All the media is covering - "Paul says he won't run as third-party candidate"

[RPfan]

I am amazed to notice how this has come up on front everywhere I see - yahoo.com (not right now- but little while ago), msnbc.com, etc - it almost looks orchestrated - as if McCain HQ or some GOP establishment wanted to make sure that Ron Paul doesn't break away!!

[Fields]

I'm sure the establishment is relieved to think he is trimming down. They just don't get that HQ had nothing to do with the amazing results. We did.

[Airborn]

I must say with the results we have had, even though not as good as we'd like, I feel little better about the future.

[ronpaulyourmom]

I don't know why you're surprised. For the media, the idea of a third-party run was always the big story for them. They never once thought he could be a real player in the GOP nomination, not once.

[VoteForRonPaul]

as if..........some GOP establishment wanted to make sure that Ron Paul doesn't break away!!
I hope that is true if it was coming out of love for him or out of knowledge that he is the only remaining hope for the restoration of the party!

[Energy]

I don't know why you're surprised. For the media, the idea of a third-party run was always the big story for them. They never once thought he could be a real player in the GOP nomination, not once.

I'm sure they knew he would be a real player/threat IF people heard about him and his message. In the beginning, why would someone like Huckabee be thought as a bigger player? Huck was a nobody until the media focused on him.

They knew RP was the biggest threat to the whole charade, so they marginalized and ignored him. Lumping him in a third-party conversation makes him look fridge and out-of-step; they probably were thinking a third-party would be the end of RP as they would just focus on what the masses are familiar with: Dems and Rep.

[blakjak]

The media been asking him this question since he entered the race and now they finally have a definitive answer. Of course they're going to report on it.

[thoughtbombing]

The media been asking him this question since he entered the race and now they finally have a definitive answer. Of course they're going to report on it.

He's answered the same every time. This is nothing new....

[pacelli]

The media been asking him this question since he entered the race and now they finally have a definitive answer. Of course they're going to report on it.

I hope they report it and spread it far and wide! Let them focus on trivial soap opera political drama while we do what needs to be done under their radar.

[TruthAtLast]

You mean Ron Paul's name was on the front page of Yahoo and MSNBC?!!!! Wooo Hooo! That's coverage baby!!!

:D

[morerocklesstalk]

I'm sure they knew he would be a real player/threat IF people heard about him and his message. In the beginning, why would someone like Huckabee be thought as a bigger player? Huck was a nobody until the media focused on him.

They knew RP was the biggest threat to the whole charade, so they marginalized and ignored him. Lumping him in a third-party conversation makes him look fridge and out-of-step; they probably were thinking a third-party would be the end of RP as they would just focus on what the masses are familiar with: Dems and Rep.

Huck rode the back of the biggest and most powerful religious sector.

McCain has a better chance at any national election than Huckabee. If anyone gets the Wall Street Journal, they had a great article on religious canidates and the fear they generate among the voting public.

[speciallyblend]

Ron wont run 3rd party ,should be followed with and the death of the republican party follows as the gop ignores ron paul:) now that sounds fine to me

[TruthAtLast]

Huck rode the back of the biggest and most powerful religious sector.

McCain has a better chance at any national election than Huckabee. If anyone gets the Wall Street Journal, they had a great article on religious canidates and the fear they generate among the voting public.

good point. though some would say that the only reason why G.Dub won was because of the religious vote of the Republican base. Many of the states that McCain has won were in blue states that he probably wouldn't win in a general election.

I'm not sure which way it would go. both Huck and McCain suck. haha

[morerocklesstalk]

good point. though some would say that the only reason why G.Dub won was because of the religious vote of the Republican base. Many of the states that McCain has won were in blue states that he probably wouldn't win in a general election.

I'm not sure which way it would go. both Huck and McCain suck. haha

I agree to a point.

They put Bush over the edge, the thing is Bush had the latino vote and Bush as well as the war in Iraq had a higher approval rating in 2004 than now. They also touted an emerging economy which has now been completely disproven.

McCain and Huck would both lose. When the Democrats get ahold of either canidate they can really expose them.

The Fair Tax sounds good in idea but it would probably create a giant black market of goods that would bypass the tax and get you cheaper electronics and such.

[TruthAtLast]

I agree to a point.

They put Bush over the edge, the thing is Bush had the latino vote and Bush as well as the war in Iraq had a higher approval rating in 2004 than now. They also touted an emerging economy which has now been completely disproven.

McCain and Huck would both lose. When the Democrats get ahold of either canidate they can really expose them.

The Fair Tax sounds good in idea but it would probably create a giant black market of goods that would bypass the tax and get you cheaper electronics and such.

I've done extensive research on the Fair Tax and though I like Ron Paul's idea of NO TAX better, the Fair Tax would still work better than an income tax.

I wont go into every single facet but rather focus solely on your issue of compliance.

Yes, there would be an incentive to cheat and not report national consumption but the incentive to evade income taxes is greater than would be the incentive to evade the FairTax simply due to the fact that people pay a higher percentage in taxes under the current system than under a consumption tax that closes the Tax Gap and forces more people (including illegals and tourists) to contribute.

A waitress who fails to collect FairTax on tips is also, presumably, not paying income taxes on those tips under the current system. Hence, under the current system, she’s not disclosing part of national income, but she is also not disclosing part of national consumption. So the net difference is the same.

But there are other reasons why compliance, while an issue, would be less of an issue than the current system.

First, the vast majority of retail sales occur in major retail outlets, like WalMart which already use a system of tax payment and verification.

Second, we’ll have vastly fewer taxpaying entities (14 million businesses rather than more than 100 million people) on which to focus enforcement efforts.

Third, we’ll have hundreds of thousands of otherwise unemployed IRS agents, accountants, and tax attorneys to enlist to enforce a single tax.

Fourth, we can always compel firms to report, via 1099-type forms, their sales to other firms. This provides accountability where business help police themselves.

Fifth, the government can stipulate that all retail sellers provide buyers with a written receipt, regardless of whether the transaction is or is not in cash, specifying that the FairTax has been paid. Thus if sellers don’t mail in the taxes, there will be a paper trail of the evasion. Sellers who try to bribe buyers to forgo receipts and split the FairTax among themselves run the risk of having the buyer turn them in.

Will there be perfect. Of course not. But there are 10 million people each year that never pay taxes and those taxes are never collected (the Tax Gap). This is made up for by having everyone else pay more. It is much easier to track and assure compliance on businesses than it is on 100+ million individuals, many of which may be illegal.

[Brian4Liberty]

I've done extensive research on the Fair Tax and though I like Ron Paul's idea of NO TAX better, the Fair Tax would still work better than an income tax.

What do you think of the Prebate portion of the "Fair Tax" proposal?