scream at each other.

Steve Holt!

Il Douchey: :
/Ron Paul is THE internet president

//Sadly, in the real world, this means nothing

Discount herbal v14gr4 and a GREAT opportunity to invest your 401k in a Nigerian prince's inheritance...

NewportBarGuy: Steve Holt!

Steve Holt!!! (new window)

haha headline is funny.

As usual, he can't quite keep from saying crazy stupid shiat in his latest video ...

Supporters of 2008 presidential candidate Ron Paul have been likened to Steve Holt. This is due to supporters inappropriately shouting "RON PAUL" similar to "STEVE HOLT".

Ok, which one of you did that?

Oh, c'mon, I saw the whole thing, after I turned the channel from Barrack Obama.

Russert attacked hard with a heavy arsenal as this meek philosopher/gynecologist tried to convince him instead of dominate him. Russert's look of sheer contempt at the end of the interview spoke volumes.

Ryan2065: He doesn't believe there should be any earmarks and this is why he votes against them. If the earmarks do go through some of that money should go back to his district. In essence he does a fairly good job at keeping his principles and the people he is representing don't get screwed because of his principles.

In other words, his district is full of delusional morons. They get a "principled" representative, but also benefit from pork!

The 'Fair Tax' may not be 100% fair, but it is definitely more fair and easier than what we have now.

At least I won't need friggin Ms. Cleo to figure out how much my taxes are, let alone how much to withhold.

/Anybody have a good rule of thumb for how much to withhold when married and both of us have variable incomes?
// Ron Paul isn't perfect, but at least I don't have to hold my nose too hard

TheGreatGazoo: /Anybody have a good rule of thumb for how much to withhold when married and both of us have variable incomes?

Perhaps claim the lowest it gets? Of course, I wouldn't advocate cheating the system in any way.

Snarfangel: Let's say there is a dorm fund that is supposed to be used for the repair and upkeep of the building. A majority of the residents decide to use a portion of the money for a pizza party, despite your objection. Would you rather eat a piece of pizza, or eat the lost money? And is it hypocritical to request Canadian bacon and pineapple, instead of letting the RA choose anchovies for everyone?

I don't have anything to say, just thought this was a great example and didn't want it to get buried :)

OH this interview is gonna be great

7of7: Cagey B: Yep, sounds like presidential material.

Don't try to make Ron Paul seem reasonable. He's a quack candidate who was picked up by the internet noise machine. His popularity has nothing to do with reason or rationality.

You watch television news, don't you?

clancifer: Ah, but the system we have now... "the rich" must pay more, that is fair? My wife and I pay more in taxes each year than my parents gross, and the percentage of our income is more as well. What, we don't have bills to pay?

Two reasons:

(1) The marginal value of the next dollar earned becomes less and less as you go higher and higher up the income ladder (diminishing marginal returns; one additional dollar is in fact *much more valuable* to the person who only makes, say, $5/hr than one more dollar is to the person who makes, say, $100/hr) - your own human nature dictates that you can *economically afford* to pay a higher marginal tax rate than the people below you, and that the people above you can *economically afford* to pay a marginal tax rate higher than you do.

(2) People with more income tend to have more stuff, tend to command a disproportionately higher amount of public resources in both the use and protection of said stuff (that both tend to increase as income increases) and thusly tend to cost more to society at a rate that increases as income increases.

Any taxation that isn't progressive is a welfare program for the not-needy.

The Internet is not a place for nuance. You get pigeonholed fast, and there's close to no appeals process about the pigeonhole you get.

Paul- Down With Big Government!
Guiliani- 9/11
Romney- Mormon
Huckabee- I Heart Huckabee! Also Jesus!
McCain- (picture of McCain hugging Bush)
Thompson- Chung Chung!
Hunter- Who?
Obama- Clean And Articulate
Gravel- Crazy Person
Hillary- You Will Elect Me Rarrrrrrgh
Kucinich- Look At My Hot Wife
Edwards- Rich Lawyer Guy
Richardson- I'm A Governor!
Biden- Doomed Awesome Guy
Dodd- This Is The Sound Of My Voice

Chuck Wagon: Steve Holt!!! (new window)

Now THAT is a thing of beauty. I

clancifer:

Ah, but the system we have now... "the rich" must pay more, that is fair? My wife and I pay more in taxes each year than my parents gross, and the percentage of our income is more as well. What, we don't have bills to pay?

I'll take the Fair Tax, please.


Boo farkin' hoo. Yeah, and a flat sales tax, as you later mention... that's real fair.

Ron Paul has no chance of being elected. He can come across as kind of a kook. When he says things right, he says them dead on, and is the only one, apparently, who is willing to say certain things:

1) The internet should not be regulated
2) Our civil liberties/freedoms are being taken away by the Patriot act, etc...
3) US foreign policy causes our need to fight wars in the middle east
4) The feds have *way* too much power

VonFlapjack: clancifer: Ah, but the system we have now... "the rich" must pay more, that is fair? My wife and I pay more in taxes each year than my parents gross, and the percentage of our income is more as well. What, we don't have bills to pay?

Two reasons:

(1) The marginal value of the next dollar earned becomes less and less as you go higher and higher up the income ladder (diminishing marginal returns; one additional dollar is in fact *much more valuable* to the person who only makes, say, $5/hr than one more dollar is to the person who makes, say, $100/hr) - your own human nature dictates that you can *economically afford* to pay a higher marginal tax rate than the people below you, and that the people above you can *economically afford* to pay a marginal tax rate higher than you do.

(2) People with more income tend to have more stuff, tend to command a disproportionately higher amount of public resources in both the use and protection of said stuff (that both tend to increase as income increases) and thusly tend to cost more to society at a rate that increases as income increases.

Any taxation that isn't progressive is a welfare program for the not-needy.

I like this, earning money is no longer valuable in decision making. its now the "marginal value." infact one could imagine a system where we transferred money from ppl who didn't gain much marginal value but produced a lot of money to those whose marginal value was very high but did not produce as much. this system would be very equitable and create a new sense of social responsbility.

From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.

scifarker: Ron Paul has no chance of being elected. He can come across as kind of a kook. When he says things right, he says them dead on, and is the only one, apparently, who is willing to say certain things:

1) The internet should not be regulated
2) Our civil liberties/freedoms are being taken away by the Patriot act, etc...
3) US foreign policy causes our need to fight wars in the middle east
4) The feds have *way* too much power

He is not the only person in DC who is saying these things, not by a long shot. He's just the loudest.

If you think Russert did to Ron Paul was fair, but not what pollute-tards do to Al Gore, you're a hypocrite. And vice versa.

Playing by the current rules of the game doesn't detract from your moral authority to declare that the rules are bad.

The same can't be said for preachers soliciting prostitutes and engaging in gay sex. There's no system in the world that forces you to do that.

Aarontology: He is not the only person in DC who is saying these things, not by a long shot. He's just the loudest.

Close enough for me.

/not voting for him, though

Ryan2065: The tax should be a flat % and not vary. Then everyone would essentially be payi

Bullshiat. The more you make, the more disposable income you have. And the more you make, the more that you depend on our society to protect and defend.

clancifer: Ah, but the system we have now... "the rich" must pay more, that is fair? My wife and I pay more in taxes each year than my parents gross, and the percentage of our income is more as well. What, we don't have bills to pay?

I'll take the Fair Tax, please.

Tell us more about the perils of making so much money, good sir!

Ryan2065: The tax should be a flat % and not vary. Then everyone would essentially be paying the same.

So lets assume that the very basics for survival (food, housing, transportation, medication, etc) cost about $20,000 a year. Is it fair to have the same tax rate on someone who needs to spend 80% of their income to meet these basics as someone who would only need 2%?

Beemer: Bullshiat. The more you make, the more disposable income you have. And the more you make, the more that you depend on our society to protect and defend.

Actually, it could easily be argued that the more you have, the less you depend on society as a well-to-do person could:
A. hire his own private security if need be or
B. move to another country with minimal disruption to himself.

It's pretty hard to do either of those things on a $30k salary.

/Thought RP handled the interview pretty well overall.

scifarker: Aarontology: He is not the only person in DC who is saying these things, not by a long shot. He's just the loudest.

Close enough for me.

/not voting for him, though

I like a lot of what he has to say too, but there are other things that prevent me from voting for him. Not that I'll even be presented with the option though.

Earmarks are not extra money - the money has already been taxed. Since the earmark system is allowed, and Paul did not use insert those to be voted on, his district would be put at a disadvantage in the state from other areas in the country. However, since he is personally against the system, he will vote against the earmarks and work toward getting the system abolished. But while it's in place, he has to represent his constituents, as he said, and get their tax money back to them.

I don't know if I would do the same thing in his place, but I can at least be objective enough to understand the very simple logic behind it.

while I don't agree with Paul for the most part, he seems like the lesser of two evils... of course I'd rather vote Democrat more than anything else, but we'll see

Cagey B: I do not for the life of me understand the earmark thing with him. Proposing earmarks for your home district and then voting "no" on them while they end up passing makes no sense.

If he doesn't want to spend federal tax dollars on his district, then why waste time proposing them? If your intent is to not spend money, why even put the matter up for a vote?

If he does want to spend the federal tax dollars on his district, and if he really does believe they're a "tax refund", then why not vote "yes"?

If you're going to stand up and beat your chest about how you never vote for earmarks, it might behoove you not to propose them in the first place. By proposing earmarks, Ron Paul knows that there is a likely outcome that tax dollars will be spent. But as long as he can cast his symbolic "no" while the measure passes, he gets to grandstand while his true intent is carried out.

Yep, sounds like presidential material.

He's already explained that his constituents have to pay the federal income tax; therefore, he's going to appropriate federal funds for them.

Don't be an idiot.