The New Republic has some of the actual newsletters:
This, of course, comes in the wake of unearthed videos of Paul on C-Span talking up his newsletters during his hiatus from Congress.
Excellent point on Ron Paul supporters:
â??If Paul is responsible for conjuring the apocalyptic atmosphere of a prophet, itâ??s his supporters who have to answer for submitting to it. Surely, those who agree with Paul would be able to find a better vessel for their ideas than a man who once entertained the notion that AIDS was invented in a government laboratory or who, just last January, alleged that there had been a â??CIA coupâ?? against the American government and that the Agency is â??in drug businesses.â?? Why, for instance, do these self-styled libertarians not throw their support to former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, who, unlike Paul, can boast executive experience and doesnâ??t have the racist and conspiratorial baggage? At this late stage, that Ron Paulâ??s supporters havenâ??t found an alternative candidate says more about them, and the intellectual milieu they inhabit, than it does about the erstwhile publisher of racist newsletters.â??
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
What does history have to do with the definition of words?
[/quote]
[/quote]
Do you have one of those for yourself?
You, above all others deserves one most.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Dijon wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Only thing is, it doesn’t make sense that wealth can be distributed upwards. Think about it.[/quote]
Upward meaning subsidies to corporate buddies. Taxes from the guy making 50K per year can move in this direction can’t they?[/quote]
First, someone making $50k a year pays hardly any taxes.
Second, corporations don’t effectively pay taxes - those are passed on to the consumer through the cost of goods produced.
Third, shareholders pay taxes on the corporate profits distributed to them.
Fourth, “subsidy” is a subjective term. If you mean tax breaks then the above applies. If you mean a Solandra type deal then yes, that is a (almost) direct subsidy.
Sorry, but there really is no wealth transfer “upwards” per se in your scenario. If there was, then seeing how the wealthy pay the vast majority of all taxes, then the wealthy are transferring wealth to the wealthy which would constitute a “lateral” not an upwards transfer of wealth.
Think it through.[/quote]
I see the subsidize and other forms of corporate welfare first hand. Grants, company specific tax breaks, customized regulations to eliminate upstarts and competitions.
The lobby of the union, global corps, and special interest groups make these possible. [/quote]
Certainly what you mention exists, in fact plenty of it, and wrongfully so. But if a company receives “grants, company specific tax breaks, and customized regulations to eliminate upstarts and competitions,” it is still hiring employees and filling needs in the market place and generating wealth at ALL class levels so again this “upward transfer of wealth” is essentially a myth.
[/quote]
I don’ty mean upward, I mean corporatism, as corporate welfare. The things I stated, rather than a company that operates as the market would dictate.
Pharmaceuticals is one I mean.
Video released of Ron Paul discussing the contents of the Newsletters he knows nothing about.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2011-12-22/ron-paul-newsletters-youtube/52163920/1
Paul citing his own Newsletters and defending the contents:
‘Paul cited the study and wrote: “Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”’
‘Paul’s accounts of the newsletters’ contents have varied since 1995. He told The Dallas Morning News in 1996 that the contents of the newsletters were accurate but needed to be taken in context.’
‘In 2001, Paul told the magazine Texas Monthly that the language in the newsletters wasn’t his, but that his campaign staff told him not to say others had written them because it was “too confusing.”’
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Excellent point on Ron Paul supporters:
â??If Paul is responsible for conjuring the apocalyptic atmosphere of a prophet, itâ??s his supporters who have to answer for submitting to it. Surely, those who agree with Paul would be able to find a better vessel for their ideas than a man who once entertained the notion that AIDS was invented in a government laboratory or who, just last January, alleged that there had been a â??CIA coupâ?? against the American government and that the Agency is â??in drug businesses.â?? Why, for instance, do these self-styled libertarians not throw their support to former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, who, unlike Paul, can boast executive experience and doesnâ??t have the racist and conspiratorial baggage? At this late stage, that Ron Paulâ??s supporters havenâ??t found an alternative candidate says more about them, and the intellectual milieu they inhabit, than it does about the erstwhile publisher of racist newsletters.â??
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/98811/ron-paul-libertarian-bigotry[/quote]
The question is, “why can’t Ron Paul supporters find a better standard-bearer?”
[i]Paul has been in Congress, off and on, for nearly 30 years. In that time, he will rightly tell you, Congress has spent money with reckless abandon, expanded the state’s police powers, launched numerous wars without a declaration of war and further embraced fiat money (he got into politics when Richard Nixon took us fully off the gold standard). During all of that, he took to the floor and delivered passionate speeches in protest convincing â?¦ nobody.
Paul’s supporters love to talk about how he was a lone voice of dissent. They never explain why he was alone in his dissent. Why couldn’t he convince even his ideologically sympathetic colleagues? Why is there no Ron Paul caucus?
Now he insists that everyone in Washington will suddenly do what he wants once he’s in the White House. That’s almost painfully naïve. And it’s ironic that the only way the libertarian-pure-constitutionalist in the race could do the things he’s promising is by using powers not in the Constitution.[/i]
Why indeed is there no “Ron Paul caucus?” The standard Paulista answer, “Because he alone is pure,” accompanied by some expression of paranoia, blaming others (numerously so), rather than the man himself.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
Why is anyone discussing things with thunderbolt? It’s completely pointless. He’s an irrelevant fool.[/quote]
Translation: he asks hard questions I don’t have good answers to.
[/quote]
I found this very funny.
He was using you as an analogy to Ron Paul.
You’re reply was gold bar worthy, but I doubt Push will do it.
The wisdom on this board is astounding (NOT:)
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
Why is anyone discussing things with thunderbolt? It’s completely pointless. He’s an irrelevant fool.[/quote]
Translation: he asks hard questions I don’t have good answers to.
[/quote]
I found this very funny.
He was using you as an analogy to Ron Paul.
You’re reply was gold bar worthy, but I doubt Push will do it.[/quote]
“…Paul’s supporters love to talk about how he was a lone voice of dissent. They never explain why he was alone in his dissent. Why couldn’t he convince even his ideologically sympathetic colleagues? Why is there no Ron Paul caucus…”?
“…Now he insists that everyone in Washington will suddenly do what he wants once he’s in the White House. That’s almost painfully naive. And it’s ironic that the only way the libertarian-pure-constitutionalist in the race could do the things he’s promising is by using powers not in the Constitution…”
Wow…damn good Op Ed by Golberg that brings up some very challenging questions for Paul and his supporters.
Mufasa
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
Why is anyone discussing things with thunderbolt? It’s completely pointless. He’s an irrelevant fool.[/quote]
Translation: he asks hard questions I don’t have good answers to.
[/quote]
Your hypocrisy has jsut overflowed the banks of reason!
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I get the feeling that he views the Presidency as just one part of a much larger systemic problem.
Mufasa[/quote]
The unconstitutional expansion of Executive Branch power is a serious problem.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
IMO being a war monger disqualifies one from being a conservative , war is expensive and ineffective by today’s standard of the objective of war.[/quote]
An argument could be made that the consevative party began as the anti-war party.
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
Your hypocrisy has jsut overflowed the banks of reason! [/quote]
Fantastic - moonbat/amateur hour is in full swing here at PWI.
^I don’t think moonbat means what you think it means.
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
IMO being a war monger disqualifies one from being a conservative , war is expensive and ineffective by today’s standard of the objective of war.[/quote]
An argument could be made that the consevative party began as the anti-war party.
[/quote]
I would agree with that ,I think the meaning of conservative has stretched into a word that no longer means what it used to
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
^I don’t think moonbat means what you think it means.[/quote]
Uh, yeah I do. I’ve been dealing with Paulnuts and their dumbassery since 2008 - I’m practically a certified expert on moonbats and their ecology.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Dijon wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
First, someone making $50k a year pays hardly any taxes.
Second, corporations don’t effectively pay taxes - those are passed on to the consumer through the cost of goods produced.
Third, shareholders pay taxes on the corporate profits distributed to them.
Fourth, “subsidy” is a subjective term. If you mean tax breaks then the above applies. If you mean a Solandra type deal then yes, that is a (almost) direct subsidy.
Sorry, but there really is no wealth transfer “upwards” per se in your scenario. If there was, then seeing how the wealthy pay the vast majority of all taxes, then the wealthy are transferring wealth to the wealthy which would constitute a “lateral” not an upwards transfer of wealth.
Think it through.[/quote]
I’ll define “upward redistribution” as benefits to corporations made by the national government. This is something that occurs, correct? “upward redistribution” is just a label. Let’s not get into semantics, you can call it “x” for all I care.
Since “x” can include tax payer money, and an individual earning 50K pays taxes, and “x” is a mechanism that allows a corporation to become make more money, and it is possible for owners of the corporation to benefit from an increase in revenue by increasing their own wealth, and if it is possible that owners of said corporation to make more than 50K per year, then the taxes of the individual earning 50K can be used to increase the wealth of an individual making more than 50K.
“vast majority” doesn’t include all tax payers. This means that not all transference is lateral.[/quote]
You can certainly nitpick but my points stand. Bottom line is there is no major problem in our country where wealth is being transferred upward.[/quote]
This is not true. The method by which wealth is being transferred is inflation. The Federal Reserve creates new money which is loaned out to banks which again is loaned out to favored corporations. They spend this new money before the effects of diluting the currency take hold(meaning before the drop in purchasing power takes place) and as such benefit at the expense of people that only get at this new money later on, when inflation has had time to work it’s magic and has devalued the currency. This effectively constitutes an upwards redistribution of money.
[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Dijon wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
First, someone making $50k a year pays hardly any taxes.
Second, corporations don’t effectively pay taxes - those are passed on to the consumer through the cost of goods produced.
Third, shareholders pay taxes on the corporate profits distributed to them.
Fourth, “subsidy” is a subjective term. If you mean tax breaks then the above applies. If you mean a Solandra type deal then yes, that is a (almost) direct subsidy.
Sorry, but there really is no wealth transfer “upwards” per se in your scenario. If there was, then seeing how the wealthy pay the vast majority of all taxes, then the wealthy are transferring wealth to the wealthy which would constitute a “lateral” not an upwards transfer of wealth.
Think it through.[/quote]
I’ll define “upward redistribution” as benefits to corporations made by the national government. This is something that occurs, correct? “upward redistribution” is just a label. Let’s not get into semantics, you can call it “x” for all I care.
Since “x” can include tax payer money, and an individual earning 50K pays taxes, and “x” is a mechanism that allows a corporation to become make more money, and it is possible for owners of the corporation to benefit from an increase in revenue by increasing their own wealth, and if it is possible that owners of said corporation to make more than 50K per year, then the taxes of the individual earning 50K can be used to increase the wealth of an individual making more than 50K.
“vast majority” doesn’t include all tax payers. This means that not all transference is lateral.[/quote]
You can certainly nitpick but my points stand. Bottom line is there is no major problem in our country where wealth is being transferred upward.[/quote]
This is not true. The method by which wealth is being transferred is inflation. The Federal Reserve creates new money which is loaned out to banks which again is loaned out to favored corporations. They spend this new money before the effects of diluting the currency take hold(meaning before the drop in purchasing power takes place) and as such benefit at the expense of people that only get at this new money later on, when inflation has had time to work it’s magic and has devalued the currency. This effectively constitutes an upwards redistribution of money.
[/quote]
Taxation automatically redistributes it upwards so he is also wrong on that count alone.