| Author |
 Replies: 21 / Views: 2,644 |
Page 2 of 2
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3670 Posts |
Is there any mathematical real chance RP could get elected? I will happily toss my vote his way even if he has ZERO chance of getting elected, instead of giving it to any of the other jack wagons....
Edited by Silverhawk74
09/07/2011 12:36 am
|
|
Valued Member
United States
228 Posts |
Silverhawk: I believe Ron Paul has a chance, though not a large one. The prediction market Intrade (www.intrade.com),this morning lists Paul as having a 3.5% chance to take the GOP nomination. Perry is at 39%, Romney is at 36%. YO MAMA ... (er Obama), is given a 50.9% chance of reelection. Very importantly, the GOP is seen to have a 75.4% probability of gaining control of the Senate.  . Most are not ready to confront the many changes that would take place with a Ron Paul presidency. Though he would not do away with the Fed or the IRS immediately, his existence as President would threaten many in entrenched positions of power. (Just imagine how many bureaucrats he would put out of work)!   . Even so, a critical mass is building for the idea of returning to Constitutional values... If we can make it 14 months, and avoid disaster (the reelection of YO MAMA), and get a GOP Senate - then we can hope to rebuild the country. Until then I believe, gridlock prevails, businesses won't invest, and employment remains at a status quo... |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3294 Posts |
This early in the game though leads me to take those intrade numbers with a heaping bowl of salt.
|
|
Valued Member
 175 Posts |
I'm afraid the establishment is too corrupt at this point for Ron to get elected. That won't stop me from voting for him though.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4008 Posts |
Quote:
I read the other day that 50% of the people living in America don't pay into income tax while the other half who work do. If this is true then their is something wrong with that picture. Yes, this is true. This would cease if we had a flat tax system. I have yet to hear a cogent argument against a flat tax, although I have heard a lot of vitriol. In one makes a LOT of money, one pays a LOT in taxes. If one makes a moderate amount, then they pay a moderate tax. If they make little, then they pay little... but EVERYONE pays something and that would be a substantial improvement over the "dead-beats ride in the wagon for free while the rest of us push it" system that we now have. Quote:
I'm afraid the establishment is too corrupt at this point for Ron to get elected. That won't stop me from voting for him though. I agree. In fact, the system is now so corrupt that I would fear for Dr. Paul's physical safety should he be nominated. It would not be the 1st time that political zealots resorted to assassination to obtain their desires.  |
|
Valued Member
United States
228 Posts |
I hate to say it, but if Ron Paul took the GOP nomination - I too would fear for his physical safety... As far as the flat the tax goes - it would be the best solution (IMO). It would have the benefit of encouraging saving, as well as imposing a tax on those who presently pay nothing (drug dealers, prostitutes, gamblers, thieves etc., and even those with a higher profile who pay nothing because of cleverly exploited tax loopholes). A flat tax system however, would mean the end of the IRS. . But you can bet that those entrenched in power in that bureaucracy will fight to their last breath to maintain the status quo... |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
931 Posts |
Alex Jones had a money bomb fund raiser for Ron last year and raised 5 million dollars in one day. A lot of people like him, even though they know that even if elected the President doesn't really have the power to make all of those changes. It would be a nice symbolic kick in the teeth to Barney Frank and the boys. The president can make those Presidential Decrees or whatever their called. At least we would get Fort Knox and The New York Central Bank audited. And gee, do you think that Bernanke and Geithner would keep their appointed positions?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3294 Posts |
Even with a flat tax, we would still need the IRS, but at least we could reduce their size by 90+%.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
228 Posts |
nod:
I don't agree with your statement, that even with a flat tax - we would still need the IRS. The flat tax would be universal, would tax all - and would need no huge federal bureaucracy (like the IRS) to administer it.
We could do away with the IRS, its' many capricious and arbitrary practices, (and its' many corruptions), which would take much too long to get into here...
Nope - totally disagree - with the flat tax - (IMO),there would be no need for the most hideous bureaucracy ever created by the U.S. government.
Best,
LastGold
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3294 Posts |
No, you still would need the IRS because the government is going to want to check for people trying to cheat. And if you think the IRS is a hideous bureaucracy, then you are absolutely right.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
228 Posts |
nod:
What I am referring to is a nationally administered flat rate SALES tax! An extra tax collected at the time of purchase on everything purchased by anyone in the country! That means you get to tax thieves, drug lords, prostitutes, gangsters, even illegals - because everyone eats, buys clothes etc...
Such a tax would encourage savings, and because it would be absolutely inescapable - there would be no need for an oversight body (like the IRS) to administer it! In addition, think of how much productivity we would save by doing away with the reams of paperwork that businesses and individuals must confront each year - just to satisfy the IRS! The savings in time, energy and grief alone would be enormous!
Best,
LastGold
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4008 Posts |
Quote:
But you can bet that those entrenched in power in that bureaucracy will fight to their last breath to maintain the status quo... I can live with that. Get a rope, boys!  Quote:
Even with a flat tax, we would still need the IRS, but at least we could reduce their size by 90+%. I agree, Nod. Someone will ALWAYS try to game the system, no matter what system it is. A small but efficient IRS would be needed to pursue these miscreants. If taxes were small, fair, easy to pay, and the penalties for not paying severe it is likely that there would be far less tax cheating going on than there is now. A simple tax system would be much easier to administer and would not consume a huge amount of time and money to implement and operate. The usual suspects that benefit from the current system would resist, however. They need to be crushed. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3294 Posts |
Did anyone notice that despite Ron Paul winning the debate, that the major news networks didn't even mention him and instead only talked about Perry and Romney?
|
|
Valued Member
175 Posts |
That's normal. After every debate he's the least talked about candidate. They did the same thing to him in 2008.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4008 Posts |
Quote:
Did anyone notice that despite Ron Paul winning the debate, that the major news networks didn't even mention him and instead only talked about Perry and Romney? For the past 15+ years, the so-called mainstream media has taken it upon itself not to just report the news but to shape and bend it to fit their own political agenda, whenever possible. Ron Paul, despite being a congressman, is not part of the accepted political establishment. Therefore, he is not in bed with the press. Because of this, they seek to marginalize him via the absolute minimum of coverage. I'm sure that they would say, "But after all, if what he had to say was "news worthy", we would cover him more fully". In this case, the term "news worthy" translates to "supporting our agenda". Since RP does not support the liberal media agenda, he's an "out" while Romney and Perry, who do support the liberal media and are part of the political establishment, are "ins". As they would put it, Ron Paul just isn't "house broken".  |
|
Page 2 of 2
|
Replies: 21 / Views: 2,644 |
Page 2 of 2
|
First Page
Posted 09/07/2011 1:00 pm
