Economic Stimulus, Paul Style

Sloth · January 24, 2008, 3:53pm

Red meat for the forum. Found a link to this today, Ron Paul’s Economic package.

[b]1. Tax Reform

Eliminate Taxes on Dividends and Savings.[/b] The basis of capitalism is savings, and Americans who do so should be rewarded.
-Pass HJ Res. 23 to encourage savings over consumption.

Repeal the Death Tax. Attacking small businesses and breaking up family farms smothers growth and kills jobs.
-Pass H.R. 2734 to make the Bush tax cuts permanent.

Cut Taxes for Working Seniors. Grandmothers and grandfathers working to make ends meet should keep all the fruits of their labor.
-Pass H.R. 191 to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the inclusion in gross income of Social Security benefits.

Eliminate Taxes on Social Security Benefits. That money belongs to seniors, not the government. They paid into the system for a lifetime, and they should be free to spend every penny as they see fit.
-Pass H.R. 192 to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the 1993 increase in taxes on Social Security benefits.

Accelerate Depreciation on Investment. We need to help companies grow and create jobs.
-Pass H.R. 4995 and amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce corporate marginal income tax rates.

Eliminate Taxes on Capital Gains. Investment should be embraced and rewarded.
-Pass H.J. Res 23 (The ï¿½??Liberty Amendmentï¿½??), proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the United States Government from engaging in business in competition with its citizens.

Eliminate Taxes on Tips. The single parents and working students who earn their income chiefly through tips deserve to keep all of their money. This tax on “estimated income” is unfair and should be ended.
-Pass H.R. 3664 to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that tips shall not be subject to income or employment taxes.

Support Mortgage Cancelation Relief Act. Working families who lost their homes should not be punished a second time with a big IRS bill.
-Pass H.R. 1876 to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from gross income of individual taxpayers discharges of indebtedness attributable to certain forgiven residential mortgage obligations.

[b]2. Spending Reform

Reduce Overseas Military Commitments.[/b] Our bases and troops should be on our soil.
-It’s time to stop subsidizing our trading partners in Europe, Japan and South Korea.

Freeze Non-Defense, Non-Entitlement Spending at Current Levels
-I vote against all bloated, pork laden spending bills and will veto them as president.

[b]3. Monetary Policy Reform

Televise Federal Open Market Committee Meetings.[/b]An institution as powerful as the Federal Reserve deserves full public scrutiny.

Expand Transparency and Accountability at the Federal Reserve
-Pass H.R. 2754 to require the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to continue to make available to the public on a weekly basis information on the measure of the M3 monetary aggregate and its components.

Return Value to Our Money. Legalize gold and silver as a competing currency.
-Level the long-term boom and bust business cycle by passing H.R. 4683, which would repeal provisions of the federal criminal code relating to issuance coins of gold, silver, or other metal for use as current money and making or possessing likenesses of such coins.

[b]4. Regulatory Reform

Repeal Sarbanes/Oxley.[/b] It has seriously wounded our capital markets and helped make the UK the financial center at our expense.
-Ending these misguided regulations would bring jobs flooding back to the United States
-Pass H.R. 1049 to reform Sarbanes-Oxley and reduce the burden it places on small businesses.

Repeal or Remove Costly and Unnecessary Federal Regulations.Neighbors know best how to help their neighbors.
-We need to make it easier for community banks, credit unions, and other financial institutions to better serve their communities and to help people in these communities get access to credit and capital.
-Pass H.R. 1869 to enhance the ability of community banks to foster economic growth and serve their communities, boost small businesses, increase individual savings, and for other purposes.[/i]

lixy · January 24, 2008, 11:54am

Let’s wait for HH to tell us how the filthy rich pays more taxes than the dirt poor.

Sloth · January 24, 2008, 10:11pm

[quote]lixy wrote:
Let’s wait for HH to tell us how the filthy rich pays more taxes than the dirt poor.[/quote]

Well, they do…The dirt poor don’t pay taxes and are even eligble for a credit.

And, if you didn’t notice, much of the proposal above is also aimed at the rich (in some cases, moreso).

Jason32 · January 25, 2008, 12:20am

Ron Paul is crazy… thank God for Hillary.

Soon all Americans will be blissfully content after suckling the golden milk from her soothing tit.

Rocky101 · January 25, 2008, 12:36am

[quote]Jason32 wrote:
Ron Paul is crazy… thank God for Hillary.

Soon all Americans will be blissfully content after suckling the golden milk from her soothing tit.[/quote]

Yep Americans will be introduced to serfdom, they will be subjects, not citizens anymore.

thunderbolt23 · January 24, 2008, 7:56pm

Red meat? For which forum?

Not this one, I can say candidly.

More like Lucky Charms - light on actual nutrition, despite all the promises of essential vitamins and minerals, and a short term sugar rush for kids who don’t know or care how to locate better food options.

Sloth · January 25, 2008, 1:35am

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Red meat? For which forum?

Not this one, I can say candidly.

More like Lucky Charms - light on actual nutrition, despite all the promises of essential vitamins and minerals, and a short term sugar rush for kids who don’t know or care how to locate better food options.[/quote]

I’m not sure what you mean. Are you saying it’s empty and devoid of specifics? But, the proposals here do reference actual bills from my understanding. Rather concrete and specific for a campaign proposal, in my opinion.

Of course, he could simply say he’s for “change,” and have everyone fall all over him. Or, he could offer up the “plans” of the other “fiscal conservatives” running. Heh. Other fiscal consrvatives…You know, the one’s talking about mandates, block grants, or “Washington and Business partnerships.”

Thunder, I realize you think Ron Paul’s plan is nutty, but unless you can point out the “better food option” I’m at a loss as to where you’re coming from. Surely, it’s not one of the fiscal moderates/liberals running as a Republican, is it?

thunderbolt23 · January 25, 2008, 2:33am

[quote]Sloth wrote:

I’m not sure what you mean. Are you saying it’s empty and devoid of specifics? But, the proposals here do reference actual bills from my understanding. Rather concrete and specific for a campaign proposal, in my opinion. [/quote]

Exactly which of these stands a chance of passage? In a Democratic controlled Congress?

Yes, and his radical plans for wholesale overhaul of the system - one of them a plank in his paranoia platform - is the gold standard of wise, practical reform, pardon the pun.

I no more care for vacuous promises of “change” than anyone else - and, to be certain, I put the emptiness of “change” exactly on the same shelf as Paul’s equally useful platform that is DOA in the real world.

It’s not that I think the plan is nutty - not all of it - I think Paul is nutty, and there isn’t a chance in hell of his platform getting traction in the real world.

I like the idea of deregulation, lower taxes, a stronger currency, etc. - so if I actually want such things to get some chance of being realized in the real world, I’d need to back a candidate who doesn’t give such ideas less credibility in mainstream discourse. Paul moves us ever further from a more conservative approach to economics at the national level because he makes good conservative ideas sound like fringe quackery.

No thanks. But you have to ask yourself - are you actually interested in the realization of such policies? I know I am.

DrSkeptix · January 25, 2008, 2:59am

OK. I’m game.

So…the tax burden would then be shifted to those low earners who are least able to save? Too regressive. I vote no.

[quote]

Repeal the Death Tax. Attacking small businesses and breaking up family farms smothers growth and kills jobs.
-Pass H.R. 2734 to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. [/quote]

Is this praxis? If the goal is to save family farms, why not make this provison specific to family farms (defined somehow?) only. Otherwise, the death tax cut benefits the inheritor of wealth more than the family farmer. Too regressive. No.

[quote]

Cut Taxes for Working Seniors. Grandmothers and grandfathers working to make ends meet should keep all the fruits of their labor.
-Pass H.R. 191 to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the inclusion in gross income of Social Security benefits. [/quote]

A noble sentiment, but why heap another entitlement on this class? This makes worse the transgenerational transfer of wealth. If we wanted to encourage the elderly to work, why not eliminate their payroll taxes?
No, again.

[quote]

Eliminate Taxes on Social Security Benefits. That money belongs to seniors, not the government. They paid into the system for a lifetime, and they should be free to spend every penny as they see fit.
-Pass H.R. 192 to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the 1993 increase in taxes on Social Security benefits. [/quote]

See above. Of course, all money belongs to the generator, not to the government. But SS never worked in this fashion; that money was paid and taxed over the years. And current benefits are just another income stream; why shift the burden, once again, to those wage earners less able to pay?
Slightly regressive, I vote no, but my mind is open on this one.

[quote]
Accelerate Depreciation on Investment. We need to help companies grow and create jobs.
-Pass H.R. 4995 and amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce corporate marginal income tax rates. [/quote]

Maybe yes, maybe no. Real economists may point out that depending on business conditions, this measure (its not at all original) merely shifts discretionary spending to another period. Snooze…

It seems that the stated intention has nothing to do with the measure. Capital gains should be taxed at some rate, lower than the maximum rate, reflecting risk over time, but what does that have to do with “the United States Government…engaging in business…etc.?”

More entitled classes. Why not left-handed dwarves?
I am sympathetic to tip earners. Can we think of an equitable way to asses their earnings? How about trust?

Ah! At last, something I can understand. I agree.

Political psychodrama. NTTAWT, it’s just not economic reform.

EEK! No! Not relevant to topic, but where in finance is there any transparency, ever?

Now this is interesting. Economists and central bankers have stopped reporting this figure for good reasons, and I do not know them. I think the practical irrelevancy of M3 was at issue.

No. Don’t get me started.
Even when you catch M. Friedman or A. Greenspan praising the merits of monetarism or the gold standard, they quickly assure us that the Fed, since 1979, acts as though gold were the standard. Let’s leave everything a commodity, and not risk “someone” deciding the value of gold, and provoking deflation, depression and…oh, never mind. No Paulista will ever listen to reason on this one.

Yes.

[quote]

Repeal or Remove Costly and Unnecessary Federal Regulations.Neighbors know best how to help their neighbors.
-We need to make it easier for community banks, credit unions, and other financial institutions to better serve their communities and to help people in these communities get access to credit and capital.
-Pass H.R. 1869 to enhance the ability of community banks to foster economic growth and serve their communities, boost small businesses, increase individual savings, and for other purposes.[/i] [/quote]

How soon they forget. Anyone here remember the last crisis of liquidity, the savings and loan crisis? Those friendly neighborhood banks nearly bankrupted us. They earned their regulations.
No.

So, 2 yeses and 1 maybe, and the rest goes to the recycle bin, where they will be reintroduced over, and over, and…

Sloth · January 25, 2008, 3:07am

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

No thanks. But you have to ask yourself - are you actually interested in the realization of such policies? I know I am. [/quote]

Yes. Which is why I won’t support McCain, Rudy, Romney, or Huck. My belief is that the Republican party has to stop acting like cowards. They have to stop running to the left to tackle that Democratic congress you speak of. What do you think will happen with one of these mainstream candidates facing a Democrat congress?

I’d imagine compromise further and further to the left. We’ve already experienced the more gentle, mainstream, compassionate Conservative. They spent like…Democrats. No, worse than Democrats. They’ve lost the congress, and they’re about to lose the Presidency.

The Republican base is shrinking. They aren’t selling the ideas of small government, small budgets, and long term budget stability. They don’t even talk about the dollar. But, sure, drive out the kooks. Solidfy that dogma and shrink the party tents. Watch that base shrink more, and more. You’ll be left with the McCains and the Huckabees. I wonder, which candidate has enticed more voters to switch their registration to Republican?

thunderbolt23 · January 25, 2008, 3:41am

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Yes. Which is why I won’t support McCain, Rudy, Romney, or Huck. My belief is that the Republican party has to stop acting like cowards. They have to stop running to the left to tackle that Democratic congress you speak of. What do you think will happen with one of these mainstream candidates facing a Democrat congress? [/quote]

I agree - so who is running to the left of the current Congress, with the possible exception of Huckabee? You seem to manufacture enemies for the sake of doing it.

And what do I think of a “mainstream candidate” facing a Democratic Congress? I think a mainstream candidate might very well advance policy, win back a few seats, and - most importantly - not insure he has a supermajority of Congressmen overriding his vetoes.

No problem - reining in spending is part of the program to re-establish the GOP “brand name”. Who is against it, except maybe Huckabee? And who would be most able to ride herd over a Congress and change their profligate ways?

There is no question the GOP must recapture its fiscal bona fides, everyone agrees - the question is how best to do it and with who.

A huge part of the “base” is the Evangelical bloc so in love with Huckabee and his Christian Democrat philosophy. As for the other aspects, you are right - but neither is your hero Ron Paul selling it. The surest way to make small government ideas fail at the national level is to wrap it in Black Helicopter wrapping paper.

You can’t drive out the kooks by having a kook be the new champion of the vision of the GOP. Paul is a kook, and dammit, that is exactly what I want to do - drive out his kookiness because it hurts the small government message.

You say “drive out the kooks” - by God, that is precisely my aim, and it starts with excommunicating none other than the King of Moonbats himself.

McCain is a conservative, by and large - if it makes you feel better, compare his ACU lifetime rating with your precious Ron Paul. Huckabee is a mixed bag.

As for wondering which candidate has enticed more voters to witch their registration to Republican, make up your mind - do we drive out the kooks, or not? Not all Paul’s supporters are kooks, but if they only recently switched to the GOP, are they really the kind of voters we should aim for in our “smaller tent” you advocate? They weren’t in the tent during the “glory days” of true conservative Republican governance - why are they here now?

Wayward anarchists, juvenile idiots angry at the Establishment, unserious children, conspiracy anti-government yahoos - this ain’t the future of Reagan’s Republican Party. And you are talking out of two mouths - so do we keep the tent big enough to keep in the Ron Paul newcomers, or do we tighten it up, drive out the kooks who weren’t there before, and get back to what made the GOP successful?

BostonBarrister · January 25, 2008, 4:41am

[quote]Sloth wrote:
…
Of course, he could simply say he’s for “change,” and have everyone fall all over him. …[/quote]

I was looking for an excuse to link this:

You need to watch it to the end (not because the end is particularly cool, but because you need to get about 2/3 of the way through at least).

Sloth · January 25, 2008, 5:20am

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Sloth wrote:
…
Of course, he could simply say he’s for “change,” and have everyone fall all over him. …

I was looking for an excuse to link this:

You need to watch it to the end (not because the end is particularly cool, but because you need to get about 2/3 of the way through at least).[/quote]

What am I missing?

Sloth · January 25, 2008, 5:40am

One thing that struck me about tonight’s debate was a question about the Iraq War. I believe Russert (I think it was him) phrased the question around a poll (I’ll look for it later) which showed that 6 out of 10 Americans believe removing Saddam was not worth the cost. It was also pointed out that no stockpiles were found, that Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11, and no real evidence that he was cooperating with Al Qaeda to attack us.

I watched every other candidate defend going in. Not even that we had to finish what we started, but that we were right to wage the war in the first place. I see McCain, a candidate who stated that being in Iraq for 100 years was fine by him, as our guy riding the wave. Now, maybe that isn’t having such an impact within the primaries, but might I remind you that he will have to face Hillary. That clip will be shown over and over again in attack ads.

The American people were sold a bill of goods on this war. A man ready to sell decades worth of committment, to an American public that now believes we should never have gone in, is a loser. Good luck with that.

P.S. Of course there was also Huckabee talking about how because we didn’t find an easter egg (wmds in Iraq), doesn’t mean there wasn’t any. Didn’t find “an easter egg?” We didn’t find ANY “easter eggs” even though we “knew” where they were.

Sloth · January 25, 2008, 5:53am

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
OK. I’m game.

Sloth wrote:
Red meat for the forum. Found a link to this today, Ron Paul’s Economic package.