I hate Ron Paul
I hate Ron Paul. Maybe not him specifically, but his supporters. It seems you can't go anywhere on the internet without running into a batshiat crazy Ron Paul supporter shouting 'RON PAUL '08 LOL.'You know what, Ron Paul supporters? You're the equivalent of Dennis Kucinich supporters. You have no chance, yet you keep fighting and fighting. If this involved more than just spamming forums you might be called honorable. But it doesn't. Anybody can copy/paste a slogan again and again.
I hate Ron Paul. His ideas are crazy. He wants to abolish the IRS, which is the fundamental method of fundraising in the United States. He appeals to conservatives, but most of the conservatives who support him are unaware of his opposition to the war in Iraq. That appeals to me, but his problem with it isn't the fact that we were lied into it, or that Iraq posed no threat to us. No, his problem with it is that it takes a few dollars out of his pocket.
You know what's wrong with Ron Paul? His fundamental rejection of 'I am my brother's keeper.' He isn't about pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps. He's about taking your shotgun, pointing it at your neighbor, and taking his boots. He's about survival of the fittest, which is something that doesn't work in a society where EVENTUALLY everyone gets old. If things were survival of the fittest, Ron Paul would be in a cave, waiting to die.
Oh yes, and let's not forget this completely hypocritical voting record. Ron Paul is a supporter of state's rights, supposedly, as he fundamentally rejects the idea of Federalism. He is extremely vocal on this with its application toward right-to-life issues. He believes that abortion should be left up to the states, and uses this argument to attack a Supreme Court which refuses to overturn Roe v. Wade. However, he's several times voted on legislation which restricts or outlaws certain kinds of abortion, several of which were stricken down by the Supreme Court. Which is it, Mr. Paul? Should it be left up to the states, or shouldn't it?
SCREW YOU, Ron Paul. And screw your idiotic supporters.
Rating:4.09
Comments
-
1
I'm not a Ron Paul supporter, but before you slam people for wanting to abolish the IRS, maybe you should read a book by Neal Boortz called The Fair Tax Book. This country would be far better off without the IRS.
Posted 1 year ago | Report
-
2
I've read the fair tax book, and the fair tax is anything but. The rich reinvest their money rather than spend it at a much higher percentage than the poor. Therefore, any kind of flat tax is, at its very nature, regressive, as with any kind of national sales tax. Our tax system is overcomplicated and full of loopholes, yes, but this doesn't benefit anyone but corporations. So to say that the IRS is bad for the average man is asinine.
-Submitter
Posted 1 year ago | Report
-
3
With the fair tax, EVERYONE would pay their fair share and there is not way for the rich to pay less, actually they'll pay far more. Since the tax is basically a national sales tax, every time they buy anything, they pay a tax. It also forces the millions of illegal aliens that are currently not paying a dime, to pay their fair share as well. Ad to that the fact that every tourist that comes to this country and buys something ends up helping our economy and I don't see how anyone can continue to support the lousy system we have now.
Posted 1 year ago | Report
-
4
Did you read my post at all? The poor spend a larger portion of their income than the rich. They always have, they always will. A national sales tax is regressive.
Posted 1 year ago | Report
-
5
I read your post and it makes zero sense. The poor spend more of their income than the rich? I'm guessing your not rich, cause that is bullshit. Rich people drive $100,000 Mercedes and the poor drive used Cadillacs they picked up for $2,000. The rich live in multi million dollar houses, send their children to private school, eat at the most expensive restaurants, have all the toys like boats, big screen TVs in every room, buy their daughters horses for their birthday. Most of the rich are as much or more in debt than the poor.
If the rich spend more than the poor, that means that the rich will pay more taxes. If a rich man spends $500,000 a year on consumer goods and a poor man spends $5,000 and they both pay the same percentage sales tax, the rich man pays 100 times more in taxes. Simple common sense.
Posted 1 year ago | Report
-
6
But while the rich might be paying their taxes on a mercedes or a flat-screen television, the poor would not be. The poor would be paying their taxes on shelter, food, clothing, and other expenses. Which drives up the cost of things THEY NEED. I have absolutely no problem with an across the board sales tax, so long as it's luxury based and is not regressive. The fair tax, as proposed by Neal Boortz, is not a fair tax at all.
And there's another flaw in your argument. The super-rich don't drop even a portion of their income on their homes/cars/televisions. They invest the vast majority of it to continue building revenue. But please, keep watching MTV Cribs and thinking that's the real world.
Posted 1 year ago | Report
-
7
Like I said, you're obviously not rich so you're talking about something you don't know anything about. On the other hand, I am rich and I know exactly how much of my income I spend and whether it's more or less than the percentage a poor person spends is immaterial, because I buy many times more clothes, shelter and expenses so I'd be paying a lot more in taxes.
It's also obvious you haven't read Neal's book like you claimed or you would know about the prebate and the fact that everyone would get a check based on a chart and their income and the poor would get a check for $500 a month, for example, for necessities.
I'd also like to point out that if they poor need to spend more of their income on necessities, that's not the rich man's fault, they should have studied harder in school or learned to rap or play sports.
I don't mind arguing the tax with you, but until you know what you're arguing about, it's going to come down to me trying to educate you and you making snide comments to feel superior.
Posted 1 year ago | Report
-
8
Ron Paul is the man. The only reason I wouldn't vote for him is if Al Gore ran for president... But, I fear it's too late for Al...
Posted 1 year ago | Report
-
9
thank god im not the only one. im soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo sickof his supporters.....if you dont want him as president your "a "fascist and against the constitution"
i didnt think there would be a group of midless tools that could annoy me more than the Obama girls, but the Ron Paulie's have managed to do it
Posted 1 year ago | Report
-
10
Fuck you Socialist and Neo-Con assholes. Libertarianism is the only thing that can save our country.
Conservatives are hell-bent on making everything Christian, and liberals want to fucking play Robin Hood with everybody else's money. Well, fuck the lot of you. Leave my morals alone, and leave my money alone.
Posted 1 year ago | Report
-
11
I am reasonably confidant that this will have little impression on the poster who as described them self as "rich", but I do hope to dissuade any other readers from believing this individuals' perspective to be synonymous with fact.
Any sales tax - whether national, state, or local - is regressive. By this, I mean that lower income individuals pay a disproportionate amount of the total tax burned (this is apposed to "progressive" taxes, where higher income individuals pay a disproportionate amount). While in theory, they are a flat tax, in practice they prove themselves very regressive. Regardless of the personal experiences of the self-styled "rich" poster, lower income individuals spend a greater portion of their total income on taxable goods than do higher income intervals. The "Fair Tax" attempts to alleviate this inequality by making a certain portion of spending - around $24,000 for a family of four as of 2003 - tax free. Additionally, qualifying families would receive a monthly check for around $400 to cover the cost of necessities.
However, all this comes at a cost. If extremely optimistic numbers are used (of the variety used to justify Regan's supply-side disaster) then the National Sales Tax would be set at 23%. More rational numbers place it at 34%. So that $23,000 sedan you want to buy would instead cost you $30,820. There are many other unexpected "purchases" that would qualify for Fair Tax's National Sales Tax, such as: Purchases of new homes, Rent, Interest on credit cards, mortgages and car loans, Doctor bills, Utilities, Gasoline (30 percent in addition to current taxes, which would not be repealed), and Legal fees. This is a very complicated issue, and I would urge interested parties to do further research (check the links below)
The current National Income Tax - while flawed in many ways - is a progressive tax, because of indexing. Indexing works by requiring higher income individuals to pay a higher percentage of their incomes.
Therefore: If you make $50,000 a year and are taxed at 10%, you pay: $5,000 in taxes
If you make $120,000 a year and are taxed at 18%, you pay: $21,600 in taxes
There are loopholes with the National Income Tax, and it must be taken as a given that the wealthy will almost always find it more advantageous to find loopholes in any tax structure, rather than pay a certain portion of their income. While many are not completely satisfied with the National Income Tax, I believe that it is better than this "Fair Tax".
You don't have to take my word for it.
www.fairtax.org
…provides the main argument for Fair Tax (and is the official website)
www.factcheck.org
…provides a quality argument against Fair Tax
en.wikipedia.org
…is the Wikipedia article, which you can edit to say whatever you want
Posted 1 year ago | Report
-
12
Libertarianism FTW!
Posted 1 year ago | Report
-
13
Haha! Rich kid got shot down!
Posted 1 year ago | Report
-
14
All of you tree hugging dems can blow me. According to the last poll in 2001 by the IRS:
Top 25% of income levels pay 84.6% of taxes in US.
Top 50% pay 97%.
Top 1% pay almost 40% of ALL TAXES.
Yes I understand that you think they have bigger, better toys than you but once you've stopped pouting about it you'd realize our taxes completely bend the rich over. IN JANUARY PELOSI EVEN ADMITTED TO THIS.
www.rushlimbaugh.com
The whole system is backwards and by definition the tax cuts have to benefit the "haves"...they are the only ones paying into our screwed up system.
Posted 1 year ago | Report
-
15
Not "screwed up"... progressive.
Posted 1 year ago | Report
1
I'm not a Ron Paul supporter, but before you slam people for wanting to abolish the IRS, maybe you should read a book by Neal Boortz called The Fair Tax Book. This country would be far better off without the IRS.Posted 1 year ago | Report
2
I've read the fair tax book, and the fair tax is anything but. The rich reinvest their money rather than spend it at a much higher percentage than the poor. Therefore, any kind of flat tax is, at its very nature, regressive, as with any kind of national sales tax. Our tax system is overcomplicated and full of loopholes, yes, but this doesn't benefit anyone but corporations. So to say that the IRS is bad for the average man is asinine.-Submitter
Posted 1 year ago | Report
3
With the fair tax, EVERYONE would pay their fair share and there is not way for the rich to pay less, actually they'll pay far more. Since the tax is basically a national sales tax, every time they buy anything, they pay a tax. It also forces the millions of illegal aliens that are currently not paying a dime, to pay their fair share as well. Ad to that the fact that every tourist that comes to this country and buys something ends up helping our economy and I don't see how anyone can continue to support the lousy system we have now.Posted 1 year ago | Report
4
Did you read my post at all? The poor spend a larger portion of their income than the rich. They always have, they always will. A national sales tax is regressive.Posted 1 year ago | Report
5
I read your post and it makes zero sense. The poor spend more of their income than the rich? I'm guessing your not rich, cause that is bullshit. Rich people drive $100,000 Mercedes and the poor drive used Cadillacs they picked up for $2,000. The rich live in multi million dollar houses, send their children to private school, eat at the most expensive restaurants, have all the toys like boats, big screen TVs in every room, buy their daughters horses for their birthday. Most of the rich are as much or more in debt than the poor.If the rich spend more than the poor, that means that the rich will pay more taxes. If a rich man spends $500,000 a year on consumer goods and a poor man spends $5,000 and they both pay the same percentage sales tax, the rich man pays 100 times more in taxes. Simple common sense.
Posted 1 year ago | Report
6
But while the rich might be paying their taxes on a mercedes or a flat-screen television, the poor would not be. The poor would be paying their taxes on shelter, food, clothing, and other expenses. Which drives up the cost of things THEY NEED. I have absolutely no problem with an across the board sales tax, so long as it's luxury based and is not regressive. The fair tax, as proposed by Neal Boortz, is not a fair tax at all.And there's another flaw in your argument. The super-rich don't drop even a portion of their income on their homes/cars/televisions. They invest the vast majority of it to continue building revenue. But please, keep watching MTV Cribs and thinking that's the real world.
Posted 1 year ago | Report
7
Like I said, you're obviously not rich so you're talking about something you don't know anything about. On the other hand, I am rich and I know exactly how much of my income I spend and whether it's more or less than the percentage a poor person spends is immaterial, because I buy many times more clothes, shelter and expenses so I'd be paying a lot more in taxes.It's also obvious you haven't read Neal's book like you claimed or you would know about the prebate and the fact that everyone would get a check based on a chart and their income and the poor would get a check for $500 a month, for example, for necessities.
I'd also like to point out that if they poor need to spend more of their income on necessities, that's not the rich man's fault, they should have studied harder in school or learned to rap or play sports.
I don't mind arguing the tax with you, but until you know what you're arguing about, it's going to come down to me trying to educate you and you making snide comments to feel superior.
Posted 1 year ago | Report
8
Ron Paul is the man. The only reason I wouldn't vote for him is if Al Gore ran for president... But, I fear it's too late for Al...Posted 1 year ago | Report
9
thank god im not the only one. im soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo sickof his supporters.....if you dont want him as president your "a "fascist and against the constitution"i didnt think there would be a group of midless tools that could annoy me more than the Obama girls, but the Ron Paulie's have managed to do it
Posted 1 year ago | Report
10
Fuck you Socialist and Neo-Con assholes. Libertarianism is the only thing that can save our country.Conservatives are hell-bent on making everything Christian, and liberals want to fucking play Robin Hood with everybody else's money. Well, fuck the lot of you. Leave my morals alone, and leave my money alone.
Posted 1 year ago | Report
11
I am reasonably confidant that this will have little impression on the poster who as described them self as "rich", but I do hope to dissuade any other readers from believing this individuals' perspective to be synonymous with fact.Any sales tax - whether national, state, or local - is regressive. By this, I mean that lower income individuals pay a disproportionate amount of the total tax burned (this is apposed to "progressive" taxes, where higher income individuals pay a disproportionate amount). While in theory, they are a flat tax, in practice they prove themselves very regressive. Regardless of the personal experiences of the self-styled "rich" poster, lower income individuals spend a greater portion of their total income on taxable goods than do higher income intervals. The "Fair Tax" attempts to alleviate this inequality by making a certain portion of spending - around $24,000 for a family of four as of 2003 - tax free. Additionally, qualifying families would receive a monthly check for around $400 to cover the cost of necessities.
However, all this comes at a cost. If extremely optimistic numbers are used (of the variety used to justify Regan's supply-side disaster) then the National Sales Tax would be set at 23%. More rational numbers place it at 34%. So that $23,000 sedan you want to buy would instead cost you $30,820. There are many other unexpected "purchases" that would qualify for Fair Tax's National Sales Tax, such as: Purchases of new homes, Rent, Interest on credit cards, mortgages and car loans, Doctor bills, Utilities, Gasoline (30 percent in addition to current taxes, which would not be repealed), and Legal fees. This is a very complicated issue, and I would urge interested parties to do further research (check the links below)
The current National Income Tax - while flawed in many ways - is a progressive tax, because of indexing. Indexing works by requiring higher income individuals to pay a higher percentage of their incomes.
Therefore: If you make $50,000 a year and are taxed at 10%, you pay: $5,000 in taxes
If you make $120,000 a year and are taxed at 18%, you pay: $21,600 in taxes
There are loopholes with the National Income Tax, and it must be taken as a given that the wealthy will almost always find it more advantageous to find loopholes in any tax structure, rather than pay a certain portion of their income. While many are not completely satisfied with the National Income Tax, I believe that it is better than this "Fair Tax".
You don't have to take my word for it.
www.fairtax.org
…provides the main argument for Fair Tax (and is the official website)
www.factcheck.org
…provides a quality argument against Fair Tax
en.wikipedia.org
…is the Wikipedia article, which you can edit to say whatever you want
Posted 1 year ago | Report
12
Libertarianism FTW!Posted 1 year ago | Report
13
Haha! Rich kid got shot down!Posted 1 year ago | Report
14
All of you tree hugging dems can blow me. According to the last poll in 2001 by the IRS:Top 25% of income levels pay 84.6% of taxes in US.
Top 50% pay 97%.
Top 1% pay almost 40% of ALL TAXES.
Yes I understand that you think they have bigger, better toys than you but once you've stopped pouting about it you'd realize our taxes completely bend the rich over. IN JANUARY PELOSI EVEN ADMITTED TO THIS.
www.rushlimbaugh.com
The whole system is backwards and by definition the tax cuts have to benefit the "haves"...they are the only ones paying into our screwed up system.
Posted 1 year ago | Report
15
Not "screwed up"... progressive.Posted 1 year ago | Report
