Ron Paul is the answer
Please, enough with the partisan bias. Publishing the “Domestic war victim” letter to the editor’s mind-numbing conclusion about the Iraq War is either arrogant, ignorant or both. A more accurate account is to note how a majority of Democrats also supported it. The only current politician on the national front who consistently voted against the Iraq War was Ron Paul.
By supporting current domestic spending levels, the conclusion from the editorial “A Less Expensive Military” is also biased. I know terms like “federal deficit” and “federal debt” appear beyond the scope of comprehension by fiscally irresponsible progressive politicians. When Democrats recently controlled both chambers of Congress and the White House, for example, the deficit reached unprecedented levels, resulting in a $15 trillion national debt.
As collateral for increased deficit spending, a debt is owed to foreign governments who purchased U.S. security bonds, which is primarily the Chinese government. Citing spending and interest rates on the national debt, its payback will reach a point when revenue coming into the U.S. Treasury will no longer service the debt.
And there was no mention of Obama asking to have the cap on federal deficit spending raised by another $1 trillion. This is crazy. Ron Paul has promised to cut federal spending by $1 trillion across the board in his first year of office. This reason is why he has my support.
Dale Ferriere
Lubec
Concerning aliens…
According to the news, astronomers have discovered an Earth-like planet 600 light years away that might be supporting intelligent life. Since a light year is about 5.9 trillion miles, the distance to the Earth is about 3,540 trillion miles. While the planet is not exactly next door as far as we humans are concerned, as far as the universe is concerned its distance is a mere drop in a bucket, considering how vast the universe is.
There appears to be an important policy in the universe that the stellar systems that support intelligent life are so far apart from each other that there can be no direct physical contact between any two of them.
Concerning space aliens are the following scenarios. In the first, aliens originated from another planet within our solar system, assuming that there is another planet besides the Earth in our solar system that has been supporting intelligent life. Is there?
In the second scenario, aliens traveled in spaceships having special magical powers with an ability to take “shortcuts” while traveling very great distances. This, however, is the stuff of science fiction.
In the final scenario, aliens were supernatural beings from another universe, a universe that is invisible and spiritual. According to the Bible, the Earth has been visited by supernatural beings in the past.
Irwin Dube
Madawaska
Lake aesthetics ignored
I enjoyed John Holyoke’s column about his time at Munsungan Lake and with Jim Carter. Mr. Carter’s comment that visitors come to his remote camp for the “aesthetics” struck a chord as I read Phyllis Goodine’s letter to the editor about the Department of Environmental Protection process and whether it works for corporations or residents. That is a valid concern, considering the Oakfield wind projects are too close to the 1A- and B-rated lakes in Island Falls.
Lakes with that high rating have state and national significance and deserve the eight-mile buffer the DEP seems to be ignoring. The developer paid a scenic consultant to declare the impact was “not unreasonable,” a safe way to ensure continued employment, but a great disservice to residents and the many others who come to the area for the scenic quality of place those lakes offer.
With the testimony of guides from the Downeast Lakes region, and many hundreds of letters protesting wind sprawl near the Island Falls lakes, it would seem prudent for the DEP and Legislature to revisit the wind turbine plague before it spreads any further. I suspect the late Jim Carter would agree.
Mike DiCenso
Lincoln
Republican handlers
David Farmer’s recent column, “LePage readies for fight…” illuminates the out-of-state organizations that control the hierarchy of Maine’s Republican Party.
Maine People Before Politics and the Maine Heritage Policy Center are political Siamese twins connected at the head and spawned by the K Street and Koch Brothers’ political action groups. Farmer is correct in noting Gov. LePage’s well-funded political apparatus is ready to operate in the upcoming legislative session and fall elections without regard for most Republican legislators and rank-and-file Republican voters.
LePage has no policies other than those that he is instructed to follow by his political handlers cited above and facilitated by their safely hidden millions of out-of-state dollars.
When left to his own devices, LePage may stray from the Maine Heritage Policy Center’s directives only to be corrected by his press secretary Adrienne Bennett, who follows the Heritage Policy Center’s guidelines to amend his off-message gaffes. Sad to say, Kevin Raye, Republican Senate president and announced candidate for Maine’s 2nd Congressional District seat, has been a paid advocate of the K Street lobbying group AdvaMed since 2009. Should anyone be surprised? Follow the money.
Paul Newlin
Deer Isle
Fairer taxation movement
Debate over taxes and public spending is often depicted as class warfare: richer people resisting taxation demanded by poorer people seeking more government services. But there’s a movement afoot to bridge that gap and make the debate not about dueling classes but dueling ideas.
One idea is that all of life’s material success is earned through merit and effort, so higher tax rates on wealthier people is punishing success. What’s more, in this view, progressive taxation hurts the economy by targeting the nation’s “job creators.”
The other idea is that luck — both good and bad — plays a role in financial success, and progressive taxation rounds off the sharp corners of misfortune. It also stabilizes the economy by counteracting the nation’s dangerously widening gap in wealth and income.
I subscribe to the second idea, and so do millions of other Americans, both rich and poor. Many of us have joined together in the Commonwealth Project (you can find us on Facebook) to advocate for more equitable taxation as a necessary component of budget reform. Whatever your financial situation, if you believe fairer taxation is good for America, I invite you to join us.
Dylan Moore
Bangor
Irwin Dube
I’m a firm believer of life on other planets and of them having visited us.
One only has to read a few posts by a certain organic gardener/social justice activist from Jonesboro to realize it.
Nopark: you may regret this post. LOL
I’m a big girl/boy/sentient being.
I can handle it.
Others who post here appear to be messengers from the underworld.
Great now the Obama supporters will be flying them in at election time, and you thought bussing all the aliens in last election was bad!!
I thought only the gay side brought voters in from elsewhere to vote for SSM…..
LOL
Can you prove your statement about about busing in aliens in the last election or are you just spouting out what Fake news says. Just one time I would like to see you right wing people put out hard evidence instead of rumors and propaganda, just one time, Pleeeeeaaaasssseee!!!!!
if you would watch something besides cnn “the clinton news network” you may be enlightened to a few facts that would suprise you
Interesting. I was going to give this post an LOL but it seems that others are taking it as serious. If serious, it’s as far out as the letter.
Mr. Moore, the case for progressive income taxation is even stronger. Every other tax we pay is regressive. Those earning over $500,000 pay a lower percentage of their income in real estate, sales, social security, and other taxes. Only a progressive income tax evens out the tax burden.
Economically, taxing income over $500,000 at either the Clinton rates (39.6%) or the rates during most of Reagan’s years (50%) encourages the wealthy to invest that money in their business or profession rather than in themselves. Thus, progressive income taxation has been routinely associated with greater job growth and greater long term investment. Compare the boom years of Clinton to the bust years of Bush II.
There are advantages to the progressive income tax; however, the wealthy will find ways to hide their money or use the many loopholes that those in DC are paid to put in the code. Also, those that produce will simply pass the taxes on to the consumer, thus hurting those of us that the progressive tax is supposed to help.
The only true and tested tax system is the Fair Tax. It works, and it won’t punish the middle class and the poor.
The flat tax would raise my taxes, but give Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly and other multi-millionaire elitists a big tax decrease. No wonder they support such things.
What is meant by “flat tax”?
A truly flat tax would have every person being assessed at the same amount (I pay
$X, you paying $X, your wife paying$X, Bill Gates paying $X).
What I see touted as a flat tax is really a flat rate tax, quite different.
The rate at which people are taxed is irrelevant, what is really important is what
loopholes there are. You can not estimate what your taxes will be until the whole picture is revealed.
When Steve Forbes touted a “flat tax” a few election cycles ago, he was talking about a flat tax rate — for most people “flat tax” is short for “flat tax rate.” But I think you knew that already, and you were just pretending to not understand.
Of course, as you say, if there are loopholes, that changes the picture, and could mean that the rate is really no longer flat. We all knew that already.
Supporting fairness, what an unusual thought for people on the left. Are all millionaires elitists or only th Republican ones?
Just the one’s who say all poor people are lazy and just trying to steal their hard earned money, which by the way would not be possible for them to earn without the labor of the lazy poor people in the first place.
Unless you make all taxes flat, a flat income tax system rewards the wealthy who already benefit from extremely regressive sales, real estate, and FICA tax systems.
I said Fair Tax, not flat tax.
I understand a Fair Tax to be a consumption tax, which is regressive by definition. The poor and middle class spend virtually everything they earn.
In the Fair Tax, the poor and middle class are compensated monthly for future calculated tax burden. Essentially, the poor will make money if they budget properly, and the majority of the middle class with come out even. And there are many more advantages to the poor and middle class in the Fair Tax.
For instance, if you want to buy a car, but can’t afford a new one, there is no tax on a used vehicle since the tax was paid when it was new. Same goes for any other used goods.
You should read up on the Fair Tax. If you cut through the oppositions exaggerations and lies, you just might find it’s the best way to go. The reason so many in government oppose it is because it takes away their power to tax at will, and it eliminated the IRS completely.
You’re saying that the boom years of the Clinton administration were due to higher taxes? Let’s get real. You don’t think a massive (and ultimately, unsustainable) tech boom had anything to do with it?
That is by far the greater reason.
The http://www.oecd.org/home/0,2987,en_2649_201185_1_1_1_1_1,00.html OECD
calls the US tax structure the most progressive in the world. This is not a conservative group.
OECD only focused on Income tax. They didn’t include Social Security (regressive tax) nor the 15% tax rate that “investors” enjoy. It also didn’t include sales tax or property taxes. The data is tragically limited. It would be like people saying that the rich own 100% of this country because they have all the yachts and private jets, and making that the only metric.
Not true.
You are misinformed or are intentionally misinforming people.
The categories of revenue covered in the study by OECD member nations include:
Personal Income Taxes
Social Security Taxes
capital gains, dividends
consumption taxes like:
VAT taxes
Sales taxes
taxes on beer wine tobacco
registration taxes
Corporate Income taxes state and federal
non tax compulsory payments
(companies payments on behalf of employees)
Just about every tax I can think of were included. I could not find a reference to property taxes per s e but but that does not mean they were not taken into consideration.
The US has the most progressive income tax structure in the world.
http://www.oecd.org/document/60/0,3746,en_2649_34533_1942460_1_1_1_1,00.html#tbw
Please find me a link that verifies the claim you made. Bet you can’t.
So according to the OECD sight, shows that the lowest income brackets (67% of average wage) is paying 34.4% in, the top bracket is paying 43.7% in. Other countries, Switzerland, Sweden, New Zealand, Israel, Ireland, and Greece all have more progressive tax rates than the US. I was assuming you were referring to the typical right wing misinformation sites which cherry pick income tax from the OECD to lay claim to the US having the most progressive structure, but luckily you choose the OECD site which clearly shows this isn’t the case.
Please do not forget a few other factors like the housing boom, the “peace dividend” and welfare reform that also contributed to the Clinton “boom years”.
Yes, and ignoring the attacks of Islamic extremists…
All the perpetrators of the first attack on the World Trade Center towers were arrested and are all serving life terms in a high security federal prison in Marion, Ohio.
Bush’s response to the second attack was to invade a country that did nothing to us (and make that country more dangerous now than it was before the invasion) and invade a stone age country, which we are still fighting, while not catching the main actor in the second attack until Obama finally caught up with him.
If you take a quick stroll through economic and taxation history you will find a correlation between tax rates and GDP growth. The Reagan top marginal rate of 50% and the Clinton top marginal rate of 39.6% correlated with the second best (Reagan) and best (Clinton) periods of GDP growth in the last 30 years. There are other factors, but raising taxes has never been shown to have a negative effect on GDP. A rich person can invest his money anywhere in the world. If more of that money is paid in taxes it can be invested in the US in infrastructure projects. Mississippi has one of the lowest tax rates in the USA and its infrastructure (roads, health care and colleges) reflects that lack of public investment. It is the poorest state in the nation. Connecticut has a much higher rate of taxation and a much higher standard of living as a result of its infrastructure investment.
Tech boom VS war economy as a result of Sept 11th which devastated whole US industries. That is what you should be looking at. Children may not remember the number of people that were laid off in the days after Sept 11th… there were millions, which is why the tax cut became necessary.
The Bush Tax cuts were passed 3 months before September 11th. How did Bush know we were going to get attacked at that time, and thus would need a tax cut, according to your logic?
There were two sets of tax cuts. The first dealt with a recession that occurred in the last few months of the Clinton administration and crept over into the Bush Administration.
The code was redone among many changes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Growth_and_Tax_Relief_Reconciliation_Act_of_2001
In 2003 Bush revised and extended the original tax cut in response to the events of September 11th and the ongoing devastation that attack caused.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_and_Growth_Tax_Relief_Reconciliation_Act_of_2003
You need to read your history a bit before so you can cover your lies better.
How about Bush’s tax cuts in early 2001 and the corresponding rebate checks put the country back on deficit spending by August 2001. It only took Bush 6 months to start spending borrowed money again.
Asked and answered. That was the first of the two links I provided.
Can anyone follow a thread or maybe even read?
I have given you many a thread to read and I’ll wager you didn’t because it would disagree with your world view.
Bush’s tax cuts in 2001 were because we had a surplus and the government should not keep more money that it spends, according to Bush, and the 2003 tax cuts were to stimulate the economy because more money in our pockets means more tax revenue, again according to Bush.
The Republican’s only have one answer to all of our countries needs. If the economy is doing well cut taxes, if the economy is doing poorly cut taxes. The Republican’s are a one trick pony.
Notice he always has an excuse, oh I didn’t mean THOSE Bush Tax cuts, I meant the 2003 ones. The first ones were Clinton’s fault because there was a slight blip on economic growth. Being a Conservative means you never have to be wrong.
In my life time, the last 10 years of war is the first time I can recall the employment rate declining while this country is at war.
Yep, most wars occur on foreign soil and this is the first time in my memory where the instigating attack was a major one on American soil that devastated major industries.
There were also a number of other factors. First the tech boom and bust of 2000 then the attacks of Sept 11th both called for a reworking of the economy. Then of course as you know the financial crisis of 2007.
Which industries were devastated by the 9-11 attacks?
Banking and financial institutions were hurt, but industries (manufacturers, farms, mining operations) were not hurt. Even the financial institutions were not really hurt, yes people and equipment were lost, but the institution just kept on keeping on. Many businesses were hurt badly, even destroyed, and will
probably never recover.
The only institution that really took a hit was the insurance institutions.
Airlines, Aircraft manufacturing and their suppliers right down the line. Financing particularly of construction projects. The suppliers of these industries. Everything from bricklayers to the folks that make the bricks took a hit.
Much of the damage was not the physical damage . 9-11 devastation was more widespread than a few blocks in Manhattan.
Here is an indicator Unemployment rate August 2001 was 4.9%. The unemployment rate for January 2002 was 5.7%. But as I said the effects were more apparent as time went on. By May 2003 when the second Bush tax cut was passed the unemployment rate was 6.1%.
As effects of the passage of the second Bush Tax cuts were felt the Unemployment rate declined month over month to a summer 2007 low of 4.6-4.7%.
Cause and effect- Unemployment – Terrorism- Tax cuts.
Might I suggest that one of the major factors was the outsourcing of our industry to other countries. In Ohio alone they lost 250,000 manufacturing jobs in the first four years of the Bush administration. I am not blaming Bush for that. I am however blaming the companies that cut the legs out from under the people that help them build their companies to what they were.
It makes me wonder what the employment rate went to in S. E. Asia.
My industry though a bit cyclical in nature under normal circumstances was effected by Sept 11th and because of its nature came at me in two waves. The first short term negative hit came
in November and December of 2001. We delayed pay raises for people for 6
months in order not to lay someone off. (I did reduce my salary as
small business people often do.) The second wave hit us two years later.
Contract extensions, financing arrangements and and that sort of thing.
This caused us to lay off 2 people at that time. Both “waves” had lost lasting effects.
Facts are stubborn things. You claim “millions” were laid off “in the days after Sept 11th.” It took very little time to google the BLS unemployment rates for 2001 and labor force size for 2000. The unemployment rate rose from 4.2 to 5.0 from January to September, 2001. It rose from 5.0 to 5.7 from September to December of 2001. The size of the labor force in 2000 was 142 million (It was likely larger in 2001, a number I can’t quickly locate, but the difference would not be statistically significant.). Thus, in the eight months before 9/11, the economy shed 1.136 million jobs. In the three months after 9/11 it shed 994,000 jobs. Never were “millions” of jobs shed in the days or months after 9/11. The economy was shedding jobs before 9/11 and, at best, began shedding them at a slightly higher rate.
You suggest that 9/11 made the Bush tax cuts necessary. The Bush tax cuts were enacted before 9/11 and the economy continued shedding jobs. In 2003, the unemployment rate reached 6.3%. The tax cuts had very little stimulative effect, but did encourage more Wall Street speculation, particularly when the capital gains tax rate was later lowered to 15%. Wall Street speculation gave us the 2008 crash.
You say “Children may not remember the number of people that were laid off in the days after Sept. 11th.” As you actively misremember that number as “millions,” should I conclude that you are a child?
If you want to “even out the tax burden”, go to a FLAT RATE tax. Life would be so much simpler… and fairer.
A flat income tax in the face of regressive taxes with every other means of taxation is simply a gift to the wealthy. Assume you and ex-Governor King pay the same real estate taxes ($4,000) and he makes $4,000,000 in contrast to your $40,000. Your rate of real estate taxation is 10% and his is .1%. Your real estate tax rate is 100 times his. Now you want to each pay the same income tax rate?
A flat rate would be far less fair, which is why we should not fall for it.
Dale Ferriere -Ron Paul, just like all the other candidates, has good points and bad. The real trouble with Ron Paul is that he reminds most of us of the crazy uncle at the family reunion. He’s not electable, but would be a great cabinet member…. say Defense Secretary maybe?
Dylan Moore – The only proven tax system out there is the Fair Tax. If you want something that works, back it.
He’s actually the only one that doesn’t seem like the crazy uncle. Romney reminds me of the crazy uncle on speed. I won’t even talk about Newt because it makes me nauseous just thinking about him. Huntsman seems like the most “normal” one in the bunch.
Yes, Huntsman is the most normal, which is why he isn’t getting very far in the Republican primaries. The Republican Party left “normal” behind a long time ago. Making sense in the Republican Party is now considered heresy.
I suppose that is why conservatives gained 63 Congressional seats running as conservatives in 2010.
I suppose that is why in August of 2011 Gallup showed voter id this this way, with conservatives outnumbering liberals almost 2-1.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/148745/Political-Ideology-Stable-Conservatives-Leading.aspx
I expect you live in a liberal world where libs outnumber conservatives…. The problem is you live in a small enclave and you friends are not representative of the whole.
Cheesecake, it is true that we all tend to live in enclaves. Conservatives like to listen to conservative news commentators, and associate with other conservatives. A while back, before he got to know me better, EJParsons thought I might be a libertarian, and he suggested I take a certain on-line test he recommended. It said, as I expected, that I was just barely left-of-center.
And so yes, my best friends tend to be liberals. But I also live and work in a small town where we all strive to get along with one another, even when we might disagree. Many of my friends in this town are right-of-center, and some are strongly right-wing.
I was a Republican in my youth (I liked Ike, and preferred Nixon to Kennedy in ’60. As a Young Republican I met Nixon and Gov. George Romney in ’64. I was a registered Republican ’till ’80). The Republican Party has been moving farther and farther to the right in recent decades. What most Republicans would have thought of as nutty in 1960, ’70, or even ’80 is now mainstream Republican thinking. That’s all I’m saying. What we Republicans thought was common sense back in 1980 is rejected by the current lot of Republicans. And what we Republicans thought was nonsense back then is Republican dogma today. And that’s why I’m no longer a Republican — the party moved too far out into right field. They’re not even in the same stadium anymore.
Actually, you can say the same about the Democratic party. The Republicans of today are more like the Democrats 50 years ago than the Democrats of today are. The Dems are the ones that have left their party behind, and the Republicans have moved in the direction of the old style Democratic party.
If you study the establishment side of both parties with an open mind, you’ll soon realize that there’s not much difference between them. The only differences that stand out are the radical left Progressives vs. those that claim the Tea Party. According to the last election, the Tea Party has more support from the American people. We’ll see in November if this trend hold up. I think it will.
Well, as for the Republicans of today being like the Democrats of 50 years ago, I assume you mean today’s Republicans are like the old Southern Democrats, the Dixiecrats. Yes, the old racist Dixiecrats all went over to the Republican Party after Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1965, and when the Republicans became the party of the “Southern strategy,” opposed the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, and defended flying traitorous Confederate battle flags over Southern statehouses. Dixiecrats like Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms, and old supporters of segregation like Jerry Falwell, all went over to the Republicans. So yes, you got all of our old Southern racists, and you can keep them.
The Democrats, however, have continued the heritage of Andrew Jackson, Grover Cleveland, Al Smith, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Adlai Stevenson, Bobby Kennedy, Walter Mondale and Bill Clinton — imperfect leaders, but people who cared about working people and average Americans.
Barak Obama has been a Henry “Scoop” Jackson kind of Democrat when it comes to defense issues such as the surge in Afghanistan, and his attacks on folks like Ossama bin Laden.
You’re right about Paul: there’s something slightly scary about him. I agree with some of his ideas in principle, but many aren’t realistic. Santorum said it well: All of his good ideas will never go anywhere, while all his bad ideas can be accomplished on day 1.
That and the racist, anti-semitic rantings in his newsletter are a slight cause for pause…
EJ, I like what you said about Ron Paul. Once in a while we agree!
Irwin Dube–Are you suggesting that the Holy Bible should be filed under science fiction?
He never claimed anything of the sort, he just pointed out some scenarios, one of which apparently was mentioned in the bible, though I’d like to see a chapter and verse so we can look at it ourselves. As far as fiction is concerned, there is way more proof of extraterrestrial life than most of the claims in the bible.
I agree…absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
Daube’s letter refers to supernatural beings visiting earth. Most people would consider angels to be supernatural beings, and they do appear in several places in the Bible. I’m not taking a side here, just trying to understand what the original letter-writer meant.
The only valid interpretation of a far out letter (I was going to neglect any comments on it). And even that is stretching it. Since most authors of Biblical texts seem to identify with a earth-centered universe with no other extraterrestrial planets (and a “firmament” for the sky), the other scenarios are incompatible with Biblical teachings.
Absolutely not! it is in the Mythology section
If Ron Paul is the answer, it was a stupid question.
Thank you for the laugh!
:-)
Irwin, your claim that the use of interstellar ‘shortcuts’ are the stuff of science fiction is as accurate as people in the 1400’s saying the Earth is flat. Just because we haven’t found the technology to travel through ‘hyperspace’ for a lack of a better word, doesn’t mean we’ll never be able to do it. The Earth is 4.6 Billion years old, any other planet could have had a faster evolutionary cycle, or started their evolution billions of years before ours. It’s not beyond imagination that they have developed a means in which to travel through space at speeds relatively beyond the speed of light without dealing with relativistic effect. That is if the Theory of Relativity is even accurate. I mean, how arrogant are we to believe that the whole universe should abide by the laws of physics set forth by a handful of scientists on a backward little planet like ours.
Mr. Newlin, It sounds to me like you are a far left liberal who feels the liberal agenda is now threatened by the MHPC and MPBP. Is it because you are afraid of the FACTS getting out to the Maine voters?
If they actually had facts on their side you might have a point.
Since when do those two organizations deal in facts (even capitalized ones, doesn’t make them more true)?
Mr. Newlin – They also own a fleet of black helicopters.
Ron Paul has broad spectrum appeal, he can court Tea Party Independents, disillusioned Obama independents, left wing anti war crowd, and right wing states rights crowd, as well as young voters and overwhelmingly the military vote.
I don’t agree with all of Ron Paul’s ideas, but he is the only honest broker on the stage, even when that honesty is not popular.
The establishment is terrified of Ron Paul, all the lobbyist money is dedicated to keeping the status quo. Maybe it is time we look to real change.
Ron Paul 2012
You are correct that he can court all of those factions because each one of them likes certain things in what he espouses (without thinking of the future detrimental ramifications of them, I might add). But the truth is NONE of his ideas will fly! He has NEVER been supported in Congress during his entire career in politics; in fact he has only been able to pass ONE piece of legislation in over 20 years! So why do you think he will get his ideas to pass now?! Ron Paul’s supporter’s are living in a fantasy land right along with him.
I agree that Ron Paul has some extreme ideas, and I don’t agree with them all, but the executive branch alone cannot enact new laws and he would have to work with congress. He COULD however bring our troops back from the abortive mess that we have made in the mideast, something Pres. Obama does not seem willing to do. He COULD try and undo the damage caused by Citizen’s United, the Patriot Act, and the latest National Defense Authorization Act (allowing indefinate detentions of US citizens on US soil without due process). Those are items that have future “detrimental ramifications”, and both D’s and R’s voted for them. As you said, he has been elected to congress for over 20 years, he must be doing something right or his constituants would have replaced him. He also has more support among active military than any other candidate. I guess when you are the tip of the spear, you want to insure that the spear wielder does not utilize you foolishly.
Honest? Outspoken, yes but based on preposterous (and biased) issues
I assume that the “flat tax” you refer to is actually a flat rate tax, everyone pays income tax at the same percentage of wages and income.
A flat tax would have everyone paying the same amount to the government.
I don’t know how you can actually predict what true tax reform will bring. If everyone pays the same rate with no deductions and loopholes many of the inequities you see will be gone.
If there was a flat tax it would most likely be around 23 – 25% which means the majority of people would actually pay more taxes and only those in the higher tax brackets would pay less taxes.
How can you predict what a flat rate tax would make your taxes be. If a real tax code reform were to happen including removing all deductionds and loopholes, what you have to pay?
What is refered to as a flat tax is really a flat rate tax, a flat tax would have every person paying the same amount of taxes (I pay $10,000, you pay $10,000, Bill Gates pays $10,000).
Dale: I promise to send you a check for $10,000…Do I have your support as well????
LOL
Mr Ferriere, you say, “Ron Paul has promised to cut federal spending by $1 trillion across the
board in his first year of office. This reason is why he has my support.” Presidents don’t pass budgets. Congress does.Ron Paul has absolutely NO allies in Congress; in fact he has only been able to pass one piece of legislation in his entire career. Furthermore, Ron Paul as President will do no more than he did in congress: Load the budget with his earmarks… then sit back until enough votes were already cast to pass the bill, then vote no to be able to say he held the line against spending. Ron Paul not only is a racist and anti-semitic, he is a liar. People only hear what they want to hear; wake up people! Look deeper and see the real truth.
The thought of making a trillion dollar cut may sound good but at what expense?
This is what he has said he would do to accomplish that goal:
–End Social Security
–End Medicare
–End Medicaid
–End Unemployment insurance
–Eliminate the EPA and other federal departments along with changing the currency to gold standard
–End Childrens’ Health Insurance Program
–End national banking regulations
–End all national environmental regulations
–End all federal regulations dealing with nuclear plants
–End all national health insurance regulations
–Further deregulate the financial industry
–End all other national regulations–
–Pull ALL military home immediately
Ron Paul’s policies are NOT in the best interest of all American people. If elected and he implements his ideology, he will be hurting the vast majority of the people in the US with his aggressive (not conservative) policies.
Also check out his other extremely biased (I’m being kind) views on other social and personal issues, as stated in numerous newsletters.
I know and I agree with you…I shared his “biased” views on social and personal issues in other comments I made about another commentary but I received harsh criticism from the Paul cultists who say that his social issue views are NOT all that important in these times of economic crisis. However, similar to you, I believe they are extremely important and should be publicized so that people know the real truth about Ron Paul. He talks about protecting rights but he doesn’t believe in the rights of women to have free choice, nor does he believe in the rights of gays, just to name the two issues that bother me the most.
Ron Paul is the answer. What was the question?
Paul Newlin, Dylan Moore: good letters.
I agree with you about bringing the troops home from Afghanistan but Paul wants to bring ALL of the military back to the US from every post all over the world. He thinks they are not needed outside the US but I beg to differ. It is naive to believe that if we turn our back on the rest of the world, no harm will be done to us. With his isolationist policies, we are placing ourselves in harm’s way. I don’t blame the military for liking him and supporting him because it must be difficult to be away from their families when they are deployed. But that is part of the job when they signed up and enlisted. In my opinion, those in the military who are supporting paul are just thinking about themselves and not about the citizens of the USA. I doubt it has anything to do with much else other than that. In a similar vein, the same can be true about the young college students who primarily support Paul for his beliefs in legalizing recreational drugs.
As far as your views about Paul getting reelected for those repeat terms, I hate to say this but look at the quality of people who have been elected by Texans: for example, GW Bush, and Rick Perry. Their opposition couldn’t have been much! Plus Big money has been behind all three…yes, even Paul had money behind him to get re-elected as he was supported by Forbes.
The reply above was supposed to go to hopperdredgbil in reference to his belief that Ron Paul would bring the troops home from war and that he must be good to be reelected so often but BDN inexplicably placed it as a solo remark. Sorry that it really doesn’t make sense as a stand alone comment. Hope hopperdredgbil will see it. He should understand what I am saying even if he doesn’t agree with it.