South Carolina Republican Debate Thread

[Destino]

My thoughts:

9/11Rudy9/11: His response to the immigration question concerning illegals calling in crimes was brilliant. The man can really be a pragmatist sometimes and is infinitely credible on stopping crime. Sadly his constant 9/11 mantra makes him a joke and his response to foriegn policy as a mayor was very weak.

SlimFast Hucklebee: Great responses on everything concerning faith and ethics but frankly he doesn't inspire me even a little. His responses on everything from taxes to the war were weak. He got murdered by Thompson on his signing of the tax pledge.

The Law and Order Dude: Glad to see the guy has some bite left in him. I like the aggressive stance he took and thought he scored a lot of points. His record is good as far as republicans go. One things that bothered me though - could this guy say "uh" and "um" some more? Can someone please get this man a freshman lvl public speaking course for crying out loud.

Winter Olympics Romney: He's more polished than the rest and gives confident responses. The problem is he lacks credibility and I get the impression he is saying whatever he needs to say to be liked. This guy is acting like he wants to be prom king. Also "winter olympics" being used as foriegn policy experience is a joke.

Ron Time Traveler Paul: His supporters were out in force but when asked if he had a chance to win his response was whiny. I felt bad for the guy on stage whining about how people should like him. He's a republican that fell out of a time machine.

Change McCain: Now that Obama has taken over the Presidential race and in doing so made his slogan "change" the focus McCain has benefitted greatly. Not only does he have a record of changing things but he has a ton of experience. As long as Obama does well McCain will continue to get a major boost.

[SnyderShrugged]

My thoughts:

9/11Rudy9/11: His response to the immigration question concerning illegals calling in crimes was brilliant. The man can really be a pragmatist sometimes and is infinitely credible on stopping crime. Sadly his constant 9/11 mantra makes him a joke and his response to foriegn policy as a mayor was very weak.

SlimFast Hucklebee: Great responses on everything concerning faith and ethics but frankly he doesn't inspire me even a little. His responses on everything from taxes to the war were weak. He got murdered by Thompson on his signing of the tax pledge.

The Law and Order Dude: Glad to see the guy has some bite left in him. I like the aggressive stance he took and thought he scored a lot of points. His record is good as far as republicans go. One things that bothered me though - could this guy say "uh" and "um" some more? Can someone please get this man a freshman lvl public speaking course for crying out loud.

Winter Olympics Romney: He's more polished than the rest and gives confident responses. The problem is he lacks credibility and I get the impression he is saying whatever he needs to say to be liked. This guy is acting like he wants to be prom king. Also "winter olympics" being used as foriegn policy experience is a joke.

Ron Time Traveler Paul: His supporters were out in force but when asked if he had a chance to win his response was whiny. I felt bad for the guy on stage whining about how people should like him. He's a republican that fell out of a time machine.

Change McCain: Now that Obama has taken over the Presidential race and in doing so made his slogan "change" the focus McCain has benefitted greatly. Not only does he have a record of changing things but he has a ton of experience. As long as Obama does well McCain will continue to get a major boost.

Des, I don't recall Paul ever "whining" that people should like him. However, I do recall him fighting back against a rediculous question that was aimed at him and only him about "electability" and on whether or not he was a real republican.

Would you mind citing where he said anything about people liking him?

thanks

[posse87]

Yes, we all know that money is what makes the world go round, and if your currency isn't strong your country isn't strong.

[posse87]

Great. You want to eliminate debt. Paul has stated that he wants to eliminate the income tax and not replace it w/ anything. How does eliminating over 1/2 of the federal goverments income make any sense if you want to off the debt?

It acctually accounts for 1/3 the Federal budget. By bringing the troops home and out of all foreign countries and by securing the border from illegals taking part in our welfare programs and an increased economy due to increased gross incomes for citizens and terrifs/excise taxes the government could run in the black. It has done it before. It is the "overextension of America" that is a detriment to our very way of life.

[twa]

Just a plug for research tools on the candidates BS

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/one-two_punch_for_gop.html

Always nice to double or triple check the debates.

[PeterMP]

It acctually accounts for 1/3 the Federal budget.

Well, that's just false. You've been given the links to the other Ron Paul threads, and I don't feel like going back through and digging out the links, but I have previously given links to the federal goverment budget pages where they show all in-takes and it clearly accounts for greater than 1/2 of the federal income in-takes including all other kinds of in-takes including FICA.

Go look through the other links you were given before. Maybe you'll learn something.

Now, if you can come w/ a crediable link to address your point, MAYBE I'll go back out an research it again, but I seriously doubt you'll be able to do that.

By bringing the troops home and out of all foreign countries

I've repeatedly addressed the issue w/ that idea. Most easily why did essentially every leader at the end of WWII agree that we should be involved in the world agree that we should be engaged in the world? Because they had just been through two world wars and saw what disengagment meant.

Again, I've addressed this in detail in the other threads. A simple post-engagment/pre-engagement analysis of deaths shows the US is better off engaged vs. not engaged.

Beyond that, how is thing going to affect our relationships w/ other countries that have been good allies for the last 50 years? I've addressed that in detail w/ a guy claiming to have a relationship w/ an expert in Asia relationships. Of course, when things got down to the nitty gritty he disappeared.

Again, go read through some of the other links. You might learn something.

and by securing the border from illegals taking part in our welfare programs

How much to illegals give a year in SS tax that they will never collect? Can you present any credible evidence that the illegal aliens are a net drain at the FEDERAL level?

and an increased economy due to increased gross incomes for citizens and terrifs/excise taxes the government could run in the black. It has done it before. It is the "overextension of America" that is a detriment to our very way of life.

I'll just say for this last part. We've run a surplus much more recently w/ an income tax and with troops over seas. When people used to have badly injured legs, they used to cut them off. If you badly injured your leg and you visited two doctors and one said, 'Well, I know that when people used to hurt their leg, they used to cut them off, and the person lived so that's what I'm going to do to you.', and the other said, 'Well, I know that more recently people have had badly injured legs and they did surgeries and put pins in the leg, and they lived and actually were able to use their leg some again AND if that idea wasn't work, we can always go back and cut off the leg.' Which would would you listen to?

In terms of politics and the budget, you're listening to the first guy.

[PeterMP]

http://www.uhuh.com/taxstuff/gracecom.htm

I realize that it may not change the core of your opinion and that you most likely are well aware of the report, but I think I'm reading a validation that 100% of the federal (personal) income tax revenue is allocated to paying the interest on federal debt. (I think it was you and I that had discussed this in the recent past)

Do you read it the same way as I am? If not, what are your thoughts on the stuff that the Grace commission report references?

Generally, I don't see any of those as good arguements to eliminate the income tax AND not replace it w/ anything else. I'm not against eliminating the individual income tax. I've on more than one occassion outlined what I think is a reasonable method would eliminate the individual income tax in a revenue neutral way, which would then allow you to shrink the size of the IRS. Now more specifically:

1. In terms of collection, first off, I'd just say do a better job of collecting, but realistically there is at a point at which the effort to collecting more of it actually cost more than what is collected. That still isn't an arguement to cut it AND not replace it.

2. Much of it goes to waste. Great! Eliminate the waste and pay off the debt that much faster. Oh by the way, saying 'we'll cut taxes and that will force the goverment to reduce spending doesn't work.' It has been tried on multiple occassions. All it has resulted in is the debt increasing that much faster.

3. 1/3 is going to paying the debt. That's great. I think we all believe the debt needs to be paid. If you cut the individual income tax, how are you going to pay the part of the debt that 1/3 is going to?

Paul's primary concern is not paying off the debt. At best, it is a distant second. His primary concern is w/ reducing the power of the federal goverment. A great way to do that is reduce the amount of money it has. Less power means less money.

Anybody that is serious about the debt would not be talking about eliminating 1/2 of the federal income w/o a way to replace it. If you were in debt and really worried about your debt, you wouldn't quit your job and take a job paying 1/2 as much. That's essentially what Ron Paul is advocating.

If you are serious about brining the debt under control, McCain is the most reasonable candidate. His history on trying to control spending is long and essentially unrefuted.

[posse87]

Well, that's just false. You've been given the links to the other Ron Paul threads, and I don't feel like going back through and digging out the links, but I have previously given links to the federal goverment budget pages where they show all in-takes and it clearly accounts for greater than 1/2 of the federal income in-takes including all other kinds of in-takes including FICA.

Go look through the other links you were given before. Maybe you'll learn something.

Now, if you can come w/ a crediable link to address your point, MAYBE I'll go back out an research it again, but I seriously doubt you'll be able to do that.

I've repeatedly addressed the issue w/ that idea. Most easily why did essentially every leader at the end of WWII agree that we should be involved in the world agree that we should be engaged in the world? Because they had just been through two world wars and saw what disengagment meant.

Again, I've addressed this in detail in the other threads. A simple post-engagment/pre-engagement analysis of deaths shows the US is better off engaged vs. not engaged.

Beyond that, how is thing going to affect our relationships w/ other countries that have been good allies for the last 50 years? I've addressed that in detail w/ a guy claiming to have a relationship w/ an expert in Asia relationships. Of course, when things got done to the nitty gritty he disappeared.

Again, go read through some of the other links. You might learn something.

How much to illegals give a year in SS tax that they will never collect? Can you present any credible evidence that the illegal aliens are a net drain at the FEDERAL level?

I'll just say for this last part. We've run a surplus much more recently w/ an income tax and with troops over seas. When people used to have badly injured legs, they used to cut them off. If you badly injured your leg and you visited two doctors and one said, 'Well, I know that when people used to hurt their leg, they used to cut them off, and the person lived so that's what I'm going to do to you.', and the other said, 'Well, I know that more recently people have had badly injured legs and they did surgeries and put pins in the leg, and they lived and actually were able to use their leg some again AND if that idea wasn't work, we can always go back and cut off the leg.' Which would would you listen to?

In terms of politics and the budget, you're listening to the first guy.

What are you calling a surplus? I would say an expanding national debt for the past 50 years is not a surplus. Our debt to asset ratio is the most improtant economic indicator one can examine.

As for some of your other points, Paul is not an isolationist, on the contrary he promotes peace, trade, and diplomacy with all countries, not enforcing our will on others. One can be engaged without using force and espionage.

As for the amount of the federal operating budget that comes from income taxes, I may not be correct. I fully admit this, and I don't care what percentage comes from taxes. I care more about a fiscally responsible government and the strength of the dollar as an indicator of the strength our our country.

Finally, there are no numbers on the financial strain of illegals anywhere only estimates. The fact that there is a conservatively estimated 10 million illegals in the country possibly upwards of 30 million that have false SSN and identification, with many being paid off the books, and with an estimated 2 billion a year going over the border tax free makes me conscerned. They are also using our schools and medicaid which takes from the citizens in the US.

You also said we should eliminate the waste and pay off taxes faster. Have you ever worked in a governement institution? There is absolutely no way to eliminate the waste. There is a culture of nepitism and laziness built in and no one else wants their jobs, so you can't fire them. You would do better trying to dig a hole to china.

It is time for individuals to take responsibility for themselves and stop expecting the government to bail them out. I am absolutely not going to sift through old threads trying to recount your previous arguments. I would rather have an honest discussion rather than trying to glean intention.

[SnyderShrugged]

Generally, I don't see any of those as good arguements to eliminate the income tax AND not replace it w/ anything else. I'm not against eliminating the individual income tax. I've on more than one occassion outlined what I think is a reasonable method would eliminate the individual income tax in a revenue neutral way, which would then allow you to shrink the size of the IRS. Now more specifically:

1. In terms of collection, first off, I'd just say do a better job of collecting, but realistically there is at a point at which the effort to collecting more of it actually cost more than what is collected. That still isn't an arguement to cut it AND not replace it.

2. Much of it goes to waste. Great! Eliminate the waste and pay off the debt that much faster. Oh by the way, saying 'we'll cut taxes and that will force the goverment to reduce spending doesn't work.' It has been tried on multiple occassions. All it has resulted in is the debt increasing that much faster.

3. 1/3 is going to paying the debt. That's great. I think we all believe the debt needs to be paid. If you cut the individual income tax, how are you going to pay the part of the debt that 1/3 is going to?

Paul's primary concern is not paying off the debt. At best, it is a distant second. His primary concern is w/ reducing the power of the federal goverment. A great way to do that is reduce the amount of money it has. Less power means less money.

Anybody that is serious about the debt would not be talking about eliminating 1/2 of the federal income w/o a way to replace it. If you were in debt and really worried about your debt, you wouldn't quit your job and take a job paying 1/2 as much. That's essentially what Ron Paul is advocating.

If you are serious about brining the debt under control, McCain is the most reasonable candidate. His history on trying to control spending is long and essentially unrefuted.

I guess to be frank, can you now admit that the Grace Commission report actually does give credance to the debate point that the Federal income tax essentially only pays for the interest on Federal Debt and really isnt used for anything else?

Paul is much stronger in all things economic than McCain.

[Predicto]

Paul is much stronger in all things economic than McCain.

(As posse87 said) the majority of us will have to agree to disagree on that.

[PeterMP]

What are you calling a surplus? I would say an expanding national debt for the past 50 years is not a surplus. Our debt to asset ratio is the most improtant economic indicator one can examine.

You know when Clinton was President. The goverment was taking in more money than it was paying out. That money could have gone to pay off the debt if the goverment had been run better.

As for some of your other points, Paul is not an isolationist, on the contrary he promotes peace, trade, and diplomacy with all countries, not enforcing our will on others. One can be engaged without using force and espionage.

Paul wants to bring the navy back and withdraw all of the troops from around the world and withdraw from organizations like the UN and NATO. That is generally called disengagment. That is a foreign policy that was in place pre-WWI and WWII. See what people like Woodrow Wilson said about it after WWI. See what the leader's of essentially every country in the world said about after WWII.

As for the amount of the federal operating budget that comes from income taxes, I may not be correct. I fully admit this, and I don't care what percentage comes from taxes. I care more about a fiscally responsible government and the strength of the dollar as an indicator of the strength our our country.

I'll agree w/ your last statement, but part of fiscally responsibility is to maximize the in-takes. Somebody that is in debt and quiting their job and taking a job that pays 1/2 as much w/o a plan to replace the 1/2 of income he has lost is not fiscally responsible.

Finally, there are no numbers on the financial strain of illegals anywhere only estimates. The fact that there is a conservatively estimated 10 million illegals in the country possibly upwards of 30 million that have false SSN and identification, with many being paid off the books, and with an estimated 2 billion a year going over the border tax free makes me conscerned. They are also using our schools and medicaid which takes from the citizens in the US.

You don't need a fake SSN if you are being paid off the books. If they have a fake SSN, then they are paying into SS and will never get it back so they may in fact be a benefit to the FEDERAL goverment.

By the way, I think you got some numbers wrong again. 10 million in the country w/ 30 million w/ fake SSN. It seems to me the number here should be greater than the number of fake SSN.

You also said we should eliminate the waste and pay off taxes faster. Have you ever worked in a governement institution? There is absolutely no way to eliminate the waste.

Actually, I do, and guess what, we had a budget cut two years ago.

I would rather have an honest discussion rather than trying to glean intention.

McCain is a senile, crippled, boob.

Nice way to contribute in a meaningful manner to an "honest" discussion.

I point to reasonable flaws in Paul's policies, and you come back w/ 'senile, crippled boob'.

[PeterMP]

I guess to be frank, can you now admit that the Grace Commission report actually does give credance to the debate point that the Federal income tax essentially only pays for the interest on Federal Debt and really isnt used for anything else?

Paul is much stronger in all things economic than McCain.

No, because the things they call "waste" are part of the federal budget. There is no evidence that if 1/3 of the federal income tax was eliminated that spending would go away. There is plenty of evidence that the goverment would just borrow more money.

Well, I don't know what you consider the economy. McCain is much stronger on balancing the budget and goverment waste. Just compare their track record of the use of ear marks.

[GibbsFactor]

No, because the things they call "waste" are part of the federal budget. There is no evidence that if 1/3 of the federal income tax was eliminated that spending would go away. There is plenty of evidence that the goverment would just borrow more money.

Well, I don't know what you consider the economy. McCain is much stronger on balancing the budget and goverment waste. Just compare their track record of the use of ear marks.

McCain promises to end wasteful spending. That's great. That does not address the debt or the runaway government, even if he were to attempt to end pork barrel and earmarks.

What pork would McCain get rid of? And then estimate the loss of said pork to the debt and tell me what we would truly be accomplishing. The fact is, the system would remain the same. The same politicians with the same power would be willing to add pork, regulations, earmarks, and other spending at the discretion of the lobbyists.

The way to eliminate pork is to eliminate the lobbyists. How does one eliminate the lobbyists? Shrink the size of government. That's how you get rid of corruption and over spending. There's no other way.

As for the debt, this has been explained and you simply don't accept it.

What happens when you get rid of half of the nations income but give that money back to the consumer? The consumer spends it on markets with much better, cheaper and efficient products. As a result, the economy grows. This is not debatable. Prior tax cuts cannot be compared as the spending levels were also not cut.

So when the economy grows, the other 60 to 50% of the income increases. If you are currently spending 1000 dollars but only taking in 100 dollars what do you do? You can cut half of the 100 dollars, invest it (in the American people) turn the remaining 50 to 60 into 75 or 80. At the same time you reduce your spending from 1000 to 60. You have a surplus automatically. Debt is paid.

On top of that, and perhaps most importantly, you legalize gold and silver. This creates competition with the Fed. The fed's inflation stops and the money lost to pay off the debt is gained by the price of this alternative currency. If we find that the fed is no longer needed, our income tax revenue would not have to pay for the increasing interest on their interest rates. Thus, the dollar would not fluctuate and the other world economies would have to fix their money to our dollar. Once this happens, the dollar goes up and is worth more, paying off more of the fed's interest.

Or, as many know, you never want the government to owe you because what are you really going to do if they decide to not pay you? What are you seriously going to do? So we can use that logic on the fed. Just stop paying them back the interest.

No more debt.

[SnyderShrugged]

No, because the things they call "waste" are part of the federal budget. There is no evidence that if 1/3 of the federal income tax was eliminated that spending would go away. There is plenty of evidence that the goverment would just borrow more money.

Well, I don't know what you consider the economy. McCain is much stronger on balancing the budget and goverment waste. Just compare their track record of the use of ear marks.

Oh, I thought you understood that Paul proposes to significantly cut spending along with the income tax? He also would try to stop the borrowing? That is all part of the platform.

I dont think anyone can reasonably argue against RP's stance on balancing the budget either, since he has never voted for an unbalanced one in his career. LOL at MCCain better on waste reduction too.

Lets not get into the silly earmark thing again, since you well know he didnt vote for a single bill with an earmark in it. We've covered the logic many times and despite your disagreement, it still is fact.

And we all know that McCain does worse.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/18/politics/18earmark.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[PeterMP]

McCain promises to end wasteful spending. That's great. That does not address the debt or the runaway government, even if he were to attempt to end pork barrel and earmarks.

What pork would McCain get rid of? And then estimate the loss of said pork to the debt and tell me what we would truly be accomplishing. The fact is, the system would remain the same. The same politicians with the same power would be willing to add pork, regulations, earmarks, and other spending at the discretion of the lobbyists.

You are ignoring history, which tells us that when the goverment does even modest things to decrease debt, such as cutting spending, then that in fact helps the economy more than tax cuts. The goverment collects more money, and you can start to decrease the debt. Of course, I've explained this to you before.

The way to eliminate pork is to eliminate the lobbyists. How does one eliminate the lobbyists? Shrink the size of government. That's how you get rid of corruption and over spending. There's no other way.

How do you know?

As for the debt, this has been explained and you simply don't accept it.

What happens when you get rid of half of the nations income but give that money back to the consumer? The consumer spends it on markets with much better, cheaper and efficient products. As a result, the economy grows. This is not debatable. Prior tax cuts cannot be compared as the spending levels were also not cut.

I don't except it because you can't point to any evidence to indicate it is true. You have to ignore every other tax cut in history because every other one says your wrong. Give some real evidence to back it up.

So when the economy grows, the other 60 to 50% of the income increases. If you are currently spending 1000 dollars but only taking in 100 dollars what do you do? You can cut half of the 100 dollars, invest it (in the American people) turn the remaining 50 to 60 into 75 or 80. At the same time you reduce your spending from 1000 to 60. You have a surplus automatically. Debt is paid.

Except there is no reason to believe that this is going to happen other than you say so. Right now, there is no reason to believe the American people are a good investment. Most of the "extra" money Americans have right now is going over seas for what is essentially junk.

On top of that, and perhaps most importantly, you legalize gold and silver. This creates competition with the Fed. The fed's inflation stops and the money lost to pay off the debt is gained by the price of this alternative currency. If we find that the fed is no longer needed, our income tax revenue would not have to pay for the increasing interest on their interest rates. Thus, the dollar would not fluctuate and the other world economies would have to fix their money to our dollar. Once this happens, the dollar goes up and is worth more, paying off more of the fed's interest.

There is a reason why Congress is given the power to control money in the Constitution. A move to other money sources creates confusion w/ respect to what merchnats will take what currency, and there will be issues w/ respect to "fraud" for different types of currency.

I've been through this w/ you before. There was inflation before the Fed. I gave you a link to a calculator. Over a 25 year period before the Fed as compared to another 25 year period of the Fed, interest rates were in fact lower. The idea that the Fed is "causing" inflatio is just false.

The dollar was very high just a couple of years ago. We still had a debt. The Fed, the value of the dollar, and the debt are more independent than you suggest. We can have a Fed and a high dollar or low dollar. We can have high dollar w/ a debt or w/o one, and a Fed w/ or w/o a debt.

[posse87]

You know when Clinton was President. The goverment was taking in more money than it was paying out. That money could have gone to pay off the debt if the goverment had been run better.

Paul wants to bring the navy back and withdraw all of the troops from around the world and withdraw from organizations like the UN and NATO. That is generally called disengagment. That is a foreign policy that was in place pre-WWI and WWII. See what people like Woodrow Wilson said about it after WWI. See what the leader's of essentially every country in the world said about after WWII.

I'll agree w/ your last statement, but part of fiscally responsibility is to maximize the in-takes. Somebody that is in debt and quiting their job and taking a job that pays 1/2 as much w/o a plan to replace the 1/2 of income he has lost is not fiscally responsible.

You don't need a fake SSN if you are being paid off the books. If they have a fake SSN, then they are paying into SS and will never get it back so they may in fact be a benefit to the FEDERAL goverment.

By the way, I think you got some numbers wrong again. 10 million in the country w/ 30 million w/ fake SSN. It seems to me the number here should be greater than the number of fake SSN.

Actually, I do, and guess what, we had a budget cut two years ago.

Nice way to contribute in a meaningful manner to an "honest" discussion.

I point to reasonable flaws in Paul's policies, and you come back w/ 'senile, crippled boob'.

Dude, you might as well argue about the specific gravity of a marble on mars because that is about how much sense you make. Good luck with your insightful arguements. I will need to have more information about you before I can discuss any further. Party offiliation, education level, occupation, and religious background before I can discuss this any further. BTW, I will be going no where and will continue to debate ideas not some meaningless statistic.

[PeterMP]

Oh, I thought you understood that Paul proposes to significantly cut spending along with the income tax? He also would try to stop the borrowing? That is all part of the platform.

I understand, but if you are serious about paying off the debt why not cut spending and keep the revenues coming in? More money coming in means you can pay off the debt that much faster, which of course it actually cost us less.

I dont think anyone can reasonably argue against RP's stance on balancing the budget either, since he has never voted for an unbalanced one in his career. LOL at MCCain better on waste reduction too.

Lets not get into the silly earmark thing again, since you well know he didnt vote for a single bill with an earmark in it. We've covered the logic many times and despite your disagreement, it still is fact.

And we all know that McCain does worse.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/18/politics/18earmark.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

One link to something that isn't even an ear mark. You are joking right? You want me to pull out the questions to from the Meet the Press interview on the ear marks that Paul has added through the years. No, he didn't vote for them. He just put them in bills that he knew would pass.

The comparision isn't even close. Paul cost the goverment in ear marks than McCain.

[PeterMP]

I will need to have more information about you before I can discuss any further. Party offiliation, education level, occupation, and religious background before I can discuss this any further.

Why?

[posse87]

You know when Clinton was President. The goverment was taking in more money than it was paying out. That money could have gone to pay off the debt if the goverment had been run better.

Paul wants to bring the navy back and withdraw all of the troops from around the world and withdraw from organizations like the UN and NATO. That is generally called disengagment. That is a foreign policy that was in place pre-WWI and WWII. See what people like Woodrow Wilson said about it after WWI. See what the leader's of essentially every country in the world said about after WWII.

I'll agree w/ your last statement, but part of fiscally responsibility is to maximize the in-takes. Somebody that is in debt and quiting their job and taking a job that pays 1/2 as much w/o a plan to replace the 1/2 of income he has lost is not fiscally responsible.

You don't need a fake SSN if you are being paid off the books. If they have a fake SSN, then they are paying into SS and will never get it back so they may in fact be a benefit to the FEDERAL goverment.

By the way, I think you got some numbers wrong again. 10 million in the country w/ 30 million w/ fake SSN. It seems to me the number here should be greater than the number of fake SSN.

Actually, I do, and guess what, we had a budget cut two years ago.

Nice way to contribute in a meaningful manner to an "honest" discussion.

I point to reasonable flaws in Paul's policies, and you come back w/ 'senile, crippled boob'.

I miss spoke there are 10 to 30 million illegals and they either get paid off the books or have fake SSN's to work, not 10 to 30 million with SSN's. Nit picking is a pretty pathetic attempt to undermine philisophically correct arguements.

[GibbsFactor]

Pete, what do you think of this:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173

[PeterMP]

Pete, what do you think of this:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173

I think the whole mess about their being no law for the income tax is complete garbage. I've been through this w/ Ken. It isn't hard to find Supreme Court decisions w/ respect to the IRS, and the income tax. The vast majority of people in the goverment support the IRS and the individual income tax.

If there wasn't a law for it, wouldn't they just pass one? I mean there isn't anyway that it wouldn't pass.

If that part isn't true, why would the rest of it?

[GibbsFactor]

Watch the whole thing when you have 2 hours. It's more then the income tax. It raises many questions that we are arguing over.

As far as the income tax, what's the law? The Supreme Court said the 16th amendment does not add additional authority of the government to tax.

The majority of citizens need to watch this. Then decide and research it themselves.

Why defend the Government? They suck.

[Predicto]

Dude, you might as well argue about the specific gravity of a marble on mars because that is about how much sense you make. Good luck with your insightful arguements. I will need to have more information about you before I can discuss any further. Party offiliation, education level, occupation, and religious background before I can discuss this any further.

Why do you keep saying things like this? I'm embarrassed for you. Sheesh.

[PeterMP]

Watch the whole thing when you have 2 hours. It's more then the income tax. It raises many questions that we are arguing over.

As far as the income tax, what's the law? The Supreme Court said the 16th amendment does not add additional authority of the government to tax.

The majority of citizens need to watch this. Then decide and research it themselves.

Why defend the Government? They suck.

And then the Supreme Court changed their mind. They do that. Segregation used to be legal, now it isn't. The opposite happened w/ the income tax. It isn't hard to check the facts. There are databases out there that the public can search to get and read Supreme Court decisions.

Oh, and the part about the judge saying the Constitution doesn't matter in his court is over done too. IF it is accurate, the judge may have handeled it poorly, but he was correct. The jury does't have the authority to interpert the Constitution. Their job is to decide guilt or innocence based on the instructions of the judge. If the judges instructions are wrong (unconstitutional), then that will be decided in appeal by higher courts (e.g. the Supreme Court).

As far as the rest, I honestly don't know enough, BUT there are sites and even people here that have addressed it, and it comes down to credibility. If the person making that video is going to say things that are obviously false about the income tax, then he loses credibility w/ respect to everything else.

[posse87]

Why?

I makes things easier to understand who you are debating. I will offer mine up freely.