Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Ron Paul destroys Romney and Perry in straw poll victory. Follow

#52 Sep 19 2011 at 6:42 PM Rating: Decent
****
9,526 posts
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
I think the other main reason I like Ron Paul is because he's the only politician that isn't a liar or flip flopper. Agree or disagree, he won't flip flop his views to compromise his integrity like Obama and all the rest.
Unfortunate that one of his greatest attributes, to you, could be one of his biggest downfalls in ever accomplishing anything politically.


Yeah... last I checked, we elect politicians not popes. That means they're likely going to be wrong once in awhile... and I would much rather someone "flip flop" when they are wrong than stubbornly hold to their "principles" and take us all along to hell with them.

#53 Sep 19 2011 at 7:02 PM Rating: Decent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
gbaji wrote:
You haven't been clear on anything Ugly. Repeating the same assertion that the two are different doesn't really make them so. I've been very clear though. Both cases involve the same "my way or the highway" approach, and both essentially threaten legislative deadlock. If that's bad in a hypothetical situation where Ron Paul might do this, how can it not be equally bad when Obama is doing it right now?
You've been very clear that you don't see a difference. That doesn't mean there isn't.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#54 Sep 19 2011 at 7:11 PM Rating: Default
I thought it would be a nice change to see this other side of Ron Paul. The guy arguing with Paul reminds me of lolgaxe and is pwned nicely. I suspect this side might appeal to more people in the Asylum.






Quote:

Yeah... last I checked, we elect politicians not popes. That means they're likely going to be wrong once in awhile... and I would much rather someone "flip flop" when they are wrong than stubbornly hold to their "principles" and take us all along to hell with them.


I'd rather have someone isn't bought off by the lobbyists than someone who spews nonsense like Perry or Romney. The difference between Paul and the rest of these morons is Paul is educated. I don't need to remind you what happens when an educated buffoon like Bush wins office and goes to war with Iraq on faulty intelligence or do I?

Edited, Sep 19th 2011 8:17pm by ShadowedgeFFXI
#55 Sep 19 2011 at 7:19 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You haven't been clear on anything Ugly. Repeating the same assertion that the two are different doesn't really make them so. I've been very clear though. Both cases involve the same "my way or the highway" approach, and both essentially threaten legislative deadlock. If that's bad in a hypothetical situation where Ron Paul might do this, how can it not be equally bad when Obama is doing it right now?
You've been very clear that you don't see a difference. That doesn't mean there isn't.


So it's kind of a murky clarity? Got it! Smiley: oyvey
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#56 Sep 19 2011 at 7:21 PM Rating: Good
Interesting study in misinformation and unrealistic expectations shows that 1. 2 out of every 10 Americans think they'll be a millionaire someday and 2. Americans don't realize how stark the income gap is any more.

Edited, Sep 19th 2011 9:22pm by catwho
#57 Sep 19 2011 at 7:23 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
It's called the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#58 Sep 19 2011 at 7:28 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
catwho wrote:
2 out of every 10 Americans think they'll be a millionaire someday.
I guess a grade school understanding of math isn't necessary to be considered a journalist for the Associated Press.

Edited, Sep 19th 2011 9:28pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#59 Sep 19 2011 at 7:57 PM Rating: Good
lolgaxe wrote:
catwho wrote:
2 out of every 10 Americans think they'll be a millionaire someday.
I guess a grade school understanding of math isn't necessary to be considered a journalist for the Associated Press.

Edited, Sep 19th 2011 9:28pm by lolgaxe


Yeah my husband commented on that as well.

You're not gonna be a millionaire with that level of smarts....
#60 Sep 19 2011 at 8:05 PM Rating: Decent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
catwho wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
catwho wrote:
2 out of every 10 Americans think they'll be a millionaire someday.
I guess a grade school understanding of math isn't necessary to be considered a journalist for the Associated Press.


Yeah my husband commented on that as well.

You're not gonna be a millionaire with that level of smarts....


I must not have a grade school understanding of math, because I am not seeing the point lolgaxe and your husband are trying to make with that statement.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#61 Sep 19 2011 at 8:17 PM Rating: Good
2 out of 10 is better expressed as one out of five.

When quoting fractions in writing, you are supposed to reduce to the lowest denominator.
#62 Sep 19 2011 at 8:18 PM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
TirithRR wrote:
catwho wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
catwho wrote:
2 out of every 10 Americans think they'll be a millionaire someday.
I guess a grade school understanding of math isn't necessary to be considered a journalist for the Associated Press.


Yeah my husband commented on that as well.

You're not gonna be a millionaire with that level of smarts....


I must not have a grade school understanding of math, because I am not seeing the point lolgaxe and your husband are trying to make with that statement.


I think lolgaxe was remarking on the fact that they wrote it as 2/10, instead of 1/5.

catwho, on the other hand, seems to be saying that it's dumb for them to think they'll be millionaires. Personally, I don't. It's like how, when anyone asks a team, no matter how bad, if they think they can win the championship, they'll always say yes.

You'll never achieve anything if you don't believe in yourself. I don't see anything wrong with it.
#63 Sep 19 2011 at 8:26 PM Rating: Default
catwho wrote:

Right now, someone making under $10,000 doesn't pay anything in income taxes, because at 10K a year you're already surviving on under a thousand bucks a month. Under Ron Paul's plan, with 23% income tax, someone making 10K a year would be paying $1000-2000 in taxes.


#1, Ron Paul isn't going to raise the income tax to 23%. I'll realize there will be some changes, but the dollar will increase in value too. #2, Anyone who makes 10k like in your example is living on welfare/social security/unemployment/entitlements of some kind and I don't think those people would be affected anyway.

Catwho, you're guilty of fear mongering here. Where did you even find these numbers?
#64 Sep 19 2011 at 9:18 PM Rating: Good
@#%^ing DRK
*****
13,143 posts
"In a nation run by swine, all pigs are upward-mobile and the rest of us are fucked until we can put our acts together: Not necessarily to Win, but mainly to keep from Losing Completely."


Edited, Sep 19th 2011 10:19pm by Paskil
#65 Sep 19 2011 at 9:23 PM Rating: Good
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
catwho wrote:

Right now, someone making under $10,000 doesn't pay anything in income taxes, because at 10K a year you're already surviving on under a thousand bucks a month. Under Ron Paul's plan, with 23% income tax, someone making 10K a year would be paying $1000-2000 in taxes.


#1, Ron Paul isn't going to raise the income tax to 23%. I'll realize there will be some changes, but the dollar will increase in value too. #2, Anyone who makes 10k like in your example is living on welfare/social security/unemployment/entitlements of some kind and I don't think those people would be affected anyway.

Catwho, you're guilty of fear mongering here. Where did you even find these numbers?


No, he doesn't want to raise income tax to 23%. He wants to completely eliminate income tax and move to excises (read: sales) tax instead. This is common knowledge and is on his own campaign page. The 23% number was an example calculated for Chicago, in order to compare to the amount of revenue currently gathered via state and local income tax.

Minimum wage, 40 hours a week, is $14000-ish. Unfortunately, most minimum wage jobs aren't full time jobs. There are a large number of people who are working, but are under-employed, who aren't able to break the federal poverty line because they just can't get a full time job even just paying minimum wage. (Federal poverty line is $10,890 for an individual.)

Moving to any form of excise tax will effectively raise their tax rate.
#66 Sep 19 2011 at 10:19 PM Rating: Good
*****
15,512 posts
#67 Sep 19 2011 at 10:33 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
15,512 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:

catwho, on the other hand, seems to be saying that it's dumb for them to think they'll be millionaires. Personally, I don't. It's like how, when anyone asks a team, no matter how bad, if they think they can win the championship, they'll always say yes.

You'll never achieve anything if you don't believe in yourself. I don't see anything wrong with it.
Dreaming is great, but I'm not basing my retirement plan on winning the lotto
#68 Sep 19 2011 at 11:55 PM Rating: Default
catwho wrote:
No, he doesn't want to raise income tax to 23%. He wants to completely eliminate income tax and move to excises (read: sales) tax instead. This is common knowledge and is on his own campaign page. The 23% number was an example calculated for Chicago, in order to compare to the amount of revenue currently gathered via state and local income tax.

Minimum wage, 40 hours a week, is $14000-ish. Unfortunately, most minimum wage jobs aren't full time jobs. There are a large number of people who are working, but are under-employed, who aren't able to break the federal poverty line because they just can't get a full time job even just paying minimum wage. (Federal poverty line is $10,890 for an individual.)

Moving to any form of excise tax will effectively raise their tax rate.


I think what disturbs me most is since 1913(the beginning of the Fed) our dollar has lost 95% of its value. If sound money returns, people will have more of it in a matter of speaking. Because right now we're all getting scammed. After the debt ceiling fiasco, our debts continue to grow and the fed prints more money. Any stimulus we get lowers the value of the dollar because they print money out of thin air to do so. All these entitlement programs either social or business welfare ***** over the value of the money. Most people don't even realize this. If you make 10k a year and inflation hits, you'll probably only have 8k or less.

I think Ron Paul said he wanted the states to fund their own projects. Texas better get ready for an income tax.
#69 Sep 20 2011 at 5:18 AM Rating: Good
*****
15,512 posts
Haha, gold standard? That's cute. Too lazy to pull out the math again, but there's not enough gold in the world being produced to keep up with the growth of the American economy.

Unless, you know, you set the value yourself which kind of defeats the supposed purpose.
#70 Sep 20 2011 at 5:34 AM Rating: Good
I remember in economics class in high school when we learned that The Wizard of Oz was a metaphor for following the gold standard. Follow the "yellow brick road" to reach the prosperous "Emerald City." The sequels to the wizard of oz, which no one really liked or cares about, were much more blatantly political satire.
#71 Sep 20 2011 at 7:01 AM Rating: Good
*****
15,512 posts
I thought the point of the movie sequel was to be creepy.
#72 Sep 20 2011 at 7:03 AM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
Sweetums wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:

catwho, on the other hand, seems to be saying that it's dumb for them to think they'll be millionaires. Personally, I don't. It's like how, when anyone asks a team, no matter how bad, if they think they can win the championship, they'll always say yes.

You'll never achieve anything if you don't believe in yourself. I don't see anything wrong with it.
Dreaming is great, but I'm not basing my retirement plan on winning the lotto


Agreed, but I don't think that 1/5 americans do, either.

That one old guy at the supermarket who buys $50 worth of lotto tickets every 2 hours, though...
#73 Sep 20 2011 at 7:14 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
catwho wrote:
Moving to any form of excise tax will effectively raise their tax rate.
Which can be accounted for and credited back. We offer a GST (federal sales tax) back to anyone making under a certain amount. The value of what you get back varies based on your income. Reach a certain point and you get no refund. Federal sales tax keeps every province (or state) on the same playing field. We used to (may not now as i haven't paid clsoe attention to it) offer a rebate to foreign tourists. They could grab a form, submit it with a copy of their receipts and receive a cheque rebating them for some/all of the GST they paid while visiting Canada. Unprepared food items are exempt, as well as a few other things.

____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#74 Sep 20 2011 at 8:09 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
15,512 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Sweetums wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:

catwho, on the other hand, seems to be saying that it's dumb for them to think they'll be millionaires. Personally, I don't. It's like how, when anyone asks a team, no matter how bad, if they think they can win the championship, they'll always say yes.

You'll never achieve anything if you don't believe in yourself. I don't see anything wrong with it.
Dreaming is great, but I'm not basing my retirement plan on winning the lotto


Agreed, but I don't think that 1/5 americans do, either.

That one old guy at the supermarket who buys $50 worth of lotto tickets every 2 hours, though...
It's a pipe dream that influences public policy, though. They're banking on the fact that they're temporarily embarrassed millionaires, so obviously taxing the wealthy is going to affect them someday.
#75REDACTED, Posted: Sep 20 2011 at 10:08 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) cat,
#76 Sep 20 2011 at 10:36 AM Rating: Excellent
catwho wrote:
2 out of 10 is better expressed as one out of five.

When quoting fractions in writing, you are supposed to reduce to the lowest denominator.

You and your husband should go back to elementary school then. The number is 2 in 10 because it was used in comparison to the accompanying data from Australia and the U.K., which were nearly 3 in 10 and nearly 1 in 10, respectively. Reduction of fractions should only be done when it can be applied to the entire set, otherwise confustication & bebotherment set it.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 364 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (364)