Ron Paul vs. Rudy Giuliani on Immigration - Page 2

jhffmn · #11 (**permalink**) 11-13-2007, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ixtellor";p=&quot

Gold standards and competing currency. We tried that before and if you know anything about history, you will know the consequences and why it failed.

Ixtellor

Believe me, I don't like the Ron Paul fanatics. I kept hearing about how he wants to hamstring our encomony by going to a gold standard and how he wants to start using tariffs. But actually after looking at some of his policies I can't say I disagree with them.

I don't think that our current debt is a crisis. I think as long as our economy grows with debt we should be alright. I also think his demonization of the fed reserve is a bit much.

However, we would be even better off with little to no government spending or taxes and allowing capitalism to take place.

How can you disagree with this though?

Quote:

Whenever tax cuts are discussed in Washington, the media and most politicians use the phrase, “cost to government.” “How much will this tax cut cost the government?” we are asked, as though some crime is being contemplated when we consider reducing taxes. The American people have every right to fund the federal government at whatever level they deem acceptable, and if they choose – through their elected representatives – to reduce that funding level, they are not somehow injuring the government. If Congresses passes a new law that results in you paying $1000 less in taxes next year, have you taken something from the government that rightfully belongs to it? Or has the government simply taken less from you?

You don’t cost the government money, the government costs you money!

Of course it’s reasonable to demand that politicians cut spending when they cut taxes. That’s the definition of real fiscal conservatism: government should not take too much from the private economy in taxes, but neither should it spend too much and run up deficits. That’s why I vote against the wasteful appropriations bills that relentlessly increase federal spending year after year.

I reject the notion that tax cuts harm the economy. The economy suffers when government takes money from your paycheck that you otherwise would spend, save, or invest. Taxes never create prosperity. Private-sector innovation and productivity are the engines that drive our economy, regardless of what politicians tell us.

Tax reduction is my first priority in Congress. The reality is that most working Americans lose about half of their incomes to federal, state, and local taxes. “Tax Freedom Day,” representing the portion of the year you must work to pay for government at all levels, is roughly June 1st for most Americans. Imagine all of your hard work this year between January and the end of May going to the government!

One tax in particular should be eliminated as soon as possible – the tax on Social Security benefits. Those benefits were never taxed between the 1930s and 1984. Treating them as taxable income represents nothing more than a trick to reduce Social Security benefits by stealth. I supported legislation that successfully repealed a 1993 tax increase on benefits, and my own bill, HR 180, would go further and eliminate all taxes on Social Security. Our seniors paid taxes throughout their working lives to fund the Social Security system, and it is immoral to tax them again on their benefits.

Various other taxes also must be reduced. Capital gains taxes are terribly counterproductive, punishing those who save and invest. Payroll taxes impose a tremendous compliance burden on businesses, especially smaller entrepreneurs who cannot hire an accounting department. Federal gas taxes should be slashed to provide taxpayers relief at the pump. Most importantly, federal spending must be dramatically reduced so that all Americans can go back to working for themselves instead of working to pay their taxes.

jhffmn · #12 (**permalink**) 11-13-2007, 10:25 AM

Quote:

The U.S. Senate had a golden opportunity to repeal the federal estate tax last week, but fell a few votes short. I fear that vote might represent the high-water mark in the movement to get rid of this destructive tax once and for all.

Fortunately, estate taxes no longer devour 60% of some individuals’ wealth when they die. Congress passed legislation in 2001 that reduced estate tax rates and increased the amount of assets exempt from the tax. Yet Congress has been unable to abolish the estate tax altogether, and, due to a political compromise the old rates will be back in effect come 2011 unless Congress acts first.

The estate tax raises very little money. In fact, even at its height the estate tax accounted for only a little more than 1% of federal revenues. A congressional Joint Economic committee report estimates that Americans spend as much avoiding estate taxes – paying attorneys and accountants – as they do paying estate taxes. A study by a Stanford professor concluded that “True revenues associated with estate taxation may well have been near zero, or even negative.”

It’s no longer a matter of tax policy or economics – the arguments in favor of the estate tax have all been demolished. Instead, the estate tax survives purely because of politics.

The real motivation behind the estate tax is a deep-seated hostility to property rights, and a misguided fear of family dynasties. But people don’t keep money in mattresses anymore. Money inherited from an estate is either spent, saved, or invested – all of which are better for the economy than sending it to Washington, where bureaucratic overhead consumes at least 50 cents of every dollar.

If you truly own your property, you have the right to dispose of it any way you wish. You can sell it, give it away, or direct who will receive it when you die. This control is the essence of property rights. If you can’t control what happens to your property, you don’t really own it.

That’s why the estate tax is so destructive. Since people don’t want the government controlling their property when they die, they twist themselves into pretzels finding ways to avoid turning assets over to the IRS. Some create elaborate trusts to minimize their taxes, supporting the economically wasteful estate-planning industry. Others simply lose their entrepreneurial spark, stop working, and spend their money – succumbing to a “die broke” attitude.

Again, the issue is control. People who have worked hard to build wealth simply cannot stand to see government take a big chunk of their assets when they die, so they do anything they can – even economically harmful things – to prevent it. This is what supporters of the estate tax cannot seem to understand.

For smaller, family-owned farms and ranches, the estate tax is especially threatening. Such operations may be worth several million dollars when the value of land, livestock, buildings, and equipment are considered. Yet when the owner dies, his heirs often do not have liquid cash to pay a hefty tax bill. As a result, all or part of the family business may be sold to pay the IRS. This has accelerated the trend toward corporate ownership of American farms and ranches.

As William Beach at the Heritage Foundation summarizes, the estate tax does four things – all of which are bad for the economy and frankly un-American:

First, it discourages savings and investment.
Second, it undermines job creation and wage growth.
Third, it stifles investment.
Fourth, it contradicts a central premise of American life, namely, building wealth and “getting ahead.”

For all of these reasons, it’s time to get rid of the estate tax once and for all.

Truth-Bringer · #13 (**permalink**) 11-13-2007, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jhffmn";p=&quot

But actually after looking at some of his policies I can't say I disagree with them.

Right - after an independent minded person looks at his policies on their own - without a liberal media filter - they find out that it isn't quite as outrageous as they've been led to believe

Quote:

I don't think that our current debt is a crisis. I think as long as our economy grows with debt we should be alright.

Our current debt isn't a crisis right now, but if interest payments continue to grow, eventually higher taxes will be required. Please take the time to read the following article, which explains the real danger with deficits and debts:

What’s So Bad about the Budget Deficit?

by Scott McPherson, November 12, 2003

Recently I was discussing taxes with a friend who was praising President Bush for pushing his massive tax cut through Congress. “Sure,” I replied. “But a lot of good it does us when he has simultaneously pushed federal spending through the roof.” I was referring to the projected $540 billion federal deficit.

“Just a minute,” my friend interjected, seeing where I was headed. “There’s nothing wrong with deficit spending.”

“Of course there is,” I replied. “It’s a hidden tax on future earnings.”

“Think of it like this,” he said, somewhat condescendingly. “Did you pay cash for your house? Of course not. You borrowed the money. You went into debt for X amount of dollars, and you have a house to show for it.” Sensing finality, he asked, “So what’s wrong with the government doing the same thing?”

He’s right, of course. My wife and I did not pay cash for our home; we borrowed the money from a mortgage company, which we will be paying back — with interest — for 30 years.

In Economics in One Lesson, discussing the impact of taxes on the economy, Henry Hazlitt wrote that “for every dollar ... spent on public works one less dollar [is] spent by taxpayers to meet their own wants, and for every public job created one private job [is] destroyed.” Hazlitt was demonstrating the classic example of “the seen and the unseen.”

Believing it has found a way around this problem, however, government employs deficit spending to create the illusion of a “free lunch.”

“Suppose ... public works are not paid for from the proceeds of taxation?” asks Hazlitt. “Suppose they are paid for by deficit financing — that is, from the proceeds of government borrowing? Then the result just described does not seem to take place. The public works seem to be created out of ‘new’ purchasing power. You cannot say that the purchasing power has been taken away from the taxpayers. For the moment the nation seems to have got something for nothing.”

When I borrow money to buy a house, I am gaining a definite material value; likewise, when a manufacturer borrows money to invest in, say, labor-saving technology, he also can benefit.

But here’s the clincher: We both must forgo spending on other things to repay not only the debt but the interest on the debt. I may have a new house; the businessman may have new factory equipment — but we have to give that money back, and then some.

We both have to give up a percentage of our future earnings for the privilege of getting the loan today. That means I must calculate the shoes I will not be able to buy for my children, the repairs I won’t make to my car, the entertainment I cannot enjoy, and the savings I cannot set aside for my retirement — all must be considered when committing to financing a home or any other form of indebtedness, which acts as an incentive to temper current spending.

Now, when government borrows money, something different takes place. For government to run a deficit, as Hazlitt pointed out, a sort of “new purchasing power” is seemingly fashioned that allows us to eat our cake and have it too. Bureaucracies are funded and special interests are paid off; food stamps and welfare checks are distributed; wars and occupations are financed; and, if the president gets his way, prescription drugs are made available to the elderly — and all at no additional cost.

“We owe it ourselves,” is the conventional wisdom about the national debt — so we’re to believe that we don’t really owe it at all. Not facing the same kinds of financial realities that restrain private spending, politicians have a gold-plated credit card — and the sky’s the limit. As a result, government keeps on spending and the debt keeps on growing.

Then the bill comes due. It may be 10, 20, or 30 years down the road, but sooner or later all of the money that government spends that exceeds tax revenues — the budget deficit — must be paid back, and then some.

Which means that at some future date either taxes will be raised (they must be raised; if they are not sufficient to cover contemporary costs, then the debt grows; if they are merely high enough to cover costs then government only breaks even; to cover contemporary expenditures plus the debt will require a tax hike) or the printing presses will start up and the currency will be inflated — another, more insidious form of taxation.

Rest of Article Here

Quote:

However, we would be even better off with little to no government spending or taxes and allowing capitalism to take place.

How can you disagree with this though?

He will always disagree with that because Ixtellor is a hardcore liberal statist collectivist.

Ixtellor · #14 (**permalink**) 11-13-2007, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Right - after an independent minded person looks at his policies on their own - without a liberal media filter - they find out that it isn't quite as outrageous as they've been led to believe

Yea.

I don't apply my masters in economics or the hundreds of pages of research I have done on tariffs, protectionism, or my years of analyzing data. Nor my exhaustive research on Hayak, free markets, the history of capitalism, or the process of industrialization for numerous countries.

I ignore all that, and simply turn on the local news to find out my opinion on Ron Paul economic policies.

I didn't do hours and hours of reserach on FAIR tax in an effort to see if I thought it was something worthwhile, then post all concerns and links here on these very forums, so that I could make an informed opinion.

I just turn on the "liberal collectivist pro government" channel and have it downloaded into my brain.

Ixtellor

P.S. Truth-Bringer logic.

Theory: The Clintons have people murdered.
The Proof: Jennifer Flowers said she thought it was possible.
The conclusion: The Clintons definitly have people murdered.

Theory: David Koresh did not want an armed conflict with ATF agents.
The Proof: The Davidians did not fire on them from 300 yards away.
The conclusion: The davidians had no intention of a conflict.
Rationale for dismissing Dissent: Every single person and componant of government is in on it and lying about it. ALL of them regardless of party. Including the Lawyer for the Davidians, who stood to gain millions. He is in on the conspiracy as well.

nonsqtr · #15 (**permalink**) 11-13-2007, 12:45 PM

Ix, as near as I understand your point around the "hard standards" for currency, that kinda has to do with the "trends" in the respective
economies, right? I mean, like, if everyone's tied to a standard,
then you get one behavior, and if no one's tied to a standard,
then you get another behavior, and if only "some" people are
tied to the standard, then it kinda depends on what their relative
economic strengths and weaknesses are, right?

I mean, the reason it "didn't work", as you say, is mainly because
the US economy is "slowing down" relative to the rest of the world,
or alternatively, the rest of the world is "speeding up" relative to
the US. Wouldn't that be the case?

Truth-Bringer · #16 (**permalink**) 11-13-2007, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ixtellor";p=&quot

don't apply my masters in economics or the hundreds of pages of research I have done on tariffs, protectionism, or my years of analyzing data. Nor my exhaustive research on Hayak, free markets, the history of capitalism, or the process of industrialization for numerous countries.

An appeal to "alleged" authority - and irrational crap.

The root issue is - DO SOME HUMAN BEINGS HAVE A RIGHT TO CONTROL THE PEACEFUL, HONEST, VOLUNTARY ACTIVITIES OF OTHER HUMAN BEINGS? NO, they do not. That is the bottom line. Stop trying to control people, Ixtellor. You, nor the majority, has any right to do so.

Quote:

I just turn on the "liberal collectivist pro government" channel and have it downloaded into my brain.

Well it all makes sense now...

Quote:

Theory: The Clintons have people murdered.
The Proof: Jennifer Flowers said she thought it was possible.
The conclusion: The Clintons definitly have people murdered.

Another lie from one of our resident frauds. It doesn't prove Clinton murdered. But it should make fair minded people question the alleged investigations that have taken place when some irrefutable evidence was ignored.

Quote:

Theory: David Koresh did not want an armed conflict with ATF agents.
The Proof: The Davidians did not fire on them from 300 yards away.
The conclusion: The davidians had no intention of a conflict.

Again, a total mischaracterization and fraudulent distortion. I encourage everyone to read the debate on Waco for themselves.

Quote:

Rationale for dismissing Dissent: Every single person and componant of government is in on it and lying about it.

Again, a complete and total lie. And ultimately all of your points are Appeals to Ridicule.

Ixtellor "logic":

"Hi, I'm Ixtellor and I purport myself to be a genius, yet I've committed numerous logical fallacies on this board which everyone should ignore and just accept the fact that I'm better than all of you and I know more because I said I researched it."

"Also, no one in the government that is a Democrat would ever lie to you, even though they've been caught in numerous lies. Those lies weren't really lies. It all depends on what the definition of "is" is."

Tedminator · #17 (**permalink**) 11-13-2007, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ixtellor";p=&quot

Quote:

Right - after an independent minded person looks at his policies on their own - without a liberal media filter - they find out that it isn't quite as outrageous as they've been led to believe

Yea.

I don't apply my masters in economics or the hundreds of pages of research I have done on tariffs, protectionism, or my years of analyzing data. Nor my exhaustive research on Hayak, free markets, the history of capitalism, or the process of industrialization for numerous countries.

I ignore all that, and simply turn on the local news to find out my opinion on Ron Paul economic policies.

I didn't do hours and hours of reserach on FAIR tax in an effort to see if I thought it was something worthwhile, then post all concerns and links here on these very forums, so that I could make an informed opinion.

I just turn on the "liberal collectivist pro government" channel and have it downloaded into my brain.

Ixtellor

P.S. Truth-Bringer logic.

Theory: The Clintons have people murdered.
The Proof: Jennifer Flowers said she thought it was possible.
The conclusion: The Clintons definitly have people murdered.

Theory: David Koresh did not want an armed conflict with ATF agents.
The Proof: The Davidians did not fire on them from 300 yards away.
The conclusion: The davidians had no intention of a conflict.
Rationale for dismissing Dissent: Every single person and componant of government is in on it and lying about it. ALL of them regardless of party. Including the Lawyer for the Davidians, who stood to gain millions. He is in on the conspiracy as well.

<--- not sure he wants to read about how exhausted Ixtellor got while researching Selma Hayak.

stekim · #18 (**permalink**) 11-14-2007, 08:06 AM

Quote:

I mean, the reason it "didn't work", as you say, is mainly because
the US economy is "slowing down" relative to the rest of the world,
or alternatively, the rest of the world is "speeding up" relative to
the US. Wouldn't that be the case?

No. The fundamental reason is that the amount of any hard asset is finite. Ignoring the fact that gold has no inherent value anyway, here's the fundamental problem in a nutshell: In order for an economy to grow over time you need an expanding base of capital. In other words, more money. You literally need to create more money. Expand the pie as they say. If you say $1 is backed by $1 in gold or shiny rocks or cardboard, in order to expand the economic base you need to find more gold, shiny rocks or cardboard so that more capital can enter the economy. This ends up being a problem as you run out of shiny rocks. So at first they simply said, "OK, so now each $1 is back by 50 cents of gold". Great. Print away. Then it was 25 cents. Then 5 cents. Then they scrapped it.

Truth-Bringer · #19 (**permalink**) 11-14-2007, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stekim";p=&quot

In order for an economy to grow over time you need an expanding base of capital.

Even if one concedes this point - the question remains: is government the only entity that can provide an expanding base of capital? The answer is "no."

Again, the root argument is about freedom. The government passes legal tender laws and then forces you, at gunpoint if necessary, to accept worthless paper as money. It eliminates freedom in the market place.

If the legal tender laws were repealed tomorrow, nobody with half a brain would use Federal Reserve Notes because they have no intrinsic value. They're absolutely worthless, except for the government's ability to force you to use them and accept them as money.

stekim · #20 (**permalink**) 11-14-2007, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Even if one concedes this point - the question remains: is government the only entity that can provide an expanding base of capital? The answer is "no."

Obviously. In America nearly all capital is created in the private sector. I know because I am one of the people who do it. The government isn't doing it, I am.

Quote:

Again, the root argument is about freedom. The government passes legal tender laws and then forces you, at gunpoint if necessary, to accept worthless paper as money.

That is factually incorrect. You can keep saying it, but it's still not true.

To boot: 31 U.S.C. § 5103.

The statute above makes all United States money valid and legal tender for payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins for payment for goods and/or services. Why you keep saying the opposite I simply don't know. But it's factually wrong. Sorry.

And, unlike your assertion, you can indeed print your own money. Entire towns do it, in fact:

http://www.reuters.com/article/domes...ype=RSS&rpc=22

From the article:

Quote:

U.S. law prevents states from issuing their own currency but allows private groups to print paper scrip, though not coins, said Lewis Solomon, a professor of law at George Washington University, who studies local currencies.

"As long as you don't turn out quarters and you don't turn out something that looks like the U.S. dollar, it's legal," Solomon said.

So there you have it. Not sure where you got the impression you couldn't.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode