I noticed a bit of cofusion, which is my fault. I’m not advocating a shrinking tent. I’m criticizing the marginalization of people supportive of Ron Paul’s postitions. I’m denouncing the shrinking of an already shrinking base.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
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. [/quote]
Calling Ron Paul the “King of Moonbats himself” is uncalled for. He is more rational than than the current president, Huckabee or Clinton.
In any case, Paul drew some pretty kooky supporters to him, but that’s what you get for defending the US constitution. Anyone who actually supports individual freedom is sure to be popular among the unpopular and oppressed minority groups; they have the most interest at stake in protecting basic rights like free speech. Those who only hold and/or express popular opinions don’t require such protection.
Suck it up!
[quote]lixy wrote:
Calling Ron Paul the “King of Moonbats himself” is uncalled for. He is more rational than than the current president, Huckabee or Clinton.[/quote]
Lixy, I don’t think much of your juvenile opinion, and I couldn’t care less if you don’t like my label of Paul. Paul is a fringe character who represents some of the ugliest aspects of ideology.
And I am not sure you have the currency to speak on “who is rational”, given the low-grade puppet show you serve up daily as “debate”.
For example, you.
This is just rhetoric you’ve picked up from the fever swamps - and meaningless. You don’t even know what it means - after all, Paul’s version would completely negate the administrative state at the federal level, something that would make you cry for days.
Heh. It is always bizarre when you attempt to talk tough, when we all know too much about you to be anything but amused.
Thunderbolt,
You seem quick to dismiss his defense of the constitution as rhetoric. Can you elaborate? Of all the rhetoric being vomited at us this election year, to me, it is certainly unoffensive if not refreshing.
I don’t think that dismissing his ideas based on the fact that they don’t have a chance of passing congress seems a little chickenshit. Obviously what is going on isn’t working. I think you present these ideas before a popular vote and for the most part they pass in a landslide.
Someone having an idea that is not mainstream is not automatically a kook.
I mean they tax it as income, if I buy something they tax the sale, and they tax what has already been taxed when I’m dead. They tax the tax. I say fucking ENOUGH!
You want the money, come do the fucking work. I should be able to write off my taxes as charity. Cause that’s what it is.
[quote]btm62 wrote:
Thunderbolt,
You seem quick to dismiss his defense of the constitution as rhetoric. Can you elaborate? Of all the rhetoric being vomited at us this election year, to me, it is certainly unoffensive if not refreshing.
I don’t think that dismissing his ideas based on the fact that they don’t have a chance of passing congress seems a little chickenshit. Obviously what is going on isn’t working. I think you present these ideas before a popular vote and for the most part they pass in a landslide.
Someone having an idea that is not mainstream is not automatically a kook.
I mean they tax it as income, if I buy something they tax the sale, and they tax what has already been taxed when I’m dead. They tax the tax. I say fucking ENOUGH!
You want the money, come do the fucking work. I should be able to write off my taxes as charity. Cause that’s what it is. [/quote]
McCain is the answer…
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
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.
[/quote]
No one group or person can set the price of gold. No one group or person can determine the real value of money. Any economist that that believes this ignores: 1) supply 2) demand 3) subjective value.
The people that could use a dose of reason are the pseudo-economists who tout Keynesian propaganda.
How exactly does the Fed know what interest rates should be?
http://terjepetersen.wordpress.com/2006/12/19/price-stability-and-commodities/
Gold, historically, is the most stable commodity there is. The only reason its value changes in terms of fiat money is because paper is devalued through inflation and gold is not. The value of a barrel of oil has not changed much in terms of gold except during times of extreme scarcity, viz. Katrina.
From WSJ, May 2006:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114791756956656219.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
[quote]Sloth wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
Sloth wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
OK. I’m game.
Hmm. I think we’re on two totally different platforms here. I would never use “entitlment” in refering to any tax cuts, for example.
Unfortunately, yes. I understand fully the rhetoric of taxes (taking from) and “entitlement” (giving to). But a selective tax cut is an entitlement.
The reality of taxation is this: If a dollar is not taken from a defined and therefore privileged class, someone else is disadvantaged by class. To the extent that some are thus excluded, the more others bare the burden, and unfairly so.
I still don’t follow you. Targeted tax cuts, or not, how is keeping your own money an entitlement? Well, unless you’re want to say that we’re entitled to keep our tax dollars, as opposed to an entitlement for someone else paying for our medical care. Furthermore, I don’t believe any of the proposals were tax raises. So, I’m not sure how someone else would bear a larger burden of taxes than what they carry now.
Again, we’re on two totally different platforms here. You’re worried about class, while I’m looking to keep money out Washington.[/quote]
I think, perhaps, you have been taken in by the rhetorical dodge.
“Targeted tax cuts” are a way of defining a class, offering relief, and then, a cost is shifted to others. Do not believe for a moment that taxes are cut by such proposals, the burden is only shifted around. (Clearly, I am not speaking about “class” distinctions, but about definiing a privileged sector.)
For example: If Mr Paul relieved the tax from seniors, then ceterus parabus, others would assume the tax burden for them. Of course, you can argue that spending will go down commensurately, or that aggregate tax revenues will inevitably rise, but that is not in the legislation. That is speculation. Surely, if one defined class is privileged, and their marginal tax rates go down, then others contribute proportionately more.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
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.
No one group or person can set the price of gold. No one group or person can determine the real value of money. Any economist that that believes this ignores: 1) supply 2) demand 3) subjective value.
The people that could use a dose of reason are the pseudo-economists who tout Keynesian propaganda.
How exactly does the Fed know what interest rates should be?
http://terjepetersen.wordpress.com/2006/12/19/price-stability-and-commodities/
Gold, historically, is the most stable commodity there is. The only reason its value changes in terms of fiat money is because paper is devalued through inflation and gold is not. The value of a barrel of oil has not changed much in terms of gold except during times of extreme scarcity, viz. Katrina.
From WSJ, May 2006:
In Gold We Trust - WSJ [/quote]
So…are you agreeing with me? Gold should remain a commodity.
Re-read what I wrote, look up Stanley Baldwin and the reversion to the Gold Standard in 1920’s; tell me what you think.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
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.
No one group or person can set the price of gold. No one group or person can determine the real value of money. Any economist that that believes this ignores: 1) supply 2) demand 3) subjective value.
The people that could use a dose of reason are the pseudo-economists who tout Keynesian propaganda.
How exactly does the Fed know what interest rates should be?
http://terjepetersen.wordpress.com/2006/12/19/price-stability-and-commodities/
Gold, historically, is the most stable commodity there is. The only reason its value changes in terms of fiat money is because paper is devalued through inflation and gold is not. The value of a barrel of oil has not changed much in terms of gold except during times of extreme scarcity, viz. Katrina.
From WSJ, May 2006:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114791756956656219.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries[/quote]
Gold price fluctuates. The fact that it hasn’t plummeted is because we have strange laws regulating its sale. All this gold standard talk is just goldbugs trying to jack up the price of a soft metal that is good for jewelry and some industrial uses.
We do not need to base our supply of money on something that we dig out of the ground. What would a big gold strike do? What would a mine disaster do?
Read the following ten year old silly article and try to realize that gold bugs are trying to sell you something. They do not have your best interest at heart. They are trying to line their pockets with your paper money while they give you metal. Ever wonder why?
Here it is 10 years later and gold didn’t hit $ 3,000 /oz yet.
Why the fuck would I want to line Ron Paul’s friends pockets for no valid reason?
What we need is fiscal responsibility in Washington. A gold standard does not guarantee that because we can go off it very easily. Especially because the rest of the world doesn’t follow it.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Sloth wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
Sloth wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
OK. I’m game.
Hmm. I think we’re on two totally different platforms here. I would never use “entitlment” in refering to any tax cuts, for example.
Unfortunately, yes. I understand fully the rhetoric of taxes (taking from) and “entitlement” (giving to). But a selective tax cut is an entitlement.
The reality of taxation is this: If a dollar is not taken from a defined and therefore privileged class, someone else is disadvantaged by class. To the extent that some are thus excluded, the more others bare the burden, and unfairly so.
I still don’t follow you. Targeted tax cuts, or not, how is keeping your own money an entitlement? Well, unless you’re want to say that we’re entitled to keep our tax dollars, as opposed to an entitlement for someone else paying for our medical care. Furthermore, I don’t believe any of the proposals were tax raises. So, I’m not sure how someone else would bear a larger burden of taxes than what they carry now.
Again, we’re on two totally different platforms here. You’re worried about class, while I’m looking to keep money out Washington.
I think, perhaps, you have been taken in by the rhetorical dodge.
“Targeted tax cuts” are a way of defining a class, offering relief, and then, a cost is shifted to others. Do not believe for a moment that taxes are cut by such proposals, the burden is only shifted around. (Clearly, I am not speaking about “class” distinctions, but about definiing a privileged sector.)
For example: If Mr Paul relieved the tax from seniors, then ceterus parabus, others would assume the tax burden for them. Of course, you can argue that spending will go down commensurately, or that aggregate tax revenues will inevitably rise, but that is not in the legislation. That is speculation. Surely, if one defined class is privileged, and their marginal tax rates go down, then others contribute proportionately more.
[/quote]
Wait, you keep saying others would assume the tax burden for them. Why? Not one of his proposals raises taxes on another group to offset the cost. At all. Period. In otherwords, if I payed a dollar in taxes and I don’t benefit from the tax cuts, I still only pay a dollar. My burden is still a dollar. I’m not satisfied with speculation on your part, so you’re going have to point out this tax increase proposal.
As far as spending goes, a portion of the federal government’s spending would be frozen. Not just a spending rate slow down, but actually frozen. I’ve also made sure to point out that his other proposals (again, this is one page off a number of issues) would dramatically cut spending on entitlements. Because, well, we would phase them out. That’s a pretty big spending decrease. It would happen overtime, of course.
And then there’s the money saved by providing for our national defense, and only ours.
I think we’re coming from completely opposite views of what the role of government is.
http://english.vietnamnet.vn/biz/2006/03/546583/
Interesting article on the problems shopping with gold. Imagine if we had competing currencies in the US? What a disaster.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
http://english.vietnamnet.vn/biz/2006/03/546583/
Interesting article on the problems shopping with gold. Imagine if we had competing currencies in the US? What a disaster. [/quote]
Then there’s the nothing to fear. Obviously private businesses will choose to only use the dollar, and Gold/Silver will fail. I mean, that’s the free market theory, right? So hey, we should welcome the competition in our free market economy. Let the people decide in which currency their faith will reside.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
http://english.vietnamnet.vn/biz/2006/03/546583/
Interesting article on the problems shopping with gold. Imagine if we had competing currencies in the US? What a disaster.
Then there’s the nothing to fear. Obviously private businesses will choose to only use the dollar, and Gold/Silver will fail. I mean, that’s the free market theory, right? So hey, we should welcome the competition in our free market economy. Let the people decide in which currency their faith will reside.[/quote]
People would stop buying things until it shook out. No one would enter into contracts with constantly fluctuating currencies. Things would grind to a halt.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
Sloth wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
Sloth wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
OK. I’m game.
Hmm. I think we’re on two totally different platforms here. I would never use “entitlment” in refering to any tax cuts, for example.
Unfortunately, yes. I understand fully the rhetoric of taxes (taking from) and “entitlement” (giving to). But a selective tax cut is an entitlement.
The reality of taxation is this: If a dollar is not taken from a defined and therefore privileged class, someone else is disadvantaged by class. To the extent that some are thus excluded, the more others bare the burden, and unfairly so.
I still don’t follow you. Targeted tax cuts, or not, how is keeping your own money an entitlement? Well, unless you’re want to say that we’re entitled to keep our tax dollars, as opposed to an entitlement for someone else paying for our medical care. Furthermore, I don’t believe any of the proposals were tax raises. So, I’m not sure how someone else would bear a larger burden of taxes than what they carry now.
Again, we’re on two totally different platforms here. You’re worried about class, while I’m looking to keep money out Washington.
I think, perhaps, you have been taken in by the rhetorical dodge.
“Targeted tax cuts” are a way of defining a class, offering relief, and then, a cost is shifted to others. Do not believe for a moment that taxes are cut by such proposals, the burden is only shifted around. (Clearly, I am not speaking about “class” distinctions, but about definiing a privileged sector.)
For example: If Mr Paul relieved the tax from seniors, then ceterus parabus, others would assume the tax burden for them. Of course, you can argue that spending will go down commensurately, or that aggregate tax revenues will inevitably rise, but that is not in the legislation. That is speculation. Surely, if one defined class is privileged, and their marginal tax rates go down, then others contribute proportionately more.
Wait, you keep saying others would assume the tax burden for them. Why? Not one of his proposals raises taxes on another group to offset the cost. At all. Period. In otherwords, if I payed a dollar in taxes and I don’t benefit from the tax cuts, I still only pay a dollar. My burden is still a dollar. I’m not satisfied with speculation on your part, so you’re going have to point out this tax increase proposal.
As far as spending goes, a portion of the federal government’s spending would be frozen. Not just a spending rate slow down, but actually frozen. I’ve also made sure to point out that his other proposals (again, this is one page off a number of issues) would dramatically cut spending on entitlements. Because, well, we would phase them out. That’s a pretty big spending decrease. It would happen overtime, of course.
And then there’s the money saved by providing for our national defense, and only ours.
I think we’re coming from completely opposite views of what the role of government is.[/quote]
I do understand you, but consider fairness and regression:
So President Dobbs decides to cut the budget and reduce taxes, but singles out a particular benficiary class: right handed skeptical doctors who contribute to an online bodybuilding website. There. Taxes cut. Someone benefits. Is the proportionate burden born by everyone else the same or greater?
One can argue that it is a tax cut, or the income stays with the producers, but what makes this legislation fair?
In short, you think of the Government as a zero-based budgeting machine. I see it as redistributing, inevitably.
But its not fair now. The cuts he proposes are for the people who need it the most in light of the days issues, health care, social security…etc…
My proportiate share does indeed go up if I’m not in a targeted group, but a dollar is still a dollar like the man said.
I guess we could argue the ideas may or may not be perfect, but at least the man has some and really they aren’t all bad. Especially considering the others don’t really have a clue, they’re busy adopting whatever viewpoint will get them the most votes.
We don’t need interest rates cut and such, we need reform and new ideas.
IMO.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
In short, you think of the Government as a zero-based budgeting machine. I see it as redistributing, inevitably.[/quote]
No, I think of Government as an instrument that asorbs money that could be used by individuals in savings, investment, education, healthcare, etc. Once it soaks up these monies the Federal government creates programs which grow bigger, and bigger, and bigger, until they turn into a financial crisis (see David Walker, Gen. Comptroller).
In the meantime, while we head down the path of ever increasing and bankrupt programs, people become so dependent they could give two shits about the financial burden to be unloaded on the next generation of taxpayers. I’m a “get the money back to the people and the states” kind of guy. Why? Well, our current situation speaks for itself.
Now, if I bullied someone everyday, taking their money for myself or others, I’ve redistributed their wealth. If one day I say to the victim “You know, forget it. You should keep your money (or at least more of it),” I’ve not redistributed money to that person. I’ve let him keep HIS money. Now, If I than turned around and mugged his girlfriend to make up for my loss, I’d see your point. However, there are no proposals offered by Dr. Paul to increase taxes on any other group to recover the revenue lost by tax cuts for another.
I’d also argue that the reason some wouldn’t be in position to recieve those tax cuts is because…well they’re not. They simply don’t participate in any measurable way in economic activies that we’d rather see the Government back off of. Though maybe, with a lowered to zero tax, you might see more participation.
And, if the whole point of providing for the already dependent of an entitlement program is to provide them relief, what the hell is up with the taxing?
[quote]btm62 wrote:
Thunderbolt,
You seem quick to dismiss his defense of the constitution as rhetoric. Can you elaborate? Of all the rhetoric being vomited at us this election year, to me, it is certainly unoffensive if not refreshing.[/quote]
Well, you are technically right - I dismiss his defense of the Constitution. I love the idea of striking up a good national debate on exactly what the federal government should or should not be doing - and it is something we need to do, especially the GOP.
That said, it is my contention that those of us who want to press the case for limited government are hurt by Paul’s radicalism, not helped.
Doesn’t matter - and that is the difference between the politics of a chatboard and the politics of the world that affects your life and pocketbook. Nothing wrong with pressing a case for big reform based on good ideas - but we live in a republic, and if you decide you want to stick to the ideological script and damn the torpedoes, no problem - but your politics will never be anything more than a rant on an internet site.
If you are content with that, fine - as for me, I’d like to see actual reform in government.
If you mean Paul’s platform above, I think you should resign yourself to the fact that no matter how much you like, there isn’t a chance in hell they would “pass in a landslide”. And this detachment from reality seems to be a common trait among Paul’s supporters.
No, and I never said it did, nor do I base my criticism of Paul on that criterion alone. Paul is a kook based on plenty of demonstrable kookiness.
My big criticism is that Paul’s kookiness prevents him from bringing the mainstream to him on what good ideas he does have (minus their excesses). That, and he has tried to sell us a false bill of goods.
[quote]I mean they tax it as income, if I buy something they tax the sale, and they tax what has already been taxed when I’m dead. They tax the tax. I say fucking ENOUGH!
You want the money, come do the fucking work. I should be able to write off my taxes as charity. Cause that’s what it is. [/quote]
Here you are changing the subject to complaining about taxes - no problem, I share those complaints, as do many disgruntled conservatives. That has little to do my criticism of Paul.
Irrespective of whether Paul’s more radical ideas make sense or are preferable from a pure policy standpoint, it’s not politically feasible to implement Paul’s more radical ideas because old people and women vote. And the gold standard is not a good idea at all. The end.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
In short, you think of the Government as a zero-based budgeting machine. I see it as redistributing, inevitably.
No, I think of Government as an instrument that asorbs money … However, there are no proposals offered by Dr. Paul to increase taxes on any other group to recover the revenue lost by tax cuts for another…
[/quote]
Sloth,
I am being descriptive (how things are); you are being normative( how things should be). To be fair, you asked us to look at Dr. Paul’s proposals in today’s real environment, not in some mythical abstract Congress and clockwork Government.
Nothing in Dr Paul’s proposals makes up for lost revenues, because in Libertarian Cloud Kookoo Land, there is no need.
(We live in a different Cloud Kookoo Land, where we cut taxes, spend, and borrow. Crazy, in a different way.)
In my fantasy landscape, tax law would be revenue neutral and progressive or flat. Then argue policy. (And that won’t happen either, unfortunately.)
btm and Sloth,
All this is unimportant to my criticisms. My gripe: Dr. Paul in some of these measures is creating special classes for special tax treatment. How does this fit philosophically? Why perpetuate certain privileged classes? Shouldn’t all types of money be treated the same regardless of who earned it?
So, my description and criticisms hold, and you can contest them. But to be fair, do so in the real world, because I can not argue the Pauline fantasy.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
So…are you agreeing with me? Gold should remain a commodity.
Re-read what I wrote, look up Stanley Baldwin and the reversion to the Gold Standard in 1920’s; tell me what you think.[/quote]
When has gold ever been anything but a commodity?
Money should be backed by a commodity. It doesn’t matter what the commodity is as long as it is relatively stable – like gold. The point being it’s value is set by the market…you know? supply and demand. And also there isn’t some secretive group like the fed arbitrarily setting the supply – or cost – of money.