PDA

View Full Version : So, with no Income Tax..




Brian_Mattern
04-08-2008, 05:09 PM
well.. what happens?

Does the money that is usually taken out for taxes, become added to people's scheduled paychecks ??

Kade
04-08-2008, 05:15 PM
Tariffs and excise taxes...

Ron Paul suggests that this is possible with the budget from 2000.

You would see less taken from your checks.

RCA
04-08-2008, 05:20 PM
Well, it wouldn't be added to your paycheck, it already is part of your paycheck. The money would just get moved from the "fed" area to "your" area. So, yes, you would be able to take more home.

freedom-maniac
04-08-2008, 05:43 PM
Dr. Paul said in a radio ad he aired in MI, that if we returned to the budget of 1997, we could completely abolish the income tax and replace it with nothing. How? By cutting out military spending. That's what Bill Clinton did, and that's why he had a surplus during his administration.

Once again us Democrats, the so-called "Socialists" by you GOP'ers, have proved to be more libertarian than all but the Ron Paul faction of the Repbulican party.

Kade
04-08-2008, 05:45 PM
Dr. Paul said in a radio ad he aired in MI, that if we returned to the budget of 1997, we could completely abolish the income tax and replace it with nothing. How? By cutting out military spending. That's what Bill Clinton did, and that's why he had a surplus during his administration.

Once again us Democrats, the so-called "Socialists" by you GOP'ers, have proved to be more libertarian than all but the Ron Paul faction of the Repbulican party.

Good, I'm not the only living liberal left here.

Jeremy
04-08-2008, 05:46 PM
Dr. Paul said in a radio ad he aired in MI, that if we returned to the budget of 1997, we could completely abolish the income tax and replace it with nothing. How? By cutting out military spending. That's what Bill Clinton did, and that's why he had a surplus during his administration.

Once again us Democrats, the so-called "Socialists" by you GOP'ers, have proved to be more libertarian than all but the Ron Paul faction of the Repbulican party.

Wow.... um no. Bill Clinton policed the world too... that helped Bush get elected because he said he wouldn't do it.

Kade
04-08-2008, 05:47 PM
Here they come... chirp...chirp..chirp.

Jeremy
04-08-2008, 05:48 PM
Here they come... chirp...chirp..chirp.

What?

Brian_Mattern
04-08-2008, 05:50 PM
Wow.... um no. Bill Clinton policed the world too... that helped Bush get elected because he said he wouldn't do it.

Bill Clinton did have a surplus, because America was not as Militaristically Engaged as the Bush Administration Before him.

Nothing was said about the Clinton's credibility.
Most of us know it's shite credibility, and skull & bones nonsense.

freedom-maniac
04-08-2008, 05:51 PM
Wow.... um no. Bill Clinton policed the world too... that helped Bush get elected because he said he wouldn't do it.

Yes, Clinton wasn't perfect...but compared to the previous administrations, he was amazing. He didn't remove all of our bases from around the world like Dr. Paul will, but he still cut down on military spending. He didn't completely abolish welfare, but he reformed it, and made it less wasteful.

And besides, he policing of the world was more to stop genocide instead of starting it like Bush.

Anyways, I'm not saying Bubba was great or anything (his wife is a Commie), but compared to Dole, and the Bushes, he's probably more conservative when you get right down to it.

Jeremy
04-08-2008, 05:52 PM
I'm not defending Bush, I'm defending the party (before Bush). Why? Because the democrats let us in WWI, WWII, Korean War, Vietnam War, and much more.


Yes, Clinton wasn't perfect...but compared to the previous administrations, he was amazing. He didn't remove all of our bases from around the world like Dr. Paul will, but he still cut down on military spending. He didn't completely abolish welfare, but he reformed it, and made it less wasteful.

And besides, he policing of the world was more to stop genocide instead of starting it like Bush.

Anyways, I'm not saying Bubba was great or anything (his wife is a Commie), but compared to Dole, and the Bushes, he's probably more conservative when you get right down to it.

That's not what you said. Why would you ever defend a party over another? We are talking about one Republican. When it comes to not policing the world, Republicans win.

Lovecraftian4Paul
04-08-2008, 05:54 PM
Yeah, I do have to admit Clinton racked up less debt purely because his world policing wasn't as extreme as the current regime. On the other hand, Clinton's out of control wars were getting very very dangerous. His little foray into Kosovo with NATO nearly put us into a head-to-head stand off with Russia, who sent in their own troops ahead of the international police forces.

freedom-maniac
04-08-2008, 05:55 PM
Bill Clinton did have a surplus, because America was not as Militaristically Engaged as the Bush Administration Before him.

Nothing was said about the Clinton's credibility.
Most of us know it's shite credibility, and skull & bones nonsense.

Of course. ButIraq had as many weapons of mass destruction during his administration as they did during Bush's.

And unlike Bush, Clinton was actually trying to catch bin Laden (granted most of it was as a press distraction from the Lewinski scandal). Bush talks about Texas justice, but really spent more time going after Saddam than he ever did bin Laden.

Of course in all fairness, Clinton spent more time going after Bill Gates for his computer monopoly than he ever did bin Laden. Like I said, he's not great, but he's better than anyone else that's been president in my lifetime.

freedom-maniac
04-08-2008, 06:01 PM
I'm not defending Bush, I'm defending the party (before Bush). Why? Because the democrats let us in WWI, WWII, Korean War, Vietnam War, and much more
That's not what you said. Why would you ever defend a party over another? We are talking about one Republican. When it comes to not policing the world, Republicans win.

*cough* Iran-Contra*cough*Iraq I*cough*Iraq II*cough...Iran?

freedom-maniac
04-08-2008, 06:02 PM
I'm not defending Bush, I'm defending the party (before Bush). Why? Because the democrats let us in WWI, WWII, Korean War, Vietnam War, and much more.

I grant you all this. But Dr. Paul says action during WWII was justified. During WWI the German's were conspiring with Mexico to take over the U.S., and Mexico got the South West back in return. Woodrow Wilson had tried for a long time to keep peace with Germany (he campaigned on the slogan "He Kept Us Out of War"), but when a nation is directly conspiring to overthrow your country while in the midst of an undeclared naval war against you, I believe military action is justified.

As for Korea and Vietnam, I can make no amends. However, Eisenhower had a military presence in Vietnam before the war started. JFK tried to end it but, one magic bullet later Johnson's in, and escalates the war. Johnson was a Democrat, but he's really no different than McCain.