Ron Paul would have defeated Obama

Good. They should pay the bulk.

 

Oh, goody! A democrat.

 

I'm an old Thomas Payne Liberal. The problem with the Democratic party is they are a bunch of socialists and out to bankrupt America. So no I'm no Democrat.



The Democratic Underground is so extreme left that they banned me under the pseudo name Thomas Payne before I posted a single post. Get that (*)(*)(*)(*).

 

why don't you volunteer to have your taxes raised ?

 

you should apologize to your family for your failure to do something with yourself.

 

Joined the army at 17. Got kicked out of college for not being liberal enough in English class, teacher flunked me for being "a heartless (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)". Got bi-polar disorder and lived a large part of my life going from job to job until I was finally diagnosed and medicated 5 years ago.

 

Maybe I would if I made 250k a year. Must be nice not to have to worry about paying next months rent or whether you should fix the car or buy grocery's for the month.

 

Now I am responsible for your poor life choices ?
You should be ashamed. Instead you look to take from others.

 

Most children make excuses for their failures too.

 

Good luck arguing on keeping a tax cut for those poor folks north of $250K.

My heart just bleeds....bleeds I tell ya'.

The real raping comes from our dollar being devalued. Given that we don't have a Ron Paul going to the Oval Office,..with Ron Paul solutions....I don't think removing a tax cut for those folks that are only well off is really that earth-shaking.

Reality is that we are operating within the same paradigm we've been under for some time. Removing the Bush tax cuts is just nibbling around the edges of the real problem, but what else would you expect? And really..where should Obama have drawn the line? $500K?

Our tax system is too complex. Having said that, it is roughly fair in that *overall* the tax % an income group pays is proportional to the % of wealth it has.

 

wow, a touch of envy and resentment in your voice.

i would think that you would have more understanding of the fact that tax rates don't adjust for inflation.

The guy making $250+ has an insignificant portion of the nations wealth. It is so many orders of magnitude below the top wealth holders as to be insignificant. Lumping them in the same category is thoughtless and vindictive.

The fact that your "heart bleeds" reveals your desire to sacrifice others and save yourself. Honestly, I expected more

 

Possibly, although unfortunately, debates hold less weight than ads.

 

No, not a bit of envy. Though I'm nowhere near that level of income, I'm quite happy with my station in life. I'm 56 years old and have never sucked off the federal teat and don't foresee that happening in the time I have left. Wow.

Inflation or not, $250K annually is still a lot of money.

I'm not lumping anybody together.What i said was that, roughly speaking, the % of tax any given group pays is proportionate to the % of wealth they own. That is true for all income groups, from lowest to highest. Prove it wrong if you can.

Show where I asked to or want to be 'saved' in any post at any time I've ever made. I don't need saving. Try again. Honestly, I expected more from you and Z-mom than trying to say that $250K annually is not a lot of money.

Also notice I did not defend Obama. Reality is that we are $16 Trillion in debt and arguing for continued tax cuts within that frame, while operating under the paradigm we are under, is just plain dumb.

I would personally love to see a complete shift away from what we are doing, but that's not the case. Hell, even if Ron Paul had been elected, he would not be abandoning taxes. His philosophy may be to do away with income tax, but he's enough of a pragmatist to transition away from it gradually.

Ideally, I'd like to see a balanced budget, but we still have a debt to pay. That money has to come from somewhere, whether by income or some other tax. The only alternative is complete default and that's not going to happen.

 

you just got done telling us how others should have their wage taxes raised, but not you.

wage earners at that level already pay a ton in taxes.

Yes you are. If you advocate the guy making over $250 be taxed similarly to the hundredbillionaires, you are lumping them in the same group.

demonstrate that. What percent of the wealth does a guy making $300K own compared to the guy making $74K, and what is the proportionate % of tax each group pays.

prove it correct. You made the assertion.

you want to be "saved" from tax increases and defer them onto others. You just admitted as much.

 

I never said that. Prove it or stop lying.

And your point is....? Do you want to keep playing the 'cut taxes' game in the face of trillion dollar deficits and a $16 Trillion debt?

I didn't advocate anything. I just said I didn't feel sorry for those making over $250K annually.

Again, show where I said that or stop lying. Frankly, I could do without the Bush tax cuts and my main objection to higher taxes is that the Federal Gov't pisses the money away. If they would come up with a balanced budget amendment and designate a % of revenue for debt retirement, I would have no problem with paying more.

 

He would need the backing of one of the parties to get elected. Most people have heard the name, the more educated know who he is, but to most people he's a Meme. He would need the exposure that only a 800 million dollar campaign can give him.

 

The only argument I can come up with is the Romney voters might have stayed home.

However, I can't imagine them actually doing that. They are very strongly opposed to Obama, so it is safe to say the Romney voters would have voted for Paul had he won the nomination and not Romney.


That said, I believe Paul would have made the race much more closely contested.

 

If Ron Paul was the Republican candidate I would've voted for Obama.

 

This sums up most Neocons in a nutshell. And this is why, sadly Ron could not have won, even if he took a lot of minority support. A good amount of Neocons want more imperialistic wars and love to see dead brown people.

 

Only because you're bitter now.

 

The Democrat Base is the (D)ependent base.......Paid Democrat Voters who love nothing more than getting them some free sh't from da gubment.

While they may praise Ron Paul on occasion, when he bashes his party......they arent going to vote for the guy who is only offering freedom when The Kenyan Tyrant is promising them Cadillacs.....

....Gary Johnson ran on the Ron Paul Platform....and didnt even get 1%.....

 

Meanwhile, you guys voted for the guy who thinks the gubmint should be giving corporate welfare, subsidies, stimulus, banker bailouts, handouts to insurance companies,(Romneycare) handouts to lawyers, prosecutors, the justice system in general, law enforcement, and the prison industrial complex,(War on drugs) supports student loans, supports conjured up conflicts so the military industrial complex can get in on the action, etc.....

Yeah, no welfare there.

 

I don't know. Give him a call and ask him.

The answer is that you have no proof, just your baseless opinion.

Doesn't change the fact that you mischaracterized his positions.

I never claimed that they were wrong. You provided no proof for your baseless claim that Ronpaul.com is "his" website. It's also been pointed out many times in this thread by several members that you were misrepresenting Paul's positions by saying that he would "keep the regressive payroll tax" and "pile on some excise taxes", claims of which I have not seen listed anywhere and which you still have provided no proof for. The only conclusion I can come to is that you simply fabricated them in an attempt to defame his character.

 

Show me where in the Constitution it says that the federal government has the authority to control the price of labor.

 

Ron Paul did not support tax cuts for the rich.