Rand Paul - Potential 2016 Presidential Bid

Discussion in 'Elections & Campaigns' started by leftlegmoderate, Nov 20, 2012.

  1. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually it was Representative Dave Camp(R), chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, that set out to "smear" the Obama Adminstration related to the IRS and that is a fact. Unfortunately for Rep Camp the facts didn't support the allegations just like it was Republicans that tried to smear the Obama Adminstration related to Benghazi and that also backfired because it was based upon fraud being committed by Republican staffers.

    My pointing out the facts is not a "smear" campaign but instead is merely presenting the actual facts in my posts. I condemn the President and the Obama adminstration but I do so based upon facts as opposed to smear campaigns based upon false allegations and fraud.

    As I've repeatedly stated I don't care if its a progressive-liberal, social-conservative, or libertarian organization if it's primary goal is political then it should not be covered under 501(c) tax exempt status. If Republicans are doing it then its wrong. If Democrats are doing it then its wrong. If Libertarians are doing it then its wrong.

    I want to be able to "follow the money" related to political campaigning regardless of whether its related to a candidate's campaign or an legislative issue. None of the money should be tax deductable and all of these organizations should be identified as PAC's and not 501(c) organizations. Hiding the "money" under 501(c) tax exempt status is wrong and if that is happening, which it apparently is, then the law is wrong!

    The argument that "Democrats are doing it so we should be able to do it" is pure BS because no one should be allowed to do it. By analogy its like saying "My neighbor beats his wife so I should be able to beat my wife" and I don't buy that form of logic.
     
  2. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Rand Paul has neo-con political leanings. He has proposed cuts to military spending but hasn't elaborated and I can point to his position that indicates he's not serious about really cutting military spending per se.

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/0411/Paul_Cut_military_spending.html

    The current "defense spending" is about $1 trillion a year while welfare spending from the general fund is about 1/2 of that amount. Before cutting "welfare spending" that actually provides a benefit the the American people by mitigating the effects of poverty it's logical to cut military spending in half first as the vast majority of military spending has absolutely nothing to do with defending the United States from attack by foreign nations.

    The "defense" budget could be cut by $500 billion/yr and the US would still have the most technologically advanced and most mission capable military in the world. Not a single dime of "welfare" spending would need to be cut that millions of Americans depend upon to put food on the table and have a roof over their heads. I have never read where Rand Pual proposed first cutting $500 billion/yr from the defense budget and then consider cutting both "military" and welfare" spending after a "balance" is reached between the two.

    Nor have I ever read where Rand Paul has made any proposals that would result in welfare not being needed by those that receive it. If we want to reduce welfare expendatures we need to reduce the need. We can't ignore the needs of the American People and simply throwing the poor under the bus to balance the budget is what Rand Paul proposes. Basically Rand Paul's position has been (*)(*)(*)(*) the poor in America.
     
  3. bwk

    bwk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2012
    Messages:
    23,837
    Likes Received:
    2,223
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yep! Without a doubt!
     
  4. bwk

    bwk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2012
    Messages:
    23,837
    Likes Received:
    2,223
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You sound like the same bunch of Tea Party fools I was hounding about the IRS on another thread, to show me proof Obama was lying about having something to do with this made up scandal. And all they could do was accuse him of lying. They never produced the lies. And that was after 700 posts. Those people are nothing but ideolog mouth pieces that can't back up what they say. You didn't answer my question. Maybe you just didn't see it. So I'll try again. If you get rid of the IRS how are you going to collect taxes from people to fix roads and bridges?

    By the way, since you mentioned the IRS targeting Tea Party groups and other right wing organizations, the transcripts from Elijah Cummings paints a different picture. There actually were no targets. If you read the transcripts and how the 501C(4) applications were handled, there were no targets. But you say the IRS targeted Tea Party groups. What makes your story true and the official transcripts inaccurate? So you have two questions to answer. Hope you're not going to dodge the questions like the rest.
     
  5. Natty Bumpo

    Natty Bumpo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2012
    Messages:
    41,212
    Likes Received:
    14,706
    Trophy Points:
    113

    What remains of the TPs may, with nary a whimper, again allow the RNC to have its way with them as it did with the hapless McCain and clueless Romney, but Haliburton and the other big boys that control the Party would never risk letting the angry white guys have their way. Even a LINO like Randy would draw inconvenient attention to their gorging at the public trough. They would never allow his being nominated.
     
  6. Natty Bumpo

    Natty Bumpo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2012
    Messages:
    41,212
    Likes Received:
    14,706
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The IRS/TP scandal fizzled, and Americans have moved on. Those that find the truth inconvenient and prefer Issa's fantasy will cling to it. It's yet another variation on their 'birth' lunacy.
     
  7. bwk

    bwk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2012
    Messages:
    23,837
    Likes Received:
    2,223
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Still waiting on answers for my questions from Jiyuu-Freedom. I won't hold my breath.
     
  8. Natty Bumpo

    Natty Bumpo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2012
    Messages:
    41,212
    Likes Received:
    14,706
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Please do. I have no idea what enlightenment you were seeking.
     
  9. bwk

    bwk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2012
    Messages:
    23,837
    Likes Received:
    2,223
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am asking him, since he has no problem doing away with the IRS, who will collect taxes to fix roads and bridges in this country?
     
  10. Snappo

    Snappo Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2013
    Messages:
    1,744
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Jeb might give you your wish in 2016. Then you can have oil cronies back in power starting wars and killing our kids just to get some good no-bid contracts for Halliburton.
     
  11. Natty Bumpo

    Natty Bumpo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2012
    Messages:
    41,212
    Likes Received:
    14,706
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ah. It seems terribly irresponsible to eliminate the IRS. The US would collapse.
     
  12. bwk

    bwk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2012
    Messages:
    23,837
    Likes Received:
    2,223
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's how I see it too.
     
  13. Jiyuu-Freedom

    Jiyuu-Freedom Keep the peace Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2009
    Messages:
    16,174
    Likes Received:
    94
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No the news hasn't fizzled and America will move on but I know it is long from over.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324577904578557274272099196.html

    I am pretty sure this may not be hot news to some who want juicy news each day but this is far from over.
     
  14. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What we should do is look at some of the facts and agree on certain principles.

    First of all we know that the very first investigation of a "tea party" group applying for 501(c) tax exempt status was approved by a self-admitted "Republican" manager in the Cincinnati IRS office. This did not originate from higher management in the IRS but instead was brought before the manager by a subordinate employee.

    The IRS does provide guidelines to its agents so they can focus on the most productive use of their time in fulfilling their duties and responsibilities. These typically originate in the lower IRS offices and then are forwarded to the upper IRS offices. When the Washington DC IRS office was notified of lower offices listing the "Tea Party" and "Patriot" groups for further scutiny it changed the criteria to remove the "targeting" of these groups.

    We know that the directions to "target" certain groups did not originate from the central IRS office and that the White House certainly had nothing to do with it.

    We know that the "tea party movement" was a political action movement that formed groups that were overwhelmingly "PAC's" from it's inception. While a 501(c) tax exempt entity can have some political activism it cannot be the primary purpose of the organization. PAC's are treated differently under the IRS codes and the fact that what was a PAC is now self-identifying as a "Charitable Organization" is worthy of review to ensure that it's not a PAC hiding under 501(c) protections.

    We don't know, or at least I don't know, exactly who created the additional questions being submitted to the organizations being reviewed but we do know the purpose of those questions. They were to determine the extent of the political activities and goals of the organization because if the activities and goals of the organization were predominately those associated with a PAC then the organization did not qualify for 501(c) tax exempt status.

    I don't know why it sometimes may have taken "years" for 501(c) status to be granted if that actually occurred. If an organization refused to answer the questions submitted by the IRS then that could have delayed 501(c) status approval but that can't be blamed on the IRS. If the organization promptly supplied the answers and information requested and it resolved any doubts that the organization qualified as a 501(c) entity then there is no logical reason for a delay in IRS approval. The IRS does have a responsibility to ensure that an organizations really is a 501(c) entity before approval of that tax exempt status. Lacking specifics this seems to be an allegation against the IRS that could be based upon little if any logical foundation.

    Now for a few statements of principle that we should all agree upon.

    Politican discourse should be encouraged in the United States and not denied.

    We, the American People, have a "right to know" who those are that are promoting political ideas and agendas either directly by their statements or by funding the statements of others.

    We should not be allowing "anonymity" of the major players in the political discourse in American politics where they can hide behind 501(c) charitable organizations which do not have to disclose the contributors to the organization. This appears to be a problem with the law related to 501(c) entities that needs to be addressed. While I would hate to discourage contributions to ligitimate charitable organizations that are based upon "Philanthropy" where a person may want to remain anonymous as opposed to "Politics" where we should be able to know who's making the contributions perhaps we need to establish that anyone donating more than $2500/yr to a 501(c) organization must be listed publically as a contributor. Perhaps that is the price we have to pay because there are those that seek to change the political landscape of American politics while hiding their identities from public scrutiny.

    The fact is that we shouldn't allow individuals that are contributing large amounts of money to change the political landscape of America to be able to hide their identities behind a 501(c) tax exempt organization. I don't care if they contribute based upon their political agendas but I do care than I'm not able to find out who they are. I believe that this is something we should all be able to agree upon.
     
  15. bwk

    bwk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2012
    Messages:
    23,837
    Likes Received:
    2,223
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We'll, he dodged my questions. His post #488 says absolutely nothing.
     
  16. Natty Bumpo

    Natty Bumpo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2012
    Messages:
    41,212
    Likes Received:
    14,706
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's over as far as Issa's partisan vendetta is concerned. He selectively quoted from the transcripts to imply White House complicity whilst concealing exculpatory testimony that has now been revealed over his objections. Deliberate, selective distortion amounts to prosecutorial malfeasance .

    Meanwhile, it is not over. As the IG's investigation revealed, a coherent, consistent approach to ascertaining if these groups are legitimate must be instituted.


    But, we digress. Randy's lip service critical of the military/industrial complex means the GOP establishment would never allow his nomination.
     
  17. bwk

    bwk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2012
    Messages:
    23,837
    Likes Received:
    2,223
    Trophy Points:
    113
     
  18. Natty Bumpo

    Natty Bumpo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2012
    Messages:
    41,212
    Likes Received:
    14,706
    Trophy Points:
    113
    One would certainly hope so. Even those who resign themselves to the power of money in politics should grasp the relevancy of "Whose?" and the right of the citizen to know.

    As related to this thread's topic, we are referring to the clandestine fat cats that would find Rand Paul's nomination not to be in their special interests.
     
  19. bwk

    bwk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2012
    Messages:
    23,837
    Likes Received:
    2,223
    Trophy Points:
    113
     
  20. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Rand Paul is a recognized "tea party" politican and, in subscribing the news letters from the Tea Party Patriots (not knowing if Rand Paul is a member) they're screaming over the IRS's additional scrutiny. The "Tea Party" is very much for hiding the identities of their large donors and the "fat cats" would appreciate that.

    Additionaly Rand Pual is an advocate of the Capital Gains tax loophole that allows these "fat cats" to acquire massive wealth because of the highly preferrential tax treatment under the Capital Gains tax loophole. It's been shown that a person with over $15,000 in net income pays a higher federal tax rate in combined federal taxes than a person paying the highest tax rate under the Capital Gains tax loophole. When both "FICA/Payroll or Self-Employment" taxes on gross income and personal income taxes are combined for person with a net $15,000 income they pay over a 20% total tax rate which is the highest possible tax rate under the Capital Gains tax loophole.

    The "Fat Cats" love Rand Paul because Rand Paul supports crony capitalism which is how they accumlate wealth and supports hiding their political involvement behind 501(c) tax exempt status.
     
  21. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
     
  22. Snappo

    Snappo Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2013
    Messages:
    1,744
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How would a consumption based tax system work? Do any countries operate on a consumption tax approach? And getting rid of IRS <> getting rid of Dept. of Treasury. IRS is merely one of many bureaus within that Department. DoT would create or utilize an existing bureau to collect consumption based taxes; but you just wouldn't have a yearly 1040 to do.
     
  23. JimH52

    JimH52 New Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2013
    Messages:
    276
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Rand Paul seems to be following in dad's footsteps. His candidacy in 2016 would be a gift to the Dems. Karl Rove will mount a huge campaign to keep him from getting the GOP nomination.
     
  24. bwk

    bwk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2012
    Messages:
    23,837
    Likes Received:
    2,223
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you are going to create more work for the DOT(government agency), which is not in the business of collecting taxes to delegating more responsibility to "another government agency", that is not qualified for procuring such funds. I thought the idea was to get rid of government agencies, not create more responsibility for another one. You're only shifting the burden to another government agency, that isn't trained, you aren't downsizing anything. Seems like a disaster waiting to happen to me.
     
  25. clarkatticus

    clarkatticus New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    516
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I tend to disagree with most here, Rand Paul has the best chance to win the nomination of the GOP simply because of his ties to the Tea Party. Which is also why he would lose in a national election. I was a registered Libertarian for 25 years, I have since come to my senses. Libertarianism is just corporate controlled anarchy. I saw Maddow destroy Rand on MSNBC and I gotta say he didn't do so well anywhere in the interview. Christie is the only relatable GOP in the entire National scene unless Huntsman runs again. The GOP built their empire on angry white men, since then they have pissed off women, Hispanics, Blacks and Gays.
     

Share This Page