-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Ron Paul,The man America needs for President.
- Thread starter Mr.yadda yadda
- Start date
His view on most social things is "leave it to the states".
It's interesting how you focus in on one small aspect of US tax and use that as your argument. US tax rate is high, at least on paper, and I support reducing it. (In practice, most corporations don't actually pay that federal tax rate, though.)
Most taxes come from elsewhere, such as personal income tax, where we have very low top tax rates compared to both US history, and to other developed countries.
Shermana
Heretic
Regardless whether most taxes come from personal income or not, a 40% corporate Tax Rate is not exactly a "Right-leaning" business environment. I'd hate to wonder what a left-wing environment would be, especially considering the regulations and hoops businesses already have to go through. And people wonder why they do business in China. Last time I checked, tarriffs and protectionism was more regarded as right wing than left. Trump was the one advocating a 25% increase on Chinese goods, how many Democrats have said such? Factor in the power of Unions and how much of a struggle the right has against them, and it's hard to call the US economic sector anything but leaning left.
Now also, the top 500 companies who get the most government friendliness (aka kickbacks and extremely questionable billions of tax refunds that are worth more than their actual earnings) just happen to be ones like GE that have numerous Democrat friends.
Now also, the top 500 companies who get the most government friendliness (aka kickbacks and extremely questionable billions of tax refunds that are worth more than their actual earnings) just happen to be ones like GE that have numerous Democrat friends.
Again, businesses almost never actually pay that top rate. Corporations pay much, much lower tax rates usually than the top rate.
Current left-leaning countries typically have low corporate tax rates and higher personal income tax rates, and sometimes substantial excise taxes.
You would think that we should be focused on obtaining more revenue than raising taxes.
Perhaps we should put people back to work and eliminate tax loopholes instead of raising taxes.
The big issue here is people believe the government can create substainable jobs.
If you get right down to the meat of the subject, some folks are engaging in class warfare and cannot stomach the rich getting any richer even though they would increase revenue and put folks back to work.
Government regulation is the real job killer. It is time we faced the hard facts that somewhere in the world, people are going to polute our planet and be gainfully employed.
Living in a fantasy world where green jobs are the answer and utilities are too expensive for anyone to be able to pay is the problem.
We are borrowing money from China to pay for oil from countries who hate us. How stupid is that?
Perhaps we should put people back to work and eliminate tax loopholes instead of raising taxes.
The big issue here is people believe the government can create substainable jobs.
If you get right down to the meat of the subject, some folks are engaging in class warfare and cannot stomach the rich getting any richer even though they would increase revenue and put folks back to work.
Government regulation is the real job killer. It is time we faced the hard facts that somewhere in the world, people are going to polute our planet and be gainfully employed.
Living in a fantasy world where green jobs are the answer and utilities are too expensive for anyone to be able to pay is the problem.
We are borrowing money from China to pay for oil from countries who hate us. How stupid is that?
no-body
Well-Known Member
Yeah right like the rich won't just exploit the common man and move their business overseas to get richer anyway. Frankly I can't wait for the french revolution to come back into style, a couple of guillotines might change the tune of those swine.
This is a joke, right ?
Most conservative arguments about how government can't create jobs, or how regulations are the problem, ignore successful social democracies that have created successful and sustainable government jobs while also using high standards of (reasonable) regulation.
Class warfare is an emotional term but the facts are that according to quantitative studies, America has more income inequality than basically any other nation on earth. It's not unreasonable to take a large issue against that.
Flat or regressive tax structures, unwillingness to fund education or health care, are problems.
In the past, when an imbalance becomes too large, it ends up crashing or swinging way too hard in the other direction.
So we should do that too? Is that the conclusion people should draw from this statement?
Several nations have higher percentages of energy coming from renewable or cleaner sources. Speaking of China, they're focusing on that more and more, while also using tons of dirtier energy sources like coal.
Oil is limited, and it pollutes when it is drilled for, transported, and used.
Crystallas
Active Member
If you want to promote peace, end War, use force as a LAST resort, not FIRST. Ron Paul is the only peace candidate.
If you want to get rid of incentives for corruption, you have to understand how central banks work and how easy it is to put that cookie jar in front of a small group of people. Ron Paul is the only candidate that understands Central banks, so much, that copycats have adopted parts of his position for the sake of gaining votes.
If you want to understand regulation and how to hurts jobs, then you have to understand that it is IMPOSSIBLE to have no regulation. No regulation is a complete fallacy. If anything, the artificial regulations create an umbrella to protect big companies and not help the consumers protect themselves. Ron Paul understands the business cycle and consumer cycle. The other republicans and some democrats preach similar ideas to support the free market, but they really don't know what the hell a business cycle is or a consumer cycle, it's just a talking point for elections.
Candidates like this come every 6 generations in America. He is not like Ronald Reagan, even though the Gipper talked a good game.
If you want to get rid of incentives for corruption, you have to understand how central banks work and how easy it is to put that cookie jar in front of a small group of people. Ron Paul is the only candidate that understands Central banks, so much, that copycats have adopted parts of his position for the sake of gaining votes.
If you want to understand regulation and how to hurts jobs, then you have to understand that it is IMPOSSIBLE to have no regulation. No regulation is a complete fallacy. If anything, the artificial regulations create an umbrella to protect big companies and not help the consumers protect themselves. Ron Paul understands the business cycle and consumer cycle. The other republicans and some democrats preach similar ideas to support the free market, but they really don't know what the hell a business cycle is or a consumer cycle, it's just a talking point for elections.
Candidates like this come every 6 generations in America. He is not like Ronald Reagan, even though the Gipper talked a good game.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
I'm against foreign entanglements, unnecessarily bigger and more intrusive government, empty platitudes, pandering, and dishonesty, as well as being against getting rid of minimum wage and going back to the gold standard, and I'm for spending money to get the economy back on track, and programs like the Department of Education and Energy, and the income tax.
So where does that leave me?
97% chance you voted for the Democrat in 2008.
94% chance you'll vote for the Democrat in 2012.
99% chance that nothing will change in 2013.
Last edited:
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
I'd put the second percentage at more like 70-75%, but that's only a commentary on the even crappier other options. No one is going to do all I want and not do what I don't want. I have to pick and choose who will do the most while destroying the least. I like Ron Paul's honesty and lack of BS. I like his foreign policy. I like his desire to make us financially solvent again. However, I hate his ideas on some major things like taxes and government programs. I'd actually vote for Romney before I vote for Paul.
The fact that I'll probably vote Democrat again doesn't mean I like my options there, because I don't. I don't like Obama. It just means he's the least of the evils at this point. Although, at this point I wouldn't rule out voting for Romney or Huntsman.
Having once excelled in a course with the fancy pants title of "Probabilistic Systems Analysis", I'll stick with my numbers.
The point is that people will generally vote based upon partisanship rather than what a candidate is likely to do.
And they will remain silent on terrible things done by their chosen leader. Example: Opposition to war decreased
when Bush's wars became Obama's wars.
Interestingly, I've heard nothing from leading contenders (other than Paul) about their plans for the wars.
That would interest me.
The point is that people will generally vote based upon partisanship rather than what a candidate is likely to do.
And they will remain silent on terrible things done by their chosen leader. Example: Opposition to war decreased
when Bush's wars became Obama's wars.
Interestingly, I've heard nothing from leading contenders (other than Paul) about their plans for the wars.
That would interest me.
Last edited:
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
And this has to do with me how? I don't care what people will normally do. I care what I will do. I'm telling you that no matter who I pick, I'm not going to get what I want, so I have to pick the one that will give me the largest amount of what I want. I don't vote based on party lines, even if that's what many others do. There are many in my boat. I've talked to several liberals lately who would actually consider voting for Romney or Huntsman over Obama.
I don't know. That would be for you to say.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Then why did you direct it at me?
You brought up some of your views.
I calculated the probability of your voting preferences.
But the larger point is not about you in particular.
Jon Huntsman would lead our country in a fair and bipartisan manner.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
I don't know if I'd go that far, but he's at least not ultraconservative. Are you being serious here? Do you like Huntsman?
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
What is the larger point?