Jump to content

Monday Night GOP debate


20 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

The GOP Debate is TONIGHT at 9:00 EST on Fox News. I predict that Dr. Paul will win the debate again, the be censored like he was last time. The establishment has their sights set on him.

 

Ask the candidates your questions to see if it will be aired.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271356,00.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of people approve of his message, but he's unlikely to get elected.

 

How so? You saw the polls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He'll never get more than 10 percent in the GOP primary. No one takes him seriously. I have nothing against him, and I dont vote in the GOP primary, so what I think doesn't matter. But that's how I see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He'll never get more than 10 percent in the GOP primary. No one takes him seriously. I have nothing against him, and I dont vote in the GOP primary, so what I think doesn't matter. But that's how I see it.

 

What makes you assume that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the experts tend to think Ron Paul won't do well. Just as they consider Dennis Kucinich to be unlikely. Ron Paul's positions also directly contradict the desires of the GOP special interests. He has very little name recognition, he has very little money, and he has no apparatus. Not only that, but his supporters are the Michael-Moore/UFO hunter analogues on the right. The poling data from the televised debate is skewed. Most people didn't watch either of the debates. The only people who did are really into this election (like me). Most people (the people who ultimately decide primary and general elections) can't be bothered to learn about a candidate. Ron Paul simply will not resonate. At least, not in the GOP. He'd probably do better in the libertarian party. He might even do better running as a democrat.

 

I'm fairly confident he wont get over 10% in the primary. But maybe things will change between now and then. Maybe it'll turn out he's the only potential GOP candidate that doesn't have a secret illegal alien {censored} lover named Enrique. That his wife is the only one that hasn't had 10 abortions. And that every other candidate pulled the plug on someone. Or he is only one that is not on tape as swearing alegiance to the devil.

 

:P

 

EDIT: In the latest gallup, Ron Paul doesn't even get 1% of votes. That's a fairly good indicator that at least for now, he hasn't got a chance. Votes are gotten through endorsements and ads, etc. He can't afford to run ads. Without money, he can't make money. It's that simple.

 

Ron Paul has raised 600k as of Mar 31. http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary....&cycle=2008

Mitt Romney has raised 23m as of mar 31. http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary....&cycle=2008

 

That's a mighty difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the experts tend to think Ron Paul won't do well. Just as they consider Dennis Kucinich to be unlikely. Ron Paul's positions also directly contradict the desires of the GOP special interests. He has very little name recognition, he has very little money, and he has no apparatus. Not only that, but his supporters are the Michael-Moore/UFO hunter analogues on the right. The poling data from the televised debate is skewed. Most people didn't watch either of the debates. The only people who did are really into this election (like me). Most people (the people who ultimately decide primary and general elections) can't be bothered to learn about a candidate. Ron Paul simply will not resonate. At least, not in the GOP. He'd probably do better in the libertarian party. He might even do better running as a democrat.

 

I'm fairly confident he wont get over 10% in the primary. But maybe things will change between now and then. Maybe it'll turn out he's the only potential GOP candidate that doesn't have a secret illegal alien {censored} lover named Enrique. That his wife is the only one that hasn't had 10 abortions. And that every other candidate pulled the plug on someone. Or he is only one that is not on tape as swearing alegiance to the devil.

 

:thumbsup_anim:

 

EDIT: In the latest gallup, Ron Paul doesn't even get 1% of votes. That's a fairly good indicator that at least for now, he hasn't got a chance. Votes are gotten through endorsements and ads, etc. He can't afford to run ads. Without money, he can't make money. It's that simple.

 

Ron Paul has raised 600k as of Mar 31. http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary....&cycle=2008

Mitt Romney has raised 23m as of mar 31. http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary....&cycle=2008

 

That's a mighty difference.

 

Sounds like a conspiracy to me. <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the experts tend to think Ron Paul won't do well. Just as they consider Dennis Kucinich to be unlikely. Ron Paul's positions also directly contradict the desires of the GOP special interests. He has very little name recognition, he has very little money, and he has no apparatus. Not only that, but his supporters are the Michael-Moore/UFO hunter analogues on the right. The poling data from the televised debate is skewed. Most people didn't watch either of the debates. The only people who did are really into this election (like me). Most people (the people who ultimately decide primary and general elections) can't be bothered to learn about a candidate. Ron Paul simply will not resonate. At least, not in the GOP. He'd probably do better in the libertarian party. He might even do better running as a democrat.

 

Defination of an expert: a drip. The so called experts ain't always right. If the republicrat establishment are not afraid that Dr. Paul's message will be well received by a very large portion of the republicrat party then they would not be seeking to ban him from the debates. The blatant attempts to censor him, and the indignant attitude toward Dr. Paul by establishment republicrat's is a very good indication that they are very afraid that what he has to say will be well received. The campaign has just begun so don't be surprised when Dr. Paul starts doing very well in it.

 

 

 

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies . . . If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] . . . will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered . . . The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." ~ Thomas Jefferson ~ The Debate Over The Recharter Of The Bank Bill, (1809)

 

"Conservatism's history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution, to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward to perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt hath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It tends to risk nothing serious for the sake of truth" ~ Robert Lewis Dabney

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I don't know how to respond to that. If Ron Paul does well, good for him. I will be surprised, however, as almost every american has some vested interest in him not winning. Only a straight up or down libertarian might find him or herself able to support Ron Paul's positions.

 

But, as an example: Pro-choicers have a vested interest in keeping choice at a federal level. They will be against Ron Paul. Pro-lifers have a vested interest in enshrining anti-abortion laws at the federal level. They will be against Ron Paul. (For the most part). This can be illustrated in the following way: The "If you approve, do it. If you don't approve, don't do it" argument extends to the state level as well. Thus, Washington state's pro-choice laws are as rankling to the Pro-lifer from Arkansas as are Arkansas' pro-choice laws. But if state's rights are given supremacy, then each state will have social laws that are troublesome to people in other states. As evidenced by the current furor from the Bible Belt against {censored} Marriage initiatives in some blue states. Mississippi will not recognize {censored} marriage unless it is forced on them from the federal level (which it won't be, at least not for many years), so why do Mississipians care what goes on in Vermont? They clearly do. This shows that a states-rights platform cannot win on the Right. And for the opposite (though perhaps weaker) reason cannot win on the Left.

 

Well, that's my take on it anyway. I could live with states being able to go their own way for the most part. I live in a wealthy state. Less federal taxation means a disproportionately greater amount of money staying within my state than leaving it. As opposed to a Kansan, who will only lose from a decrease of federal taxation.

 

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html

 

The above link explains how federal money is returned to the states (at least in 2004). Should federal taxation be cut significantly, the top 32 states (Mississippi, Alabama, Virginia, etc) on that list will lose revenue, and the bottom 18 (California, Oregon, Washington, etc) will gain revenue.

 

Mississippi as of 2004 receives $1.77 for every dollar in federal taxes collected, making it the number 4 beneficiary state. Should Federal taxes be eliminated, for instance, Mississippi would lose $0.77 for every dollar of former taxation. Should the income tax be abolished, as is Ron Paul's position, federal revenue must be equitably raised from each state. This would further damage "beneficiary states" such as New Mexico, causing New Mexico to raise taxes to an extent that their residents would pay more in state taxes than they ever did in Federal taxes (Assuming Federal Spending were to stay the same).

 

Ron Paul's positions seem reasonable if you know almost nothing about them, and for some (like me, a Washingtonian) would actually help me... (Texans as well). But to use OryHara as an example, his home state would only be destroyed economically by Ron Paul's policies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually it would abolish self employment tax. Which would make my business grow. It would abolish many of my taxes as a corporation. I would only have to pay the state sales tax, and probably some additional nit-picks. It would help small business, and the economy all together. Abolishing small business fed tax would cause prices to come down and I would still make more money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure... except that all of the revenue that your state and the people that live there depend on will disappear and have to be replaced by something else. No self-employment taxes = no social security, which means most people of retirement age are therapon escrewed. No income tax? Except that for every dollar in income tax Mississippi sends to the federal government, it receives $1.77 in road money and hurricane assistance and other job-creating and or necessary revenue sources. If that money disappears, what is the alternative? No... (welfare) states like Mississippi are utterly dependant on federal spending to even cover necessities. If Mississippi needs to replace that money, it's going to come from you... but not the $1 you pay now... the whole $1.77. Your tax burden will only increase. Which might be a fair trade... my taxes will only decrease by an abolishment of federal taxation, as my state receives less money than it sends. As will Texas... which I'm sure Ron Paul is well aware of.

 

My mother made a point about all of the people in the south who receive welfare benefits, that it's understandable that it offends people who work. That is true, I understand it. But at least it's money coming into your economy that wouldn't otherwise. Entrepreneurship that targets the unfortunate and old, whether it be payday lenders or pharmacies or crack dealers, generates economic power.

 

Of course, it isn't necessarily the case that a state such as mississippi will come completely unglued. Maybe there's some sort of untapped potential just waiting for the yoke of washington to leave it...

 

But the tax scenario is completely factual. Someone has to pay for the Military and retirements and medical care for the elderly and infirm and the hundreds of other federal programs your state enjoys... if the federal government stops... can Mississippi actually afford to pick up the slack? Can you? If so, then by all means, vote to abolish federal taxation.

 

On a side note... in three years, there will be approximately 600,000 retirees in the state of mississippi. The social security pension, adjusted for cost of living (because MS will by then be paying it) is about $850 per month. Health care for the elderly ranges between $400 and $2000 a month, depending on age and general health. Assuming a conservative figure of $100 a month, that is $950 a month; $570m per month in pension benefits or $6.84b per anum. Mississippi's total tax revenues are ~$8b per anum with an annual budget of ~$14b. ($6b of which is subsidized by the federal government). In three years, after the end of federal taxation, spending per anum will be aproximately $22b, bringing average taxation per capita of Mississippi residents to $7860 per anum.

Currently, combined average federal and state taxation for mississippi residents is about $3650 (this includes payroll taxes).

 

(altered numbers based on current figures : http://www.dfa.state.ms.us/bdgtfund/EnactedBudgetFY2007.pdf)

 

The federal government currently spends $22.5b per anum in the state of mississippi. This includes social security benefits and direct funds to government, as well as military installations and businesses providing products and support to the federal government. (IE Economy)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure... except that all of the revenue that your state and the people that live there depend on will disappear and have to be replaced by something else. No self-employment taxes = no social security, which means most people of retirement age are therapon escrewed. No income tax? Except that for every dollar in income tax Mississippi sends to the federal government, it receives $1.77 in road money and hurricane assistance and other job-creating and or necessary revenue sources. If that money disappears, what is the alternative? No... (welfare) states like Mississippi are utterly dependant on federal spending to even cover necessities. If Mississippi needs to replace that money, it's going to come from you... but not the $1 you pay now... the whole $1.77. Your tax burden will only increase. Which might be a fair trade... my taxes will only decrease by an abolishment of federal taxation, as my state receives less money than it sends. As will Texas... which I'm sure Ron Paul is well aware of.

 

Bush eliminated SS, so now, when I get to be that age, I won't have {censored} will I? Whats the point of paying into a system when you won't get anything back anyway? I have a private account I invest in, that grows interest every month.

 

Actually, believe it or not, the majority of our road money comes from alcohol, federal gas (43 cents), and tobacco taxes.

Do your research.

 

My mother made a point about all of the people in the south who receive welfare benefits, that it's understandable that it offends people who work. That is true, I understand it. But at least it's money coming into your economy that wouldn't otherwise. Entrepreneurship that targets the unfortunate and old, whether it be payday lenders or pharmacies or crack dealers, generates economic power.

 

Hate to tell you but your mother is an idiot. Maybe you should look at the percentage of illegal immigrants here. Its about %20 or so. Nobody knows for sure since the sorry {censored} roaches won't stop hiding in the walls of the factories.

 

Of course, it isn't necessarily the case that a state such as mississippi will come completely unglued. Maybe there's some sort of untapped potential just waiting for the yoke of washington to leave it...

 

I hope so. It would be nice to not have interference from a authority that has no idea how an economy should be run. 911 proves they can't police the world, and the current administration proves he can't run the country.

 

But the tax scenario is completely factual. Someone has to pay for the Military and retirements and medical care for the elderly and infirm and the hundreds of other federal programs your state enjoys... if the federal government stops... can Mississippi actually afford to pick up the slack? Can you? If so, then by all means, vote to abolish federal taxation.

 

Federal taxation will not be abolished. That is stupid. The constitution states that there are 2 types of federal taxes. A direct tax, and an indirect tax. The third type of 'new' tax in the 16th amendment, which is another type of taxation was shot down by the supreme court 7 times. So no, there is no tax on labor.

 

Do your reasearch, and stop believing everything that 'your mother' tells you.

 

On a side note... in three years, there will be approximately 600,000 retirees in the state of mississippi. The social security pension, adjusted for cost of living (because MS will by then be paying it) is about $850 per month. Health care for the elderly ranges between $400 and $2000 a month, depending on age and general health. Assuming a conservative figure of $100 a month, that is $950 a month; $570m per month in pension benefits or $6.84b per anum. Mississippi's total tax revenues are ~$8b per anum with an annual budget of ~$14b. ($6b of which is subsidized by the federal government). In three years, after the end of federal taxation, spending per anum will be aproximately $22b, bringing average taxation per capita of Mississippi residents to $7860 per anum.

Currently, combined average federal and state taxation for mississippi residents is about $3650 (this includes payroll taxes).

 

 

(altered numbers based on current figures : http://www.dfa.state.ms.us/bdgtfund/EnactedBudgetFY2007.pdf)

 

The federal government currently spends $22.5b per anum in the state of mississippi. This includes social security benefits and direct funds to government, as well as military installations and businesses providing products and support to the federal government. (IE Economy)

 

Good reason to get rid of the illegal {censored} roach immigrants that flood our state. Since nobody can do it at the federal level.... Good thing we still have the 2nd amendment.

 

Social Security has been abolished by the time you and I reach our 50s. No reason to pay into it, and no way to collect it.

Some people just don't pay attention to whats going on in the world. All you listen to is the 'media establishment big 4'.

 

This country ran perfectly fine between 1776 and 1913. So no. We do not need a Federal Reserve, or IRS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OryHara. By all means vote to create a tax leveled against everyone equally. By all means.

 

On a side note, I'll buy whatever magic you have that allows someone with a brain the size of a walnut to (supposedly) run a profitable business.

 

Mr Meadows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OryHara. By all means vote to create a tax leveled against everyone equally. By all means.

 

On a side note, I'll buy whatever magic you have that allows someone with a brain the size of a walnut to (supposedly) run a profitable business.

 

Mr Meadows.

 

Like I said.

This country ran perfectly fine between 1776 and 1913.

So what is different? Answer me that. Why do we need a Federal Reserve & IRS?

 

Walnut? Yes. Technology gets smaller and faster every year doesn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I don't know how to respond to that. If Ron Paul does well, good for him. I will be surprised, however, as almost every american has some vested interest in him not winning. Only a straight up or down libertarian might find him or herself able to support Ron Paul's positions.

 

Every American? I think not. That's a very broad statement, and so vague as to be ridiculous.

 

But, as an example: Pro-choicers have a vested interest in keeping choice at a federal level. They will be against Ron Paul. Pro-lifers have a vested interest in enshrining anti-abortion laws at the federal level. They will be against Ron Paul. (For the most part). This can be illustrated in the following way: The "If you approve, do it. If you don't approve, don't do it" argument extends to the state level as well. Thus, Washington state's pro-choice laws are as rankling to the Pro-lifer from Arkansas as are Arkansas' pro-choice laws. But if state's rights are given supremacy, then each state will have social laws that are troublesome to people in other states. As evidenced by the current furor from the Bible Belt against {censored} Marriage initiatives in some blue states. Mississippi will not recognize {censored} marriage unless it is forced on them from the federal level (which it won't be, at least not for many years), so why do Mississipians care what goes on in Vermont? They clearly do. This shows that a states-rights platform cannot win on the Right. And for the opposite (though perhaps weaker) reason cannot win on the Left.

 

I see the political indoctrination camps (public schools) have had (the govt's) desired effect upon you. The original compact of government (The Constitution) is the only way in which real liberty can be acheived. State Sovereignty also known as States Rights is not understood because it is not taught in the political indoctrination camps. If it were, and if a through understanding of The Constitution, the government it instituted, and history were taught then the vast majority of people would choose Constitutional government. What is taught is warmed over marxist hogwash mixed with worship of government, and not country. You ask why Mississippians care what goes on in other states, and the answer is because like the vast majority of people they have been indoctrinated into the damnedyankee mindset (by the political indoctrination camps) that believes it must make over the entire world into it's own likeness (for more on this go to: http://www.lewrockwell.com/wilson/wilson12.html ).

 

Well, that's my take on it anyway. I could live with states being able to go their own way for the most part. I live in a wealthy state. Less federal taxation means a disproportionately greater amount of money staying within my state than leaving it. As opposed to a Kansan, who will only lose from a decrease of federal taxation.

 

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html

 

The above link explains how federal money is returned to the states (at least in 2004). Should federal taxation be cut significantly, the top 32 states (Mississippi, Alabama, Virginia, etc) on that list will lose revenue, and the bottom 18 (California, Oregon, Washington, etc) will gain revenue.

 

You forget, as do most who do not look at things from a Constitutional perspective, that as the general government is returned to it's Constitutional limits the States will have more and more revenu available to them because as the unconstitutional federal tax burden is lessened there will be more money available to the people of the various States. The States income will increase, if by nothing else by more money being spent, and more sales taxes collected. The various States will in fact flourish once they are weaned off the hind teat of federal money.

 

Mississippi as of 2004 receives $1.77 for every dollar in federal taxes collected, making it the number 4 beneficiary state. Should Federal taxes be eliminated, for instance, Mississippi would lose $0.77 for every dollar of former taxation. Should the income tax be abolished, as is Ron Paul's position, federal revenue must be equitably raised from each state. This would further damage "beneficiary states" such as New Mexico, causing New Mexico to raise taxes to an extent that their residents would pay more in state taxes than they ever did in Federal taxes (Assuming Federal Spending were to stay the same).

 

Once again, with the elimination of the federal extortion called income tax, more money would be available to the States which would once again become attractive to industry, which would add even more the the economies of the various States. Only someone completely steeped in marxism could believe in the forcable redistribution of wealth which is what you are talking about. What you do not realize is that the vast majority of tax money collected by the rouge agency IRS is used to pay the intrest on the national debt, which is a result of the illegal federal reserve system. Do some research on it. Until you understand how that fraud works you will never understand why the value of the fiat dollar continues to fall like a rock. For a very good presentation that makes it clearly understood listen here: http://www.reformed-theology.org/realaudio/griffin_1.rm

 

Ron Paul's positions seem reasonable if you know almost nothing about them, and for some (like me, a Washingtonian) would actually help me... (Texans as well). But to use OryHara as an example, his home state would only be destroyed economically by Ron Paul's policies.

 

No, actually Ron Paul's positions are not only quiet reasonable, but logical and Constitutional. Only a marxist/statist/imperialist would think otherwise.

 

 

 

"Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under

arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further

obedience, and are left to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and violence." ~ John Locke

 

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it." ~

 

Frederic Bastiat - (1801-1850) in his book Economic Sophisms

 

"People are beginning to realize that the apparatus of government is costly. But what they do not know is that the burden falls inevitably on them." ~ Frederic Bastiat

 

"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."

~ Frederic Bastiat, Government

 

"When all other rights are taken away, the right of rebellion is made perfect." ~ Thomas Paine

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Half of the states currently spend more for the federal government than the government spends on them, so ridding themselves of federal taxation will cause more (or all, depending on the scenario)money generated internally to stay within the state.

 

We talk about "constitutional direct taxes", great. Where do direct taxes come from? Is the burden divied up among the states evenly? (rich states will feel less of a burden than poor states) or divied up among the citizens equally? (rich people will feel less of a burden than poor people).

 

US constitution Article 1 Section 9 apportions direct tax on each state based on it's population (which sounds like a set tax on each individual person, except paid by the state). If The federal government levies $1000 dollars in taxes on each person instead of determining their tax burden by income, states/people with mean incomes of $15,000 (Mississippi) will be taxes proportionately more than states/people with mean incomes of $23000 (Washington).

 

I don't believe in the forcible transfer of wealth... which is why I support Ron Paul's plan, because it benefits me (and his state). It doesn't benefit Mississippi in any way that I can see.

 

Mississippi already has a lower tax rate per capita than most heavy industry states... I don't see why lowering the rate would make it any more attractive to them. (I disagree that Mississippi's tax rates would go down with an end to the income tax, I only see them going up). It sounds like the New Math to me... where you can increase spending and cut taxes (or even leave taxes at the same rate) and voila, it's paradise.

 

Let me try to put it simply... Mississippi currently uses about 30 billion dollars of tax money. Washington uses about 70 billion dollars of tax money. Mississippi actually generates (state and federal taxes) only 18 billion dollars in taxes. Washington generates (in state and federal taxes) 75 billion dollars in taxes. If money stops flowing back and forth to the federal government, the usable tax money in washington will increase (with no net increase in personal taxation). In Mississippi, the difference in money ($12 billion dollars) would have to come from somewhere. Which means either cutting benefits for retirees or police or schools or whatever, OR raising taxes.

 

Since Ron Paul's end to "unconstitutional income tax" directly benefits me, I support it. But again, I don't see how any Mississippian with a C in 9th grade economics can find that it benefits them.

 

As to state's rights... you've absolutely proven my point, in an oblique way. The reason doesn't matter why a person from Arkansas feels the needs to impose their values on Massachusets (or vise versa), the fact is, it exists. Those that see the possibility of National change eroded by a plaform of State sovereignty, will find themselves against it.

 

My position is simple and it is the reason why Ron Paul is my hero. I like my state the way it is (for the most part). I don't care what goes on in California or Florida, and I would be happy if they didn't care what went on here (or at least had no power to change it). If California wants to mandate abortion, let them. If Alabama wants to crucify black people, let them. I also would prefer that money that leaves my pocket go to where I live, not somewhere else. Another reason to support Ron Paul. I live where I want to live, and if I didn't, I'd either work towards changing it, or go somewhere else.

 

A funny little thing about Washington state is it's really two states. Western Washington and Eastern Washington. Eastern Washington has actually tried for seceed from Western Washington over the subject of taxation. Eastern Washingtonians have this funny thing about what they perceive to be unfair taxation. Except that for the past 50 years, every dollar sent to the state government has been sent back as spending projects in their areas, with change added. It's the same old ignorance. People who don't realize that they are the freeloaders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People who don't realize that they are the freeloaders.

 

Still didn't answer my question. No Fed Reserve? No IRS?

Just reminding you... :thumbsup_anim:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, everybody seems to be saying "I support this because it helps ME ME ME ME ME!!!!!"

 

I think that is kind of a selfish view.

 

I am all for that view if the states were their own countries...but sadly, they are not, therefore we have to distribute wealth evenly, it wouldnt be right for some sections of the nation to be more well off than other sections, unless of course, we weren't one big nation anymore...in which case, I would support it :unsure:.

 

I dont know, I guess the only thing that makes me angry is double dipping. It seems like for many states (thankfully not my own) you have to pay a state income tax and a federal income tax, why? I say we either pick one or the other, the state or the federal, I am for the states myself, seeing as I think it is ridiculous for somebody thousands of miles away to tell me what my needs are here in washington state. Just a thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, everybody seems to be saying "I support this because it helps ME ME ME ME ME!!!!!"

 

I think that is kind of a selfish view.

 

I am all for that view if the states were their own countries...but sadly, they are not, therefore we have to distribute wealth evenly, it wouldnt be right for some sections of the nation to be more well off than other sections, unless of course, we weren't one big nation anymore...in which case, I would support it :).

 

I dont know, I guess the only thing that makes me angry is double dipping. It seems like for many states (thankfully not my own) you have to pay a state income tax and a federal income tax, why? I say we either pick one or the other, the state or the federal, I am for the states myself, seeing as I think it is ridiculous for somebody thousands of miles away to tell me what my needs are here in washington state. Just a thought.

 

If you want to know how taxes WORK, and where they REALLY go, check out this documentary.

http://www.freedomtofascism.com/

 

Aaron Russo also made Trading Spaces with Eddy Murphy.

 

Pretty much just shows how we don't need the Fed Reserve, or the IRS. They do nothing for the people of the country but oppress them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...