7xstall
Well-Known Member
all that looks great but i'd prefer a voluntary tax system based on spending rather than earning. Mr. Marx would probably even agree with that.
.
Ron Paul Revolution
- Thread starter 7xstall
- Start date
.
mockingbird131313
Well-Known Member
We had defacto NAU for decades. It worked well, until a bunch of jug-heads tried to fix that which was NOT broken. That defacto system was called green-back-a-dollar. Also, I believe a very severe flat tax rate should be employed on most of the workers, say 27 percent on the first $100K. People under the system would pay no state or local income tax or real estate tax on their primary residence. This would increase net revenues and put 2 million accountants and bean counters out of work, because it is a simple accounting method.even if you do compress the libertarian ideas into macro-economics, which is a fairly accurate approach (classic liberalism more so), you must agree that our current economic policies have us on the verge of a major disaster that will safely be "averted" by forming a north American union - which the neo-con/neo-libs will pull out of their hats at the last moment making them appear to be the heros of the day to the sheeple.
that's how they ran things to form the EU. they systematically destroyed the currency of the powerful countries while stabilizing or strengthening the currency of weaker countries.
while the US dollar is under full assault from the media, have you noticed that the Canadian dollar is getting good press lately?
if we want US and Canadian sovereignty, we must return to a hard currency now because they have the machine set on auto-pilot for NAU if we don't.
.
7xstall
Well-Known Member
that de facto NAU was the result of the power of the dollar and a voluntary willingness of other nations to use our currency. that's not the same thing as a vast treaty that institutes broad regulations and standards of conformity. the Constitution actually gives treaties the power to override itself so we have to be extremely cautious when we compare "de facto" unions to international treaties because of the government creep factor. they will gladly exploit the mindset that you just presented by baiting and switching us to a devastating alliance which destroys national sovereignty. look at what they tried to do with immigration!!! they said, "well, they're already here so why not ignore the fact that they are criminals? let's bring them out of the shadows."
the tax scheme you just proposed has a fatal flaw in that states are the only governments that actually have a rationale for compulsory taxation of their citizens at all. the states aren't supposed to be "under" the federal government; the federal government was intended to be an interface and intermediary between states when needed. if anything, i'd prefer that states level the 27 percent and take care of their sovereign needs while they wean off of federal grants and bribes then start paying the federal government for whatever it has actually provided. increasing centralization and trusting the highest authority to responsibly distribute to the lower governments is a fatal flaw, see Soviet Union, China, etc.
.
mockingbird131313
Well-Known Member
Actually, there was never a long-term plan for taxation. Since that now is a virtual given, in practical government, the question is how.
Currently many states are rabid tax biters. Worse yet, the unchecked property taxes, especially taxes on private residences. In some parts of the northeast there has seen a 100 percent increase in taxation year after year.
So a flat tax plan that distributes money to the Fed, state, and county is a practicle solution. However, I doubt it will happen because it makes so much common sense. Polititions need to have ways to monkey around with money. The biggest opponet of flat taxing is an army attornies and accountants. Flat taxing is the workable solution that bites their hands.
Stormfront
Well-Known Member
ron paul is the same as bush,
"oh but he says bring the troops back?"....great, they all do,
he also says CLOSE BORDERS! PRO-LIFE! GUNS IN ALL HOMES! (auto's too!), and DROP THE U.N. (probably so we don't have to be monitored by those pesky inspectors that bothered Saddam so much)
I'd rather vote for a rock, maybe a quartz of some type?
"oh but he says bring the troops back?"....great, they all do,
he also says CLOSE BORDERS! PRO-LIFE! GUNS IN ALL HOMES! (auto's too!), and DROP THE U.N. (probably so we don't have to be monitored by those pesky inspectors that bothered Saddam so much)
I'd rather vote for a rock, maybe a quartz of some type?
medicineman
New Member
Well, thats the tax for rich people, for sure. I think it would work, if the first 40K was not taxed, but to let the rich off the hook with their Mansion taxes, no fucking way. No property tax on the first 300K of property worth, then the hammer comes down, sort of like a luxury tax, if you live a life of luxury, then you should pay the lions share of taxes.
closet.cult
New Member
yes, he says: bring the troops home now, close the borders, keep your guns in homes and autos and get out of the U.N.-a crime organization with child prostitution rings and defunked powers to boot (alot of good it did to have the majority of U.N. members denounce the Iraq war). fuck the U.N.-you obviously have no idea of the corruption in that organization.
these are all things supported by the constitution, in the interests of American's freedom and safty, that many american's agree with. isn't that what we want in a president?
who knows what the congress will let him accomplish. but his record proves he believes it and americans agree with him.
7xstall
Well-Known Member
you have set a new record for the least informed rant i've ever seen on this website. congratulations, you really did something amazing with this post!
.
medicineman
New Member
Yeah, don't dis the Paul or the 7X will kick your butt.~LOL~.
7xstall
Well-Known Member
i think you and i might have a very different idea of what "practical government" is on the federal level.
are the people in the northeast incapable of electing sensible people or demanding some government restraint? that wouldn't happen down here, 100% increase would absolutely not happen without some serious retaliation. probably instant violence unless there was a very large, very clear set of reasons to justify it to the voters who would decide the issue.
don't you think the states should pay the federal government based on what they need the fed to do though? i mean, some states want/need more federal intervention that others, why should some lone painter in Montana have to buy bridges for telecommuters in Maine?
there needs to be a system of short term loans available to states rather than these addictive, steady streams of revenue from the massive federal government. there are so many strings attached that it would be better to just collect less federal and let the states get it without the middle man... i honestly can't understand how the generations before let it get this way.
(what are they doing with all that property tax money anyway? i've been to NY and had to give money to concrete booths every few minutes just to get to and from the airport, where's all that money going???? is there some giant underground empire/amusement park up there or what? lol)
.
7xstall
Well-Known Member
i'm just saying, that's incredibly lame. the UN was actually doing their job? they were inspecting Saddam's stuff? i guess this war was just a big misunderstanding then because part of the justification was that UN inspectors were not allowed to do their jobs.
i mean, hey, the UN is certainly doing a wonderful job of keeping tabs on Iran and there's absolutely no war drum beating going on with that situation either...
.
silk
Well-Known Member
That is some fascinatingly vague summation. Before WWII there was this era called the Great depression. Before that WWI and before that the industrial revolution. Your concept of simplicity is amazing. Going backwards isn't simple, most likely completely impossible.
medicineman
New Member
With all your twisted views, at least you agree with me against the war, Kudos!
Stormfront
Well-Known Member
for my defense, I do not agree with many* of Ron Paul's "goals"...the UN is a criminal group I agree, however, when you look at the mess the united states has made in the past with countries i have interest in such as...Lebanon, the UN is the only reason the US was stopped from obliterating innocent civilians, now wait before anyone brings up the marine barracks bombing i want to emphasize that without the UN in 2006 when israel attempted to slaughter Lebanon (again) they wouldn't have stopped, while the united states said it was fine, sorry i cant sit back while my family is murdered for the sake of making Israel happy. ron paul wants almost everything george bush has proposed while being in office, whether it happened or not, Bush tried to ditch the brady law, tried to get rid of the ban on automatic weapons and wants to close borders, when almost 99% of this country is made up of people who were originally immigrants, fuck that, ask the Sioux and Navahos about border closings, see how they feel. I'm not flaming anyone, america should be free for all opinions, and everything else we deserve, but don't talk to me about wars, and reasons and bullshit you can pawn off on some uneducated kids who never learned shit in history class, the reason I wont vote paul is because I have my beliefs, simple as that, don't make the guy out to be a hero before we've seen him in office, ifhe wins he wins, if he doesn't he doesn't there is no reason to get upset over one mans opinions, after all, why do you think the US is at war, one man has an opinion another man challenges it, the arguments go from verbal, to physical, people die, and nobody's happy-
the rant was my opinion and voiced as such-
the rant was my opinion and voiced as such-
7xstall
Well-Known Member
1. Ron Paul is about non-interventionism.
2. Bush didn't want to end immigration. that's crazy. nor does Ron Paul. we need to control the borders so we don't have millions of welfare entitled, unskilled, uneducated criminals pouring in every year.
3. israel should fend for itself, Ron Paul is about non-interventionism.
4. the brady law affects who, law abiding gun owners or criminals who use the black market? ok, so its useless to punish the people who actually obey the law. Second Amendment is good, its right under the one about freedom of religion.
.
2. Bush didn't want to end immigration. that's crazy. nor does Ron Paul. we need to control the borders so we don't have millions of welfare entitled, unskilled, uneducated criminals pouring in every year.
3. israel should fend for itself, Ron Paul is about non-interventionism.
4. the brady law affects who, law abiding gun owners or criminals who use the black market? ok, so its useless to punish the people who actually obey the law. Second Amendment is good, its right under the one about freedom of religion.
.
iblazethatkush
Well-Known Member
Wow you didn't use a single period. This is the longest, most illogical run-on sentence in the world!
ViRedd
New Member
Something serious is just coming to light, 7x. Some members of the Mexican military are guarding/protecting Mexican drug smugglers as they cross the border. The Mexican government has denied this, but Mexican military identification cards have been found along the trails on our side of the border as far as 65 miles into the U.S. Also, Texas ranchers along the border are ready to revolt. There have even been kidnappings of American women who have been taken back across the border into Mexico to be used as "gifts" to the leaders of the drug cartels. The violence along the Texas/Mexican border is very serious ... and no major news outlets are reporting it. Glenn Beck had an indepth story about it last night. He's going to be pounding this issue until the major media wake up to it. Watch Glenn Beck nightly on CNN.
Vi
iblazethatkush
Well-Known Member
I will agree that they are unskilled and uneducated but I think the part about them being criminals is misleading. It's only a small percentage of the illegal aliens that are criminals. And there the ones everybody wants to focus on. You could make the argument that they are all criminals because they are here illegally. True, but you could argue we are criminals too then. This land rightfully belongs to the Indians. By the way tho I disagree with you on every thread Vi- I love your sig. That's going to be my new motto.
Wavels
Well-Known Member
Huhhhh???...one hundred percent of these described aliens are indeed criminals.
And these criminals compound the misery because they have no desire whatsoever to assimilate.
iblazethatkush
Well-Known Member
haha You got me using an oxymoron. But it all depends on your definition of a criminal. I do not consider somebody crossing an imaginary line to be a criminal.