A New York Times profile of Ron Paul, the libertarian-oriented Republican presidential candidate who also is a physician and congressman, noted that "there is something homespun about Paul, reminiscent of ‘Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.’" "But," the article continued, "there is also something cosmopolitan and radical about him; his speeches can bring to mind the World Social Forum or the French international-affairs periodical Le Monde Diplomatique. . . . The word ‘empire’ crops up a lot in his speeches."
Meanwhile, online political strategist Patrick Ruffini predicted that Paul will come in second in the Iowa straw poll.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
75 Comments
Its amazing how many people out there are talking about presidential candidate RON PAUL even though his name seems to be frozen out by the newspapers, radio and TV news gurus.
Up until a month or so ago, I was just barely aware of his presence and still don’t know his full position on issues.
But I’m hoping Ron Paul has enough positions that I can accept. He looks like a clean candidate arriving from out of the blue.
Any Ron Paul supporters out there?
The great thing about Ron Paul is that you don’t need to hope and wonder about his positions on the issues. Just check out the following site:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/
It is a nicely-indexed repository of his writings and speeches. When I first started learning about Ron Paul’s philosophies, I was shocked at how much sense they made. But then I went back and actually read the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and realized that he’s not saying anything revolutionary… he’s just trying to respect the original contract between our government and the people!
BD
Barry, you’re on the wrong blog for common sense and reason.
This is the troll network.All trolls -all the time.trolls racists, bible thumpers, partisan hacks, and an odd assortment of strange people with nothing better to do than complain about what this blog is.
The only candidate from either of the major parties that would make a good leader.
The media don’t talk about Paul because he is a nutcase. Much like Lyndon LaRouche and other radical fringe candidates. And it is probably good they don’t talk about him much because, if they did, he’d not win anything. Imagine when he gets up and says he wants to eliminate things like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Job Corps, about half the military and virtually every other government program. Yeah, that will get lots of votes.
And Democrat Candidates are somehow mainstream?
Kev,
It’ll damn sure get mine.
A nut case that has been in congress for how long now? Since the late 70’s and never voted out of office. Yup, what a kook.
Oh but you are a hillaryite aren’t you. You wouldn’t understand small government, state’s rights, low taxes, and defending and supporting the constitution. My bad.
Kev,Let’s talk honesty and integrity here. Show me a liberal on the campaign trail that has consistently voted to uphold the constitution. You can’t. So I’ll give you a slow ball. How about one that has voted what they said and not reversed themselves.
Good luck with that one.
All that gets my vote, Kev.
The first thing Ron Paul could help us with here in Wichita is to cancel the downtown arena.
Then help us eliminate preferential tax treatment of politically connected folks. That means no TIFs, no tax abatements, no STAR bonds.
Then he could help us eliminate the monopoly on education and its financing in Kansas.
Then he could help us write a gambling law that respects freedom and liberty, rather than the government-expanding and statist law that we are allowed to vote on.
He reminds me of that squawky voice billionaire Ross Perot out of Dallas that ran for President a few years ago. Bottom line, he wants to change too much too fast, too drastically and people see that.
He won’t make the nomination imo.
THE TROLL NETWORK, why add your opinion on the topic instead of whining.
Kev, Paul is not a “nutcase.”
Even as a very liberal democrat I think he makes a lot more sense than other conservatives candidates, all of whom have major flaws:
Romney is a pathetic flip-flopper, to use the Republican term, who will say anything to get elected;
Giuliani is a sadistic proto-fascist with a very poor record on most issues as mayor of NYC;
Thompson is good in front of the camera like Bush 2 and Reagan, but is another slacker Republican president who relies on “common sense intuition” instead of actual reading, listening, and valid decision-making…after 8 years of that disaster plus Reagan, he’s a no-go for being too much like the current crap;
McCain is past his prime and stuck on staying in Iraq, which says it all about him.
Ron Paul has actual policies and is not a pandering talking head like many Republican candidates in the recent past have been, plus he will change the Iraq policy immediately. He understands the problem of going to war irresponsibly.
Well, if I remember anything about Ross Perot, he was a reformer, insisting that he could do a better job at running things than others could.
He did have some proposals to increase the size of government, if I remember.
Ron Paul wants to eliminate many of the current things that government does. That’s radically different from reform!
Don’t reform, eliminate!
Ron Paul is too reformist for me. I believe he is also a promoter of the Texas jack-a-lope society which by the way also promotes a hybrid for of natural occurrences.
His effectiveness would be curtailed by an unwilling Congress and would not make an effective President.
There’s a difference between picking a candidate that is fit for the job and one that will fit into the job.
Jack-a-lope society is a metaphor for conspiracy driven people.
Damnit. That last post was from me, not TRACY.
I believe he is also a promoter of the Texas jack-a-lope society which by the way also promotes a hybrid for of natural occurrences.Posted by: GOLLY | July 26, 2007 at 08:36 AM
Waht exactly do you mean by this then and can you post a link?
Why would “TRACY” be in your name field. Hmmmm???
Although I don’t discount all the libertarian ideas, what Ron Paul and other Libertarians propose is to effectively send this nation to a third world country virtually overnight if they got power.
And when you pin them down on this, each have different ideas on what should go and what should stay.
Immediately, every worker will be at the whim of the businessowner. OSHA, Laws protecting from discrimination, protections from …gone. They can abuse workers like China at will.Because immediately nobody will have protections and even the middle class will be overrun by the rich.
Regulations of medication, FDA, doctor’s offices, hospitals… You know like the ones neocons have tried for decades to instill into Tiller’s clinic. There will be no oversight of ANYTHING. All of this will fall back on the local and state communities. And if it makes money, they’re not going to stop it. If someone sells you a drug and it kills you, your loved ones will have nothing they can do. If you want to have surgery in Mexico go right ahead. It’ll be no different. And if you think you can track down these people…think again. Remember you’ll have no money, and there isn’t anyone you can call to help you.
There was outrage over the child protective services not doing anything about starving girls…well, there would be no one to call if children were being strapped to beds in private run orphanages- the state wouldn’t have the funds to deal with it. Again, it would be left to the people to deal with, and we see how well the people deal with the homeless in Wichita.
No medicare would immediately displace elderly from nursing homes in droves.
These items are in place now because they were needed throughout history when oversights weren’t in place.
Our Government can be fixed, and some things need fixing. But obliverating those things will only hurt us, not help.
http://www.issues2000.org/Ron_Paul.htmHow about informing yourselves. This only takes about 5 minutes to read through.
(Props to Republican for the link)
I, while claiming to be a staunch independant, certainly lean a lot more left than right. I was shocked to hear how much I agreed with Ron Paul’s ideals when I listened to him on NPR yesterday afternoon. Upon further reading on his views, I was surprised how much I agreed with this Republican. He may be a little to conservative on some social policies, but overall, his views seem very reasonable.
Posted by: political_mom | July 26, 2007 at 09:07 AM
P_Mom, do you have any links to tie ANY of your statements to Dr. Paul?
Why would “TRACY” be in your name field. Hmmmm???
Posted by: Steven Davis | July 26, 2007 at 09:05 AM
Check the Open Thread from yesterday for your answer.
TypePad has been logging me in and out all morning. Dunno.
“Immediately, every worker will be at the whim of the businessowner.[sic]”“Because immediately nobody will have protections and even the middle class will be overrun by the rich.”“If someone sells you a drug and it kills you, your loved ones will have nothing they can do.”“Remember you’ll have no money, and there isn’t anyone you can call to help you.”“there would be no one to call if children were being strapped to beds in private run orphanages-“Posted by: political_mom | July 26, 2007 at 09:07 AM
Absolute tripe P_Mom. Can you back any of this up?
The Seniors are the most powerful voting block in this country. From the web site refrenced above (ontheissues.org)
Paul cannot be elected with this view:
Strongly Favors topic 6:Privatize Social Security(+5 points on Economic scale) Rated 30% by the ARA, indicating an anti-senior voting record: Strongly Favors topic 6NO on strengthening the Social Security Lockbox: Favors topic 6YES on reducing tax payments on Social Security benefits: Favors topic 6YES on raising 401(k) limits & making pension plans more portable: Favors topic 6
It’d be interesting to track the nyms of the Ron Paul advocates and see who they end up backing once the two parties’ nominees are chosen.
For all their professed “conservatism,” they usually tend to fall back in the Republic Party fold, turning their backs on their passionately expressed “principles.”
“Conservatives” talk the talk but refuse to walk the walk. Ron Paul impresses people by seeming to really believe Libertarian claptrap.
Fact is, this is a big country. A big country requires a big government. A true Libertarian government would repeal laws against child labor and restore over-the-counter heroin, county poor farms, tainted beef so “the market” can work it out. Libertarians apparently believe the Interstate Highway System is a natural stone formation.
Sounds okay to a minimalized third party made up mostly of people who get cranky at tax time and want to smoke dope and rape their daughters. It’s the Libertarian dream.
But when they go into the voting booth they’ll vote for fascist Giuliani, or flip-flopper Romney, or pig-in-a-poke Thompson, or whomever the corporate fatcats of the GOP will choose. Like lamps to slaughter.
Yeah I can back this up. Look at countries basically run in the same manner. Peru for instance…their judicial system is paid off by the highest bidder. Very few wealthy, and many dirt poor…kids begging in the streets. No oversight of anything.
Now discuss how you think we’ll get a different result.
And from the latest Rasmussen tracking poll, Paul and the 4 other candidates at the bottom – combined to a most unpopular total of 3%.
So, something like 3/5 of 1% or 0.6% like Paul.
I like Paul on a lot of the issues, but he’s dead in the water.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/presidential_tracking_poll
In the race for the Republican Presidential nomination, former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson attracts support from 26% of Likely Republican Primary Voters and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani earns support from 25%. Arizona Senator John McCain and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney each are preferred by 11%. (see daily history). Mike Huckabee is favored by 3% and five other candidates (Sam Brownback, Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, Tommy Thompson, and Sam Brownback) split 3% of the vote.
What’s all this I hear about Fred Thompson being so lazy he would practically flee from the Senate?
Is this really who we want as a President?
Unfounded accusation Pmom.
Cite your source or fess up that you made it up.
You libs fear Thompson the most.
Let’s see, drop the dept. of homeland security – which has done exactly what for us so far? How many billions will that free up?
Drop the IRS and end income tax. Huh. More billions there. Plus you get to keep the money that you EARNED.
End the war in Iraq. Drop out of NATO and the WTO. More billions – might even add up to trillions.
Strong state’s rights. And you are pissy about that why? Do you think you have a stronger voice on a state/local level or at the federal level? If your state and local government is so inept that it can’t regulate itself, then that is YOUR problem for voting them into office. YOUR problem for not voting on the issues.
But P_Mom wants the federal gov’t to step in. Not just a nanny state, but a nanny nation.
Outstanding P_Mom. What else do you want your hand held for? Can you make it to the bathroom on your own? Should we set up a gov’t office so that you can get help doing that?
No, not really. I’m not scared of Thompson.
But here’s my source.msnbc.msn.com/id/18999838/site/newsweek/
And yet, you want to make the decisions to control what I do with my own body by regulating when and how I can get an abortion.
I merely want to ensure that I’m not going to a doctor who uses dirty instruments.
And yet, you want to make the decisions to control what I do with my own body by regulating when and how I can get an abortion.I merely want to ensure that I’m not going to a doctor who uses dirty instruments.Posted by: political_mom | July 26, 2007 at 10:03 AM
Quite untrue. I oppose abortion. But abortion should be a state’s issue.
How is it the federal government’s role to ensure that Doctors practice sterile practices? Isn’t that the job of the state and the bar?
“A big country requires a big government.”
Says who?
Laws against child labor. Why do you think children are no longer needed to work, as they one were just so a family could eat?
We are a wealthier country now. Would parents send their children to work just because there is no law against it?
Yes, there would be over-the-counter herion in a libertarian world.
And by the way, we have tainted beef from time to time. You’ll also notice that private efforts to increase inspection by some companies, in response to their market’s request, have been thwarted.
So who does the government beef inspection racket serve: beef producers, or the consumer?
And when there is a failure, and people die from tainted food, the government says “We don’t have enough resources to inspect properly.”
The offenders say “We did all the government requires us to do.”
And consumers lose.
By the way, political_mom, the first principle of liberty is non-agression.
Ok so lets focus in on what this ONE aspect of life would change if we went to Libertarian principles.
We have no Roe, we have no Federal Government, no OSHA, no oversight.
Doctors are all now private pay. And you’re poor because whatever company you work for was taken over by Walmart and told you that you either work for .25 cents an hour or get nothing.
Hospitals are a dime a dozen. Our state has decided that a right to an abortion is unneccessary, and if you want to take your 12 year old rape victim (whose rapist moved out of state now and can’t be tracked down) to the only state for miles that will allow abortion. You get there and the claim is that the abortion doctor has paid off all the state leaders in that state because he’s reallllllllly rich. He does the abortion and sends you and your daughter home.
She gets a massive infection and dies. What are you going to do? NOTHING. There is no Federal Court you can turn to. You think the leaders of that state are going to listen to you?
If you think government is crooked now, you wait.
By the way, political_mom, how is the government school system doing providing the special services you need for your child?
And how well did the government enforce the labor laws that your daughter’s employer violated?
And your husband, is he happy working for the government?
The compliants on the front page of the newspaper about road construction delays: who is it that owns these streets?
The interstate highway system which, according to critics, is crumbling and so congested that it causes us huge losses: who owns that?
The acrimony in this town about the downtown arena: who is building that arena?
Who is it that forbids gays from marrying, and instead lavishes special privileges on those it deems worthy of marriage?
Who is prosecuting a war that, according to polls, the public disagrees with, and judging from the rise of al-Qaeda, isn’t protecting us anyway?
“you that you either work for .25 cents an hour or get nothing.”
If Wal-Mart had that type of market power over its employees, why is it that news reports tell us that Wal-mart pays significantly over the minimum wage?
If they had that type of market power, wouldn’t they be presently paying people just the minimum the law requires?
“abortion doctor has paid off all the state leaders in that state because he’s reallllllllly rich”
Some people claim that’s the situation in Kansas right now.
If a woman has an inherent right to control over her body and have an abortion, then no state can pass a law denying that right, just as the federal government can’t.
I mean, that would be the case if we paid attention to liberty first.
We have no Roe, we have no Federal Government, no OSHA, no oversight.
OSHA – you should read what Dr. Paul wants to do before you put words in his mouth. Or are you just trying to be an alarmist.http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=888
Roe – State’s issue. If your state bans abortion, either elect officials that support your views or leave the state. After all that is what freedom is about right?
we have no Federal Government – again. Are you just trying to be an alarmist or are you really this uninformed?
“Doctors are all now private pay. And you’re poor because whatever company you work for was taken over by Walmart and told you that you either work for .25 cents an hour or get nothing. “
C’mon P_Mom. Let’s have a reality check now.
“(whose rapist moved out of state now and can’t be tracked down)”Again. Alarmist and not true.
“You get there and the claim is that the abortion doctor has paid off all the state leaders in that state because he’s reallllllllly rich.”
Again, reality check…
“What are you going to do? NOTHING. There is no Federal Court you can turn to.”Really? Where exactly has SCOTUS gone?
That article was from 2000. I saw him on an interview last week where he said unequivically that he would dismantle all of the oversight offices.
By your own assertion Sol, the Federal courts would have no oversight on any of these issues.
So either get with your own program or leave it- not so easy is it?
Anonymous, I believe the oversight we have now can be fixed, but dismantling them would be horrid. I’m ashamed that my own state didn’t want to do anything about my daughter’s boss’s issue. Walmart COULD have that kind of power and the other big corporations too. They obviously have no problem hiring Chinese slave labor…the only thing that stops them here are…tada…regulations.
And maybe you and Sol can work out who gets the right to decide on abortion…he says it’s the state’s right to limit abortion. You say it can’t be done.
Sol, who will track down your rapist? We have no FBI.
That’s totally untrue P_Mom. SCOTUS would still be intact – as per the constitution – to rule over State’s and federal issues. Such as Roe v Wade. Were it to be opposed by a state, the state could appeal it up to the SCOTUS.
There would still remain all the oversight granted by the constitution, the president, the congress, and SCOTUS
To add insult to injury, when he made this outlandish announcement, our Attorney General was in Moscow. Maybe if our FBI spent more time at home, we would get more for the money we pump into this now- discredited organization. Our FBI should be gathering information here at home, and the thousands of agents overseas should return. We don’t need these agents competing overseas and confusing the intelligence apparatus of the CIA or the military.
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr062702.htm
Doesn’t sound to me like he wants to be rid of the FBI.
P_Mom, where are you getting your information or are you making it up as you go along?
Like cold water to a thirsty soul, so is good news on Ron Paul.
I’m tired of business as usual.
I hope he comes in first.
Amen Hotdog.
He has many good points on small government, states rights, and liberty for all. I’d even vote for him, but only because I know that he could never get everything accomplished that he’d like to.
His view on limited government is very much along the lines of Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson was extreme! But he provided balance, because Washington etc… did start to head towards a bit of a too strong central government. Of course, over time, this has happened anyway.
From Ron Paul’s own website:
I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.
I have also authored HR 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called “population control.”
This is out of line with most libertarians who believe that the government has no right to interfere with a person’s decisions (from the Libertarian party website)
“We won’t demand laws or restrictions on other people who we may not agree because of personal actions or lifestyles”
An official mantra of the Libertarian Party:lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#reprodright
Note that there are vast discussion between how far reaching these things or how limited they should be within the party.
So is Ron Paul a real libertarian?
A site that discusses how market forces should be an adequate cover for OSHA if disbanded Ya, right. :
theadvocates.org/ruwart/questions_maint.php?Category=10&id=356
On the role of the courts, and other federal issues.
theadvocates.org/ruwart/q0022.html
Fortunately, the Congressional branch writes the laws, not the Executive.
(at least that has traditionally been the case)
http://theadvocates.org/ruwart/q0022.htmlDidn’t see Dr. Paul listed there.
http://theadvocates.org/ruwart/questions_maint.php?Category=10&id=356Again, no reference to Dr. Paul
“negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life.”
As stated previously, he supports the STATE’S right to choose.
“caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.”He was an OB/GYN and you have a problem understanding he is pro-life?Again – relegated to the STATE to decide, not the feds.
“This is out of line with most libertarians”Whoopie shit!!! This is Ron Paul – a republican, not the Libertarian party.
Youo are correct, political_mom, in that Ron Paul’s belief on abortion is not what most libertarians believe.
That’s about the only major thing he and most libertarians disagree on.
Now whether that disqualifies him from being called the libertarian candidate, that is for someone else to decide.
But I don’t think that any of the other major party candidates, from either party, care about liberty and freedom at all.
They may say they do, but their actions and proposals say otherwise.
He’s running as a LIBERTARIAN!You just said SCOTUS would determine Roe, now you say they won’t.
Which is it Sol? By the Lib platform, SCOTUS would not have any ruling over the state’s decisions on issues.
Under the Lib platform, all oversight at the federal level would be abolished. Each state to do their own thing. If that means running over the civil rights of others, so be it.
Like I said there are a lot of things I like about Libertarians, but they don’t have all their ducks in a row. Just like when we all just voted to pull Sudafed off the market…it was to stop all these damn meth labs. So if the state next door profits from methlabs and sudafed because the druggies can come here and make their meth labs….there would be nothing anyone here could do.
I do like their stance on gay marriage and legalization of marijuana. But I’m not ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater in order to get those things.
I consider Ron Paul to be one extreme and other to be Hillary. Government does have a role but the more limited the better. The infrastructure of our country is in horrible shape. We were just told by our city that roads they had planned to fix wouldn’t be fixed this year because they were out of funds. All this while pouring money into the oldtown/downtown area.
Government can’t be our nanny. They have a role to play and that is infrastructure, education (or allowing vouchers) of our children, and having structure in place for the safety of the citizens whether from internal sources (OSHA) or external sources (our military).
Be wary of promises politicans handout during a campaign. Very few of those are ever realized.
I read something upline about the homeless in Wichita. Take a trip downtown and actually talk to them. I have worked with them and find that the largest percentage of them are living exactly where they want to be. Many programs handled by churches and private individuals make sure they eat and have decent clothes to wear. This is a much better solution that the government building shelters they won’t use and attempting to bring them back into a society they are happy to be out of.
P_Mom, you are very confused. Dr. Paul IS running as a republican. SCOTUS would have the final say if a state could not determine the legality of abortion. SCOTUS is the top legal branch of the government as per the constitution. Of course they would be the last legal word.
“Under the Lib platform, all oversight at the federal level would be abolished.”This s not a lib platform. This is Ron Paul’s platform and I have seen nowhere where Dr. Paul wants to abolish oversight. Please post links to Dr. Paul stating ANY of this.
Sudafed – State’s decision. I forget the legislature title right now, but there are rules/laws enacted to allow a state to be sovereign of other states, but still agree on issues.
And again, it comes down to the state and the state’s voters. That is where the bulk of the power SHOULD be as outlined in the constitution.
“Be wary of promises politicans handout during a campaign. Very few of those are ever realized.”Posted by: ksgrm | July 26, 2007 at 02:16 PM
Check his voting record ;->
“And Democrat Candidates are somehow mainstream?”
There are Democrats that are nutcases too. People like my former Congressman Gus Savage and recently Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney. Usually these people get taken care of in primary elections by Democrats (both lost). Unlike Republicans, we don’t keep voting for nutcases.
“A nut case that has been in congress for how long now? Since the late 70’s and never voted out of office. Yup, what a kook.”
Look where he comes from. Some little kooky part of Texas. Probably filled with Tim McVeigh supporters and other right wing lunatics.
“Oh but you are a hillaryite aren’t you. You wouldn’t understand small government, state’s rights, low taxes, and defending and supporting the constitution. My bad.”
Right now I am supporting Obama. I will support her if she ends up being the Democratic nominee but I hope she isn’t. As for “small government”, what does that mean? It certainly does not seem to mean much to Republicans who, while they oppose a health care plan for children, hand out billions to rich farmers, road builders to build roads and bridges where nobody lives and of course the huge military contractors. And “states” do not have rights. People have rights. And I do support the Constitution. Just not the right wing version of it.
“Look where he comes from. Some little kooky part of Texas. Probably filled with Tim McVeigh supporters and other right wing lunatics.”
You’ve proven you have no idea who Ron Paul is nor what he stands for.
As for the rest, I agree. The ‘republicans’ in office now are republican/conservative in name only. That is one of the reasons I support Ron Paul. He understands classic conservatism.
“Kev,Let’s talk honesty and integrity here. Show me a liberal on the campaign trail that has consistently voted to uphold the constitution. You can’t. So I’ll give you a slow ball. How about one that has voted what they said and not reversed themselves.
Good luck with that one.”
Most of the people you call “liberals” are not real liberals. They may run on that side of the isle but when the rubber meets the road, many of them are not too far from the right wing Republicans when it comes to. But there are a few real liberals such as Dennis Kucinich who are not scared of the Republicans and not afraid to be a liberal.
Score one !!!
Sounds like the ‘Ron Paul’ for the dems then.
Ron Paul vs. Dennis Kucinich 2008.
That’d be our best bet.
From what I heard Paul also gave support to the “Boortz Tax” which would replace the income tax with a sales tax thus making sure that the poor and working people pay virtually ALL the tax burden in the country since we must spend more of our income to live. This is 100% opposite of MY tax plan- RAISE taxes on the rich (those over $200K a year) and eliminate taxes on the forst $30,000 of income for everybody.
Ron Paul is another GOP candidate that doesn’t have a chance in hell of winning (none of the current crop are any better)
Next candidate please!
There will not be another election. W has established his dictatorship.
“Most people understandably want a simpler income tax system, but it’s useless to discuss tax reform without spending reform. Who wants a 40% flat tax? Who wants a national sales tax if it adds 50% to the retail price of everything we buy? In other words, why change the tax structure if spending stays the same? Once we accept that Congress needs $2.7 trillion from us, the only question is how it will be collected. The current answer is the labyrinthine tax code, which pits taxpayers against each other in a political scramble to make sure the other guy pays. The truth is that Congress does not need $2.7 trillion, or anything close to it, to fund the proper constitutional functions of the federal government. “http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul316.html
Sounds like a yet better plan ;->
I, for one, am pissed that I can no longer buy Sudafed without ID. I have allergies and sinus issues, and Sudafed works great as a decongestant. However, the freakin’ DEA and all their ilk have decided to punish the innocent to insult the guilty.
F*** the Dems, F*** the Repubs. Both parties are whores to special interest, across the board. Ron Paul may be insane, but he’s my kind of insane, even if he and I don’t see eye to eye on abortion. It’s about time we got back to the way our founding fathers intended.
FTW.
““Most people understandably want a simpler income tax system, but it’s useless to discuss tax reform without spending reform. Who wants a 40% flat tax?”
I agree 100%. The tax code in this country is friggin OUTRAGEOUS. A middle class family like ours should not have to pay $220 a year to get our taxes done! But what the conservatives want to do would be a disaster for working folks. What they want to do is install a sales tax of 30% or so on everything you buy- food, cars, services- while doing away with the income tax, corporate tax, estate tax and capital gains tax. So a loaf of bread that cost $2 today will cost $2.60 plus local and state sales tax tomorrow. Therefore when Bill Gates buys a loaf of bread, he will pay the same tax as the Cessna worker that buys the same loaf. But since Gates makes a billion a year, that tax will be a tiny amount for him since he does not spend much to live on but for the Cessna worker who has to spend 80 to 90% of his income to live on, that tax will eat him alive! I would simplify taxes too. Call it the “Kev Tax Plan”. It would work like this:
1. No deductions whatever (this includes mortgage interest)
2, First $30,000 ($60,000 for a couple- hetro or homo) would be tax free. Would not matter where it came from (wages, interest, capital gains) nor how much you make.
3. $30,001 to $100,000 (double for a couple) would be taxed at 2 to 10%
4. $100,000 to $500,000 (double for couple) would be taxed at 15 to 21%
5. $500,000 to $1 million (double for couple) would be taxed at 25 to 30%
6. Anything over $1 million would be taxed at 35 to 70%.
Libertarian Defined: A Republican that wants to smoke dope
Kev,
You shoule REALLY do your research before you bash someone. You have proven your ignorance over and over on this thread.
Atta boy Kev, atta boy.
4. $100,000 to $500,000 (double for couple) would be taxed at 15 to 21%
5. $500,000 to $1 million (double for couple) would be taxed at 25 to 30%
6. Anything over $1 million would be taxed at 35 to 70%.
Socialism defined = Wealth redistrobution.
atta boy Kev.
Bully to the WE Blog for giving an HONEST candidate face time.
I, for one, am pissed that I can no longer buy Sudafed without ID.
Posted by: postal | July 26, 2007 at 05:51 PM
Uhh Postal, no offense, but having read some of the things you post, I’ve switched my position on government control on drugs. For some strange reason, I get the feeling withholding drugs from you is a good thing.
I think I’d hate to see your posts after you’ve had a few downers.
No offense intended, I respect your opinion. YOu are are great person. You are a Great American.(Please don’t shoot me)
Next candidate please!
Posted by: troll5145 | July 26, 2007 at 02:51 PM
Hey! I resemble that remark! You@$#*&(%$( Son of @#$)(&)&@#&*&NIC STEALER!!!!!
I’m reporting you to the CIA, the FBI, State Police, County Mounty, city police, Andy Griffith, and Magaret 5-0h.
You are lower than whale shi=-, you are a sick person, and must be a liberal democrat (everyone knows only liberal democrats steal NIC’s).
You probably were AGAINST photo ID’s for voter verification – but you LOVE THE IDEA OF CENSORSHIP on WEBLOG.
I gotta pegged dontchano.
Did anyone actually get to meet the candidates that ran with the libertarian group last year?
Trust me, nobody would be electing these guys.
Because the balance of SCOTUS will (probably) go one way or the other during the next president’s term I will watch very carefully who gets my vote to make that next appointment. Presidents come and go, members of Congress come and go (much too slowly sometimes) but those Supreme Court Justices are there for a very long time.
I had to debate with my grandmother tonight who told me that Bill Clinton knew the 9/11 attacks were coming and that Bush never got any memo stating “Bin Laden determined to strike within the US”. Guess what channel she watches.
I forgot to ask her if Saddam was involved in 9/11.
She is a republican…she’s mad at this administration and plans to vote for Edwards. LOL imagine that. I’m good with that.
She also said none of them who made it to power at those levels did it honestly either. That you choose the least dishonest crook lol.
The simplest tax plan is no income tax at all, it did work for more than a hundred years.