Ron Paul being interviewed by Glenn Beck right now on CNN Headline news

[Mad Mike]

Ignore his name calling and address his points. People will respect you all the more for it. I didn't see the piece, but:

1. Did Paul say that the federal budget should consist only of money raised based on tarrifs and other similar taxation methods and no direct taxation on individuals?

2. If not, then clearly articulate what he did say.

3. If so, then realistically how much money would the federal goverment have to operate.

Otherwise the only real logical conclusion is that despite his name calling that he his is right on the issues, and that you can't refute his points so you are reduced to pointing out that he is calling names.

Exactly. Issue after issue the only thing Ron Paul or his supporters can produce is generalized, extremist and idealistic plans with no thought as to implementation or repercussions. I and others have tried to point this out to no avail.

[zoony]

But if we're in the business of calling a spade a spade...then let's add to FC: dictator, assasin and oppressor. When we're on that topic, of course.

Just like you pookie, always resorting to name-calling.

Why don't you debate the issues? Like Cuba's healthcare system?

[SkinsTerps26]

video clip of paul saying the following:

"we spend too much, we tax too much, we borrow too much and we print too much, when a country spends way beyond its means, it will eventually destroy the currency and were in the mist of a currency crisis."

Part of the interview:

Beck : How do you change the tax code? Every american knows this doesn't work. I don't need a boox this big to show me how to pay my taxes. When you have former communist countries going to a flat tax and they're getting more money... how are you going to change this? How are you going to abolish the IRS or go to a Flat Tax... what is your proposal?

Paul: Mine is to get rid of the IRS but not replace it with anything, by cutting a lot of spending, because we lived without an IRS before 1913. So I'm not interested in the flat tax or the sales tax. ALthough anything would be better.

**Beck went on to proclaim his love for Paul "french kiss" was used... "if we weren't both men... you had me at hello"

Beck: So, you want to replace it with some sort of a sales tax??

Paul; No Nothing. I want to replace it with freedom AND LESS SPENDING.

Beck: How do we pay for things we do have to pay for?

Paul: If you didn't have the income tax you'd have the same amount of revenue you had 10 years ago. So that's not all that bad. We didn't have income tax before 1913 and they used tarrifs and they used user fee types and different things like that. THE PROBLEM IS SPENDING.

Beck: Oh I agree with ya, but if you created user fees, wouldn't you have the same situation, because you'd have special interest that were just syaing "this one should be exempt, this one shouldn't"

Paul: I guess so, but anything would be better than the income tax. We do have a user fee by paying a national gasoline tax, thats supposed to take care of our highways but they abuse that system too, don't spend it on highways and spend it on political boondoggling.

It's obvious he wants to get rid of the IRS and states that the revenue would be the same as it was 10 years ago. 1997, not 1913.

The whole tariffs was overblown my mad mike. But here is the transcript.

[speardog1]

I could ignore the name calling if that wasn't their answer to everything they don't agree with.

"Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength."--Eric Hoffer

"If you can't answer a man's argument, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names."--Elbert Hubbard

[Zguy28]

So, if Ron Paul does somehow surprise everybody and get the primary votes and hence the nomination (not implying support with this statement) will conservatives who call him a "loon" vote for him or a Democrat like Hillary?

[zoony]

I could ignore the name calling if that wasn't their answer to everything they don't agree with.

Absolute nonsense. While RP has been clearly labeled a loon, there is so much information in the respective Ron Paul threads that has gone completely unanswered/unaccounted for by his supporters...

instead, they bail out and accuse others of namecalling. I don't blame them, they don't have a chance on the issues.

[Pookie]

Just like you pookie, always resorting to name-calling.

Why don't you debate the issues? Like Cuba's healthcare system?

Well, I didn't think this as the appropriate thread for it, and I'm not of thread hi-jacking ilk.

I lol at your "always resorting to name-calling"...am unaware of where this "always" takes place. And further, name calling woud be "jerk, a-hole", et al.

Truth is truth.

But if you ever want to discuss, feel free to PM me.

In the meantime, I leave you w/ the following:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/FredThompson/2007/05/03/the_myth_of_cuban_health_care

http://freethoughts.wordpress.com/2007/10/13/more-videoclips-telling-the-truth-about-cuban-healthcare/

not a fan of HC, but poignant nonetheless:

http://www.moorewatch.com/index.php/weblog/comments/the_truth_about_cuban_health_care_exposed_on_hannity_colmes/

[speardog1]

Absolute nonsense. While RP has been clearly labeled a loon, there is so much information in the respective Ron Paul threads that has gone completely unanswered/unaccounted for by his supporters...

instead, they bail out and accuse others of namecalling. I don't blame them, they don't have a chance on the issues.

umm hmm.

"Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength."--Eric Hoffer

"If you can't answer a man's argument, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names."--Elbert Hubbard

[zoony]

Well, I didn't think this as the appropriate thread for it, and I'm not of thread hi-jacking ilk.

I lol at your "always resorting to name-calling"...am unaware of where this "always" takes place. And further, name calling woud be "jerk, a-hole", et al.

Truth is truth.

But if you ever want to discuss, feel free to PM me.

In the meantime, I leave you w/ the following:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/FredThompson/2007/05/03/the_myth_of_cuban_health_care

http://freethoughts.wordpress.com/2007/10/13/more-videoclips-telling-the-truth-about-cuban-healthcare/

not a fan of HC, but poignant nonetheless:

http://www.moorewatch.com/index.php/weblog/comments/the_truth_about_cuban_health_care_exposed_on_hannity_colmes/

:doh: :doh: :doh: :doh:

and one more for good measure...

:doh:

(turn on your sarcasm meter, especially if you want to survive in the Tailgate. Usually a smiley is a good tip )

[Pookie]

^Nah. I can hold my own. With or w/o said simley. Thx.

[TrumanB]

1. Did Paul say that the federal budget should consist only of money raised based on tarrifs and other similar taxation methods and no direct taxation on individuals?

2. If not, then clearly articulate what he did say.

3. If so, then realistically how much money would the federal goverment have to operate.

Any takers? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

[Mad Mike]

video clip of paul saying the following:

"we spend too much, we tax too much, we borrow too much and we print too much, when a country spends way beyond its means, it will eventually destroy the currency and were in the mist of a currency crisis."

Part of the interview:

Beck : How do you change the tax code? Every american knows this doesn't work. I don't need a boox this big to show me how to pay my taxes. When you have former communist countries going to a flat tax and they're getting more money... how are you going to change this? How are you going to abolish the IRS or go to a Flat Tax... what is your proposal?

Paul: Mine is to get rid of the IRS but not replace it with anything, by cutting a lot of spending, because we lived without an IRS before 1913. So I'm not interested in the flat tax or the sales tax. ALthough anything would be better.

**Beck went on to proclaim his love for Paul "french kiss" was used... "if we weren't both men... you had me at hello"

Beck: So, you want to replace it with some sort of a sales tax??

Paul; No Nothing. I want to replace it with freedom AND LESS SPENDING.

Beck: How do we pay for things we do have to pay for?

Paul: If you didn't have the income tax you'd have the same amount of revenue you had 10 years ago. So that's not all that bad. We didn't have income tax before 1913 and they used tarrifs and they used user fee types and different things like that. THE PROBLEM IS SPENDING.

Beck: Oh I agree with ya, but if you created user fees, wouldn't you have the same situation, because you'd have special interest that were just syaing "this one should be exempt, this one shouldn't"

Paul: I guess so, but anything would be better than the income tax. We do have a user fee by paying a national gasoline tax, thats supposed to take care of our highways but they abuse that system too, don't spend it on highways and spend it on political boondoggling.

It's obvious he wants to get rid of the IRS and states that the revenue would be the same as it was 10 years ago. 1997, not 1913.

The whole tariffs was overblown my mad mike. But here is the transcript.

I din't bring up the Tariffs, that was footballhenry.

Actually he CLEARLY stated that these things could be paid for through 3 means (1) tariffs and trade (akin to pre-1913) (2) massive cuts in spending (3) giving more power to the 'free market' and less to the government

It actually makes perfect sense.

Also its good to remember that we never paid near as many taxes (ex: income tax) before 1913.

This 'empire' overseas is the reason for the enormous costs....either we learn from the mistakes of past empires (rome, greece) and get off this path of aggressive govt control and spending or we suffer the consequences.

Now back in the real world, when asked what he would replace income tax with Paul said:

No Nothing. I want to replace it with freedom AND LESS SPENDING.

Less spending? That's good, because you cant spend anything when you are not taking anything in. :doh:

Then he says:

If you didn't have the income tax you'd have the same amount of revenue you had 10 years ago.

WTF???????????? :insane:

I'm sorry... Did we not have taxes ten years ago? And if we did have taxes ten years ago, how does abolishing income tax = the same amount of revenue?

Now if you can explain any of this in some concrete manner, I would really like to hear it.

[SkinsTerps26]

I'm sorry... Did we not have taxes ten years ago? And if we did have taxes ten years ago, how does abolishing income tax = the same amount of revenue?

Now if you can explain any of this in some concrete manner, I would really like to hear it.

i dunno, maybe because there are other sources of tax besides the income tax?

[SnyderShrugged]

Paul said he wouldnt replace the income tax with anything. What exactly do you beleiev the income tax is paying for anyway? It doesnt pay for anything beyond interest to the Federal Reserve.

Get it straight this time as we have covered this point ad nausium.

He never said "no taxes whatsoever" If you read the transcript you can clearly see where he only referred to the federal income tax.

Any debate on what he said is now over as we have his exact words

"Paul: If you didn't have the income tax you'd have the same amount of revenue you had 10 years ago. So that's not all that bad. We didn't have income tax before 1913 and they used tarrifs and they used user fee types and different things like that. THE PROBLEM IS SPENDING."

[PeterMP]

It's obvious he wants to get rid of the IRS and states that the revenue would be the same as it was 10 years ago. 1997, not 1913.

The whole tariffs was overblown my mad mike. But here is the transcript.

Good job. Now it seems unbelievable to me that the income tax generates so little money (removal of the income tax would still keep you at what you were at 10 years ago). Here's a breakdown of what we collected from where:

$1,163 billion - Individual income tax

$869.6 billion - Social Security and other payroll taxes

$370.2 billion - Corporate income tax

$65.1 billion - Excise taxes

$26.0 billion - Customs duties

$26.0 billion - Estate and gift taxes

$47.2 billion - Other

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget,_2007#Total_receipts

So you can see that the income tax is in fact the largest source of income for the federal goverment, and over half of the federal goverments income w/o replacement (this is a more minor point, but the IRS collects other types of taxes including excise and payrole taxes so complete elimination fo the IRS would mean an even more drastic affect, but I will be generous and assume that he doesn't actually mean totally eliminate taxes).

Now, the logical question is how is he going to pay for this.

[Mad Mike]

Paul said he wouldnt replace the income tax with anything. What exactly do you beleiev the income tax is paying for anyway? It doesnt pay for anything beyond interest to the Federal Reserve.

Get it straight this time as we have covered this point ad nausium.

He never said "no taxes whatsoever" If you read the transcript you can clearly see where he only referred to the federal income tax.

Any debate on what he said is now over as we have his exact words

"Paul: If you didn't have the income tax you'd have the same amount of revenue you had 10 years ago. So that's not all that bad. We didn't have income tax before 1913 and they used tarrifs and they used user fee types and different things like that. THE PROBLEM IS SPENDING."

No Nothing. I want to replace it with freedom AND LESS SPENDING. - Ron Paul

So no federal income tax = No military, No Nasa, No federal government whatsoever. If you don't believe this then show me where the money is going to come from with actual figures.

Yeah we have his exact words and they are BS without any substance.

If you didn't have the income tax you'd have the same amount of revenue you had 10 years ago. - Ron Paul

Show me how this is true or STFU and admit he is a loon.

[speardog1]

How much does the war in Iraq cost? just curious.

[Mad Mike]

i dunno, maybe because there are other sources of tax besides the income tax?

We have his quote.

No Nothing. I want to replace it with freedom AND LESS SPENDING. - Ron Paul

That freedom sure is going to come in handy.

[SnyderShrugged]

So no federal income tax = No military, No Nasa, No federal government whatsoever. If you don't believe this then show me where the money is going to come from with actual figures.

Yeah we have his exact words and they are BS without any substance.

Show me how this is true or STFU and admit he is a loon.

why do you feel that the federal (individual) income tax pays for any f these things? You are incorrect.

please show us directly where any money from the federal income tax withholding goes to any of the programs that you referenced above.

as to how things get paid for, yes, there are actual constitutional tax provisions (these are not the personal income tax, btw) that pay for government services.

America functioned very well without an income tax throughout the history of this Republic. The answer to the question of funding without a direct tax is found is Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution since 1787. It provides for Congress to pass a legislative bill for tax money to be paid by each state in proportion to its population.

Proper, constitutional funding will allow large amounts of money to fund a limited form of Republican government. :2cents:

so to stay in tune with your grace and image, STFU loon

[PeterMP]

Paul said he wouldnt replace the income tax with anything. What exactly do you beleiev the income tax is paying for anyway? It doesnt pay for anything beyond interest to the Federal Reserve.

Get it straight this time as we have covered this point ad nausium.

He never said "no taxes whatsoever" If you read the transcript you can clearly see where he only referred to the federal income tax.

Any debate on what he said is now over as we have his exact words

"Paul: If you didn't have the income tax you'd have the same amount of revenue you had 10 years ago. So that's not all that bad. We didn't have income tax before 1913 and they used tarrifs and they used user fee types and different things like that. THE PROBLEM IS SPENDING."

The income tax alone is more than 50% of the US budget (see my post above). How much do we pay the federal reserve for interest? Have we actually ever given a penny to the federal reserve for interest?

In 2005 (the last year there are real numbers too), I have interest payments being $183,986 million, I have National Defense being

$495,335 million, and $1,586,079 million for human interest (e.g. social services), and the percent of income from the income tax was similar as to 2007. If total interest (not just to the Fed (which I don't think has actually ever collected a payment) is much less than 50% of the outlays and the income tax is greater than 50% of the in take, how can you say that income tax is just paying the interest TOTAL much less interest to one group?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/hist.pdf

[PeterMP]

why do you feel that the federal (individual) income tax pays for any f these things? You are incorrect.

please show us directly where any money from the federal income tax withholding goes to any of the programs that you referenced above.

as to how things get paid for, yes, there are actual constitutional tax provisions (these are not the personal income tax, btw) that pay for government services.

I've shown the federal income tax is more than 1/2 the federal goverments in take. I think it is dependent upon you to show how the federal goverment is managing to pay for large expenses w/o tapping a source that is 1/2 of its income.

America functioned very well without an income tax throughout the history of this Republic. The answer to the question of funding without a direct tax is found is Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution since 1787. It provides for Congress to pass a legislative bill for tax money to be paid by each state in proportion to its population.

Proper, constitutional funding will allow large amounts of money to fund a limited form of Republican government. :2cents:

I know you've heard of the 16th Ammendment:

[SnyderShrugged]

The income tax alone is more than 50% of the US budget (see my post above). How much do we pay the federal reserve for interest? Have we actually ever given a penny to the federal reserve for interest?

In 2005 (the last year there are real numbers too), I have interest payments being $183,986 million, I have National Defense being

$495,335 million, and $1,586,079 million, and the percent of income from the income tax was similar as to 2007. If total interest (not just to the Fed (which I don't think has actually ever collected a payment) is much less than 50% of the outlays and the income tax is greater than 50% of the in take, how can you say that income tax is just paying the interest TOTAL much less interest to one group?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/hist.pdf

all of those budgetary figures represent ALL income taxation, which I assume you know includes the corporate income tax (which is very constitutional, I may add) among various others. (AMT, capital gains, excise, estate, etc).

The DOD budget is paid for through these other forms of taxation.

You are onto the main point, I believe, that despite the fact that the personal income tax is 100% intended to pay for the interest to the Fed, for some strange reason it appears that it isnt even being paid (at least directly). This is yet another example of the mystery of government waste.

I'll be glad to concede my argument once any one of you can show me a verifiable link to something that shows where one penny of federal personal income tax is allocated towards governement services. Believe me, I've done the research and you can too. The income tax on our personal wages does not go towards anything and is simp,ly lost in the leviathan of beurocracy

that we all know is the federal beast.

[SkinsTerps26]

We have his quote.

That freedom sure is going to come in handy.

Replace the IRS is the first part, the second part is TO LIMIT SPENDING. You decrease the income, but you eliminate the spending, thus creating revenue not just by an income, but by allocating tax money responsibly.

Stop making this an issue of eliminating the IRS = no federal tax at all.

[SnyderShrugged]

I've shown the federal income tax is more than 1/2 the federal goverments in take. I think it is dependent upon you to show how the federal goverment is managing to pay for large expenses w/o tapping a source that is 1/2 of its income.

I know you've heard of the 16th Ammendment:

no you havnt shown anything beyond assumption and conjecture. Again, please show exactly where the money from the person income tax goes and differentiate it from the other forms of federal taxation.

[SkinsTerps26]

I've shown the federal income tax is more than 1/2 the federal goverments in take. I think it is dependent upon you to show how the federal goverment is managing to pay for large expenses w/o tapping a source that is 1/2 of its income.

BY LIMITING SPENDING. He said those exact words. You eliminate your highest expense and guess what? You have extra money!!!!

If you have a 500 dollar cable bill, and all of a sudden switch to basic cable, guess what??? you have extra money to use elsewhere...

I don't understand how this concept is eliminated from your thinking?