Ron Paul and Murray Sabrin are Split on Steve Lonegan for NJ Governor

[Knightskye]

This is an e-mail I got from Dr. Paul a couple minutes ago:


Dear Friend,

Steve Lonegan is strong advocate of free markets. I was very impressed by his record of budget restraint as Mayor of Bogota, NJ. He has been a vocal critic of runaway spending and taxpayer funded bailouts, and he understands that we must reject the nanny state and return government to its proper, restrained role. Sending Steve Lonegan to Trenton would be a tremendous victory for the people of New Jersey.

That is why I am supporting Steve Lonegan for New Jersey Governor. Steve is fighting hard in a difficult race, and he needs your help to win. Please support Steve in any way you feel appropriate. You can visit his website, Lonegan.com, to donate, volunteer or receive more information.

At this time when big government forces are grabbing more and more power, we must come together and unite behind principled free market leaders like Steve Lonegan. Please join me in supporting Steve in any way you can and, most importantly, please make sure you get the polls and vote for him on June 2nd.

This is from an article Murray Sabrin wrote:


However, for the lowest income earners in the state, their taxes would more than double initially under Lonegan's proposal and their tax rate would still be higher (2.1%) than they are now after Lonegan's tax plan is fully implemented. That's the really bad news, both economically and politically.

http://www.politickernj.com/murraysabrin/29435/lonegan-flat-tax-plan-doa

I planned on voting for Kenneth Kaplan, the LP nominee, but what do you guys think?

[TaylnStorm]

Steve is going to raise taxes on a lot of people and endorsed Murray's opponent in the NJ Senate race last year. Murray also endorsed a State Senate Candidate that spoke at Ron Paul's rally in Philadelphia last year - posted below:


May 10, 2009

Dear Friends,

I have a very good friend in New Jersey who needs your help in his campaign for New Jersey State Senate. His name is Mike Doherty.

Assemblyman Mike Doherty has been a supporter of mine and an advocate for a sound monetary policy since he was first elected to the New Jersey State Legislature eight years ago.

Mike Doherty understands the structural problems facing our economy and the institutional corruption in our system of governance. Almost alone in the New Jersey Legislature, Mike has spoken out on these issues and has challenged attempts by government bureaucrats to usurp individual freedoms and liberty.

Mike Doherty was the only member of the New Jersey Legislature to endorse Ron Paul’s campaign for President in 2008. Mike is more than a Republican, more than a conservative – he’s a conservative who gets it!

Mike Doherty currently serves in the lower house of the State Legislature – the New Jersey General Assembly – and he’s looking to move up to the State Senate in the June 2nd Republican primary. He faces intense opposition from the liberal Republican establishment, which is supporting a candidate who has voted to increase spending and debt.

Mike Doherty is a West Point graduate who served in the United States Army for eight years. He earned a law degree from Seton Hall and is the owner of a patent law firm that he founded. He and his wife, Linda, are the proud parents of three sons serving on active duty in the United States military. Their oldest son, Matthew, is serving in the United States Army. Their second son, Ryan, is serving in the United States Marine Corps and recently returned from Iraq. Their youngest son, Jared, is stationed in South Korea with the United States Air Force. Mike happily notes that all of his sons supported Ron Paul for President in 2008.

As a member of the State Legislature, Mike Doherty has voted NO on taxes 103 times. Each time there has been a tax vote, Mike Doherty has said NO. He has also opposed all new state debt. Mike was the prime sponsor of an Amendment to the New Jersey Constitution that was adopted last year, which stops the state from borrowing money without first obtaining voter approval.

In 2007, Mike Doherty worked to defeat two ballot questions pushed by liberal Governor Jon Corzine – one that raised the sales tax and the other that would have put New Jersey further in debt. In a victory for taxpayers, both ballot questions were defeated.

Before being elected to the state legislature, Mike Doherty served as an elected member of the Board of Chosen Freeholders – the county legislature. In just three years as a Freeholder, he cut county property taxes by 21 percent while reducing county debt by $10 million. As a result of his efforts, his home county now has the lowest debt of any county in New Jersey. And when a judge threatened to send Mike to jail if did not increase county spending and debt, Mike Doherty had the courage to stand up for taxpayers and against judicial activism, saving the taxpayers over $5 million.

Like yours truly, the political establishment, government bureaucrats, and lobbyists who run New Jersey are no fans of Mike Doherty. That’s why I’m writing to you. I need your help so that Mike Doherty can continue to be a strong voice for freedom and liberty in the New Jersey State Legislature.

Please make a contribution today to Mike’s campaign. You can make an on-line contribution to his campaign by visiting his website, www.mikedohertynj.com, or you can send a contribution via mail to Doherty for Senate Committee, 5 Mountain Ridge Drive, Oxford, NJ 07863. Please make all checks payable to: Doherty for Senate Committee.

Lobbyists are writing big checks to his opponent, but we can match that with a lot of little checks and contributions from citizens like you. There are a lot more citizens than lobbyists. If we stick together, we can beat the political establishment.

A contribution of just $25 dollars will provide Mike with the means to reach 48 households with our message. When you make your contribution, please include your e-mail address so that we can keep you up-to-date on what his campaign is doing.

Thank you for helping my good friend, Mike Doherty, a strong defender of freedom, liberty, and the Constitution.

Sincerely,


Murray Sabrin

[Knightskye]

Bump.

Who do we believe? :D

[literatim]

I don't know anything about either.

[jmlfod87]

Steve is going to raise taxes on a lot of people

Steve is advocating a FLAT TAX, which means everyone pays the SAME taxes, as opposed to a PROGRESSIVE tax, which forces wealthier individuals to pay highe rtaxes.

Steve's tax plan would be the largest tax cuts in New Jersey history. Will some people pay more? Yes, people currently not paying any taxes will have to pay more, but that is just to make things fair and FLAT for everyone. These tax cuts will stimulate the economy so much the poor people that will have to pay slightly more wont even notice.

[Valli6]

(From PolitickerNJ http://www.politickernj.com/matt-friedman/29796/ron-paul-endorses-doherty

"Ron Paul, who endorsed Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Lonegan today, also urged his New Jersey supporters to vote for Assemblyman Mike Doherty (R-Oxford) for state Senate.

Doherty was the only member of the New Jersey legislature (and perhaps the only elected official in the state) to endorse Paul for president. Doherty is now running against incumbent Marcia Karrow (R-Raritan Twp), who beat Doherty in a special convention to succeed U.S. Rep. Leonard Lance in the state Senate, on Lonegan’s slate.

Paul praised Doherty for frequently voting against new taxes in the legislature.

It's tough to remain independent and maintain an honest assessment of what's going on in the world. Mike Doherty does not have a fan club among the politicians, government bureaucrats, and lobbyists who run New Jersey,” wrote Paul."

[dr. hfn]

Kenneth Kaplan FTW!

[t0rnado]

Kaplan is the true libertarian candidate. He wants to eliminate the state income tax completely, phase out several departments, remove zoning ordinances, legalize marijuana, among other things.

If you're a member of the GOP, then you should vote for Lonegan in the primary, and vote for Kaplan in the general election.

[rockandrollsouls]

This is an e-mail I got from Dr. Paul a couple minutes ago:



This is from an article Murray Sabrin wrote:



http://www.politickernj.com/murraysabrin/29435/lonegan-flat-tax-plan-doa

I planned on voting for Kenneth Kaplan, the LP nominee, but what do you guys think?

It's evident the former are not Ron's words....probably written by Benton or someone else (who is not a stranger to writing in Ron's name....)

I'm voting for Kenny Kaplan. He is the only principled person in the race and we should promote the living daylights out of him.

[rockandrollsouls]

Kaplan is the true libertarian candidate. He wants to eliminate the state income tax completely, phase out several departments, remove zoning ordinances, legalize marijuana, among other things.

If you're a member of the GOP, then you should vote for Lonegan in the primary, and vote for Kaplan in the general election.

+1 for this. We should start making calls for Kaplan.

[t0rnado]

The LP needs to make Kaplan a website because I had to go through a bunch of articles to find even a modicum of info about him.

[torchbearer]

The LP needs to make Kaplan a website because I had to go through a bunch of articles to find even a modicum of info about him.

I'm surprised you found anything about the LP candidate. The media usually only puts the LP candidate as an "also running" at the end of other candidate's articles.

[Knightskye]

Steve is advocating a FLAT TAX, which means everyone pays the SAME taxes, as opposed to a PROGRESSIVE tax, which forces wealthier individuals to pay highe rtaxes.

Steve's tax plan would be the largest tax cuts in New Jersey history. Will some people pay more? Yes, people currently not paying any taxes will have to pay more, but that is just to make things fair and FLAT for everyone. These tax cuts will stimulate the economy so much the poor people that will have to pay slightly more wont even notice.

Sabrin said Lonegan's plan would be a tax increase on people in the 1.4% bracket.


Current income tax rates in New Jersey start at 1.4% and rise to 8.97%.
http://www.politickernj.com/murraysabrin/29435/lonegan-flat-tax-plan-doa

How about everyone pays 1.4%, so we don't increase anyone's taxes?

[Epic]

Lonegan is much preferable to Christie - Sabrin just doesn't like Lonegan on a personal level.

As for the flat tax hurting some of the poorer people, it's just not true. The tax decreases on the higher earners will generally help the economy and the job producers and hence more/higher paying jobs will be available.

[Knightskye]

As for the flat tax hurting some of the poorer people, it's just not true.

But it does raise their taxes.

[Imperial]

The flat tax is good only if the actual tax is low- otherwise, it becomes to discriminatory by placing a high initial tax bar.

[TaylnStorm]

http://www.politickernj.com/murraysabrin/29805/case-against-lonegan


The case against Lonegan
By Murray Sabrin

Last Friday, May 15th, would have been my father's 95th birthday. During World War II Abraham Sabrin was a partisan commander in his native Poland where he led 231 men and women in combat against the Nazis. He and his comrades-in-arms were finally liberated by the Russians in July 1944. After the war my parents decided to immigrate to America, and on August 6, 1949 our family arrived in New York in order to live a free and peaceful society.

Dad provided invaluable advice while I was growing up in Manhattan and the Bronx: "Get an education; there is a right way and wrong way...always go the right way." And when I told him, in 1997, I was running for governor, Dad did not hesitate to offer this gem: "Remember, politics is dirty." Although Dad did not have a Ph.D. in political science, he understood human nature and American politics very, very well.

After the 1997 election, I was urged by members of the Republican Liberty Caucus at their annual meeting to rejoin the Republican Party and seek the GOP U.S. Senate nomination in 2000. For more than two decades I had been a political independent.

Since 1969 I have been an unapologetic advocate of free markets and limited government, a position I thought Republicans believed in unequivocally, only to be disappointed by Nixon, Ford and occasionally Reagan, who deviated from free market principles during his presidency. And both Bush presidencies were more than disappointments. They were outright disasters.

In seeking the U.S. Senate nomination in 2000, I knew there were several elected officials in New Jersey who had expressed strong free market ideas and therefore would rally around my candidacy. I was wrong. Jersey City mayor Bret Schundler supported Jim Treffinger, who was later convicted and served time for illegal activities as Essex County Executive, and Steve Lonegan, the mayor of Bogota, endorsed former congressman Bob Franks.

(For the record, Bret did write a letter supporting my U.S. Senate campaign last year.)

After Bob won the U. S. Senate nomination I supported him enthusiastically. And when Bret ran for governor in 2001 I supported him wholeheartedly, even though he did not support me a year earlier. And when Steve Lonegan ran for governor in 2005 I supported him unequivocally and donated $1,500 to his campaign, making me one of his top contributors, even though he did not support me in 2000.

When Steve Lonegan was appointed executive director of Americans for Prosperity's New Jersey chapter he asked me to participate in a couple of town hall meetings to discuss the state's economy. I did not hesitate.

In December 2007 I invited Steve and several other analysts from around the state to participate at the annual Business and Financial Outlook Roundtable I moderate at Ramapo College. It was a lively discussion of the state's economy and the policies that would get New Jersey on the right track, and it gave Steve an opportunity to speak before my colleagues and scores of students.

After I announced I was seeking the GOP U.S. Senate nomination in January 2008 I called Steve and asked for his support and endorsement. He said he would not make an endorsement because of his involvement with Americans for Prosperity.

Steve told me during our chat he had met with Joe Pennacchio, who announced his candidacy for the U.S. Senate in 2007 while he was also running for the state senate. Political gluttony has no bounds in New Jersey. In our conversation Steve told me Joe supports SCHIP, the joint federal state program to subsidize health insurance for low income families. Joe also was touting "energy independence," one of the worst anti-free market programs ever conceived. Steve said "Jersey Joe" is a "liberal."

Joe didn't disappoint during the primary campaign last year. For example, during one of many candidate forums last spring, I criticized Joe's call for energy independence, he then said, "There goes Murray again calling for the free market." With Republicans like Joe Pennacchio who needs Democrats?

After Steve finally agreed to speak-but not endorse me--at a fundraiser for my campaign at the home of one of his major supporters, he pulled out of the event at the last minute. Apparently, Steve was advised to distance himself from my candidacy because I opposed the Bush-Cheney policy of preemptive war and was a vocal critic of their destructive foreign policies.

So instead of staying neutral in the U.S. Senate race Steve Lonegan planted a political French kiss on Joe Pennacchio and endorsed him, a big government Republican who disparages the free market and touts welfarism and government boondoggles, even though he said he would not endorse a candidate.

In the spring of 2008 did "free market" Steve Lonegan become a big government Republican because he did endorse the big government Republican candidate in the U.S. Senate primary? If Steve Lonegan still believed in free markets last year why did he support and make robo-calls for the one candidate he called a liberal months earlier? And how did Lonegan's support for Joe Pennacchio advance the free market movement? And why did Lonegan make any endorsement if as he claimed his work for AFP precluded him from supporting anyone?

Moreover, why didn't "free market" Steve Lonegan support the greatest defender of free markets who ever ran for president, Ron Paul? The answer is simple; Steve Lonegan is a Steve Lonegan Republican. Steve will do what he believes is in his political interests to advance his political career. In fact, although Ron Paul endorsed Steve Lonegan last week and sent an email to his New Jersey supporters asking them to contribute to the Lonegan campaign, Ron's endorsement is nowhere to be found on http://www.lonegan.com/.

And Art Laffer, the guru of supply side economics, endorsed Lonegan's tax plan last week. We should take Laffer's economic "expertise" with a grain of salt. In a famous confrontation with Peter Schiff several years ago, Laffer said the economy was in great shape, there was no housing bubble, there would be no recession, etc. In short, Laffer was 100% wrong about the U.S. economy.

A further analysis of Lonegan's 2.9% flat tax plan reveals that it will raise taxes on approximately 90% of New Jerseyans. All you have to do is examine the Treasury report (page 8) on the state income tax for the latest available year. Lonegan's 2.9% flat tax would become the effective tax rate on personal incomes, and the rate would then decline over the next two years.

Currently, the effective tax rate for taxpayers under the state's progressive income tax structure is 2.7% on incomes up to $150,000. Thus, inasmuch as Lonegan's flat tax applies to all incomes without deductions or exemptions, taxes would increase substantially for most taxpayers. Only upper income families and the very wealthy get a tax cut under Lonegan's plan.

In addition, retirees with incomes below $100,000 would presumably see their $20,000 exclusion eliminated under the Lonegan flat tax, raising their income taxes by as much $600. In sum, Lonegan's tax plan is similar to the Hoover/FDR tax policies of the 1930s, hiking taxes during an economic downturn. Their tax policies, among other anti-free market program, caused the economic correction to develop into a decade long depression.

All New Jerseyans need income tax relief, not just the top 10% of income earners.

Lonegan's current TV ad criticizes the progressive income tax. However, if a candidate proposes a steep progressive income tax, say from .1% to 2%, would Lonegan oppose it because the top rate is 20 times greater than the lowest rate? But clearly these rates are much lower than what Lonegan is now touting as the panacea to New Jersey's economic ills, even though they are very progressive. In short, Lonegan's plan sounds appealing, but in reality is a tax hike for virtually all New Jerseyans.

As Noah Webster said: "In selecting men for office, let principle be your guide. Regard not the particular sect or denomination of the candidate--look to his character...."

Steve Lonegan has shown little character in the past year, and as my late father would say, "He is not a mensch." In addition, his personal income tax plan raises taxes for all low and middle income families. That's why I am not supporting Steve Lonegan for governor. Instead, I have endorsed Chris Christie for governor who I will work with to restore limited government in Trenton.

[Epic]

Sounds like Lonegan is a dick but he has a great record at limiting government spending.

[Epic]

The flat tax is good only if the actual tax is low- otherwise, it becomes to discriminatory by placing a high initial tax bar.

A flat tax is inherently non-discriminatory. It's still coercive because taxation is theft, but it's non-discriminatory.

[Knightskye]

A flat tax is inherently non-discriminatory. It's still coercive because taxation is theft, but it's non-discriminatory.

But it should still be a low rate.

[rockandrollsouls]

Sounds like Lonegan is a dick but he has a great record at limiting government spending.

No, he didn't. Don't know where you heard that....

Kenny Kaplan is the only good choice.

[jt8025]

Since the election is June 2, is there any reason to donate money at this point? Could it actually be used in time?

[jmlfod87]

No, he didn't. Don't know where you heard that....

Kenny Kaplan is the only good choice.


he heard that from Ron Paul, who endorsed Lonegan. Lonegan kept government spending below the inflation rate when he was Mayor of Bogota, and well under the state average.

[rockandrollsouls]

he heard that from Ron Paul, who endorsed Lonegan. Lonegan kept government spending below the inflation rate when he was Mayor of Bogota, and well under the state average.

Perhaps you should consider doing some research. Just because he spent slightly less than the spending hogs in NJ does not mean he is a conservative nor does it mean he is a good choice for governor.

[jmlfod87]

perhaps you should consider doing some research. He has spent his much of his political career to fighting ballot questions that would increase spending, fighting McGreevey's gasoline tax hike, and Corzine toll tax hike. Just because he isn't perfect doesn't mean he wont be an improvement for NJ. Kaplan can't win, wont break 5% of the vote, and wont even be heard from. Lonegan is an articulate advocate of fisccal conservatism. Every time I've seen him speak he has sounded just like ron Paul. He has been critical of the Federal Reserve and supports going back to the gold standard.

Just because you have made friends with the LP doesn't mean they are the only ones who produce viable candidates in NJ. The LP has done nothing for NJ, and will not be able to do anything for NJ until campaign finance law is drastically reformed. That is why Ron Paul and many others suggest working inside the GOP. Breaking through the GOP is the only way we can disrupt the two party system and elect truly principled liberty candidates to public office.

Have fun pushing Kaplan though, too bad he couldn't get RP's endorsement.

[rockandrollsouls]

perhaps you should consider doing some research. He has spent his much of his political career to fighting ballot questions that would increase spending, fighting McGreevey's gasoline tax hike, and Corzine toll tax hike. Just because he isn't perfect doesn't mean he wont be an improvement for NJ. Kaplan can't win, wont break 5% of the vote, and wont even be heard from. Lonegan is an articulate advocate of fisccal conservatism. Every time I've seen him speak he has sounded just like ron Paul. He has been critical of the Federal Reserve and supports going back to the gold standard.

Just because you have made friends with the LP doesn't mean they are the only ones who produce viable candidates in NJ. The LP has done nothing for NJ, and will not be able to do anything for NJ until campaign finance law is drastically reformed. That is why Ron Paul and many others suggest working inside the GOP. Breaking through the GOP is the only way we can disrupt the two party system and elect truly principled liberty candidates to public office.

Have fun pushing Kaplan though, too bad he couldn't get RP's endorsement.

Perhaps you should consider living in NJ, or close to or IN his township. You might say he's not "perfect" but it's a different story when that's YOUR money he's not being perfect with. YOUR money he's spending. YOUR money he's being reckless with. YOU might be okay with a candidate that is half-ass but chances are you haven't lived with it already. So what's your idea of improvement? Raising taxes on the majority of individuals in the state? Funneling money to a flawed public education system? How about we vote for someone that completely abolishes the income tax. Oh, wait. You won't even campaign for such an individual; and individual that will truly do away with all the nonsense of excessive taxation, zoning ordinances, and a bunch of other laws that stifle personal freedom and choice. You, sir, are directly attempting to put my personal freedom and liberty in a chokehold.

I'm all for breaking through the GOP; but not with someone that funnels money to a flawed education system and raises taxes on most individuals. I'm for getting a REAL conservative in the GOP...not a pseudo one.

I will have fun pushing or Kaplan because it's better for MY money and MY personal freedom.

Ron Paul couldn't win last election cycle so I take it you compromised principle and voted for someone that could have won. The argument is bullshit and it holds up even less at the state level. You come to NJ and live with a half-assed governor. It's terrible, and I'll be voting for someone that finally puts an end to the BS, rather than perpetuating it with a compromise candidate like Lonegan.

[jmlfod87]

Perhaps you should consider living in NJ, or close to or IN his township. You might say he's not "perfect" but it's a different story when that's YOUR money he's not being perfect with. YOUR money he's spending. YOUR money he's being reckless with. YOU might be okay with a candidate that is half-ass but chances are you haven't lived with it already.

I live in the same state as you do, in probably a far more liberal community. Our politicians waste money all the time. I simply rather have someone in office who is willing to waste less, even if he will waste.



I'm all for breaking through the GOP; but not with someone that funnels money to a flawed education system and raises taxes on most individuals. I'm for getting a REAL conservative in the GOP...not a pseudo one.

The only tax policy more conservative than a flat tax is no tax. Seems like you're drinking Christie's kool-aid. His flat tax proposal would be the largest tax cut in NJ history.


I will have fun pushing or Kaplan because it's better for MY money and MY personal freedom.

Ron Paul couldn't win last election cycle so I take it you compromised principle and voted for someone that could have won. The argument is bullshit and it holds up even less at the state level. You come to NJ and live with a half-assed governor. It's terrible, and I'll be voting for someone that finally puts an end to the BS, rather than perpetuating it with a compromise candidate like Lonegan.

1. Its not better for your money because no one is going to hear his message.

2. Ron Paul was able to get into the debates and get his message out. Kaplan wont get into the debates or get his message out. Just like Scheuer wasn't able to. http://www.njlp.org/news/partynews/candidates/23-news-12-nj-refuses-to-allow-libertarian-jason-scheurer-in-debate

Every candidate compromises somehwere. Paul compromises on abortion and immigration, but considering you're on these forums you aren't against him. The best candidate is the one who makes few compromises but also has a good chance of winning and spreading the message. Kaplan might be principled, but Lonegan's ability to catch interest far outweighs Kaplan's merits.

[jmlfod87]

Renowned Economist Peter Schiff Endorses Lonegan Tax Cut Plan

Trenton, NJ – Conservative Republican Gubernatorial Candidate Steve Lonegan was in the State House today where he received another major endorsement for his tax cut plan. Conservative economist Peter Schiff said that he wholeheartedly endorses Lonegan’s plan to cut taxes and revitalize New Jersey’s economy.

“This is a battleground state for free market principles,” Schiff said. “The smaller the government the more vibrant the free market. New Jersey can’t keep doing the same thing and expect a different result. Why send a Republican to office if he’s just going to keep the status quo? Someone has to turn the tide and Steve Lonegan can do that.”

Peter Schiff is the President of brokerage firm Euro Pacific Capitol Inc., author and regular economic commentator on news networks such as CNN, CNBC and Fox News. He is also widely known as a n outspoken expert on the power of the free market.

“The most important thing that New Jersey can do is become a competitive state with a broader tax base and more jobs, “Schiff said in the press conference. “Lonegan’s plan for New Jersey will lower taxes for people, not just now, but in the future. Lonegan’s tax plan incentifies people to keep working hard. The harder you work the less tax you will have to pay in the future.”

Schiff also added that eliminating the business tax is a key component to the Lonegan Plan. “Ending the tax on businesses will make New Jersey competitive again, keeping businesses in the state and attracting new companies will benefit everyone,” Schiff said. “A lower tax environment is where businesses will grow. There will be no employment opportunities if taxes keep rising and businesses leave.”

Lonegan's tax cut pla n will reduce income tax rates for single filers making over $35,000 a year and couples over $70,000 a year. Coupled with property tax reductions from overturning the Abbott decision, more than 75% of all taxpayers will pay less to the government under the Lonegan tax cut plan.

"My proposed $2.7 Billion tax cut will, once implemented, be the biggest tax cut in New Jersey history and will lead to real sustainable economic growth," Lonegan said. That just doesn't happen when government bureaucrats are trying to micromanage the economy as Obama and Corzine are doing and Christie proposes to do," Lonegan added. "My tax cut plan gets government out of the way, and let's the market do it's thing."

[rockandrollsouls]

I live in the same state as you do, in probably a far more liberal community. Our politicians waste money all the time. I simply rather have someone in office who is willing to waste less, even if he will waste.


The only tax policy more conservative than a flat tax is no tax. Seems like you're drinking Christie's kool-aid. His flat tax proposal would be the largest tax cut in NJ history.



1. Its not better for your money because no one is going to hear his message.

2. Ron Paul was able to get into the debates and get his message out. Kaplan wont get into the debates or get his message out. Just like Scheuer wasn't able to. http://www.njlp.org/news/partynews/candidates/23-news-12-nj-refuses-to-allow-libertarian-jason-scheurer-in-debate

Every candidate compromises somehwere. Paul compromises on abortion and immigration, but considering you're on these forums you aren't against him. The best candidate is the one who makes few compromises but also has a good chance of winning and spreading the message. Kaplan might be principled, but Lonegan's ability to catch interest far outweighs Kaplan's merits.

No, I think Christie is a scumbag.

His is the largest tax cut in the wrong sense of the word. You can't cut taxes on the wealthy and raise them on the little guy. If you cut taxes, cut them for everyone. Kaplan does this and his proposal would be the largest tax cut in the history of the state and it would be a cut for EVERYONE. That's a REAL tax cut.

And, I'm aware that Schiff is backing Lonegan. However, and I did watch his speech, he did admit that it WOULD be a tax hike on some individuals and justified it as a necessary evil to reach and end result. That doesn't fly with me and I think he's wrong there. You don't raise taxes to make them lower.

And, the notion that this is the best thing we've got is ludicrous. If actually raising taxes on the bulk of individuals is the best we can do with this GOP candidate, we need new GOP candidates. And, I'll actually have my taxes lowered significantly....but I comprehend basic economics. Lonegan's plan is not a good idea, Kaplan has the best plan, and we should be rallying behind Kaplan.

Guess what happens when Lonegan gets voted in and people realize they are actually having their taxes raised? They don't care what the "long term" goal is. They want their money. The end result? More flak to the GOP name, free market policies dubbed ineffective, and we'll get someone far more liberal after he's voted out of office. It's easy to see, so why not just prevent it and vote in a man with a real plan?

[Knightskye]

perhaps you should consider doing some research. He has spent his much of his political career to fighting ballot questions that would increase spending, fighting McGreevey's gasoline tax hike, and Corzine toll tax hike. Just because he isn't perfect doesn't mean he wont be an improvement for NJ. Kaplan can't win, wont break 5% of the vote, and wont even be heard from. Lonegan is an articulate advocate of fisccal conservatism. Every time I've seen him speak he has sounded just like ron Paul. He has been critical of the Federal Reserve and supports going back to the gold standard.


Have fun pushing Kaplan though, too bad he couldn't get RP's endorsement.

I like how most of your argument is bashing the Libertarian Party, and the chance of a third party of winning an election. Jason Scheurer didn't get Paul's endorsement either. That doesn't mean he wasn't worth voting for.


more than 75% of all taxpayers will pay less to the government under the Lonegan tax cut plan.

Who are the 25% who will see a tax increase?

[jmlfod87]

I like how most of your argument is bashing the Libertarian Party, and the chance of a third party of winning an election. Jason Scheurer didn't get Paul's endorsement either. That doesn't mean he wasn't worth voting for.



Who are the 25% who will see a tax increase?

yea, voting for a third party is a waste of time. The LP is a useless GOP-lite party. I voted for Scheurer, but not because I thought it would make a differnece. When there is a GOP candidate available thats worth supporting you support them, and not the LP just because they are "more principled". You have to weigh the odds with principles. Thats why we support RP here, despite hiim being a Republican.
If an LP candidate ran in his district in 2010, would you support RP or the LP? My point exactly.

Lonegan just showed up today at the Christie HQ for a press release denouncing Christie-Karrow attacks on Mike Doherty, who supported Ron Paul last year.

http://www.lonegan.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=22400&mname=Article&rpid=5955


PARSIPPANY -- Speaking in front of Christie Campaign Headquarters in Parsippany, Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Lonegan called on opponent Chris Christie - as well as Christie's campaign chairman and co-chairman - to distance themselves from a direct mailer and robo-call that attacks the patriotism of a fellow Republican.

Conservative Assemblyman Mike Doherty is challenging Marcia Karrow for the 23rd District State Senate seat in New Jersey. Doherty is running with Steve Lonegan. Karrow is on Chris Christie's ticket.

The Christie-Karrow ticket chose Memorial Day weekend to put out a mail piece that accused Mike Doherty of supporting "Surrender in Iraq". Yesterday, a recorded telephone message was sent to households telling voters that Mike Doherty supports "Surrender in Iraq".

Mike Doherty is a West Point graduate who served for eight years in the United States Army. Mike and his wife, Linda, have three grown sons in military service. Their son Ryan just returned from a tour of duty in Iraq with the United States Marine Corps. Their son Matt is set to be deployed to Iraq with the United States Army. Their son Jared is stationed on remote duty in South Korea with the U.S. Air Force.

"There isn't a single Republican official in all New Jersey with more at stake when it comes to the defense of America," Lonegan said.

The author of this attack on an American veteran is Chris Christie's political consultant, Jamestown Associates. Christie campaign chairman Joe Kyrillos and co-chairman Tom Kean Jr. are Karrow's top supporters.

Neither Mr. Christie or Senator Kean or Senator Kyrillos have ever served in the United States military. Karrow has not served.

"These people are shameless," Lonegan said. "They have no right to question the patriotism of Mike Doherty or his family."

"Today I'm asking Chris Christie, his campaign chairman, and co-chairman to speak up about this outrage and distance themselves both from Marcia Karrow and her consultants immediately," Lonegan added. "It's one thing to see Barack Obama, Jon Corzine and their leftist allies attacking our military. It's another thing to see someone who claims to be a Republican say the same thing."

"Mike Doherty is an Army veteran with three sons serving in harm's way," Lonegan pointed out. "Marcia Karrow's attacks on Mike Doherty's patriotism, as well as his three sons, are just about the lowest thing I've seen in politics in a long, long time. It's just another reason why Republicans need to sweep out-of-power the Christie-Karrow liberals who have made us the minority party and led us to defeat. They're just more of the same."

"It's time for a change, time for a conservative change, and I look forward to working with Senator Mike Doherty to take our state back from the kind of people who engage in these smears. Republicans shouldn't question the patriotism of veterans who have served and who have family members serving. It mocks the work they do to protect the freedoms all of us enjoy. The integrity of the entire Republican party is at stake with this disturbing attack on a military family."


And this is the Christie-Karrow attack ad: http://www.lonegan.com/Domains/lonegan/UserImages/karrow_neg_ad_front600.jpg

Lonegan took a huge stand in defending Doherty who has been labeled as a "radical Ron paul supporter" and someone who advocates "surrendering in Iraq". He still isn't worthy of your support I presume.

[TER]

Bump for Lonegan

[rockandrollsouls]

yea, voting for a third party is a waste of time. The LP is a useless GOP-lite party. I voted for Scheurer, but not because I thought it would make a differnece. When there is a GOP candidate available thats worth supporting you support them, and not the LP just because they are "more principled". You have to weigh the odds with principles. Thats why we support RP here, despite hiim being a Republican.
If an LP candidate ran in his district in 2010, would you support RP or the LP? My point exactly.

Lonegan just showed up today at the Christie HQ for a press release denouncing Christie-Karrow attacks on Mike Doherty, who supported Ron Paul last year.

http://www.lonegan.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=22400&mname=Article&rpid=5955



And this is the Christie-Karrow attack ad: http://www.lonegan.com/Domains/lonegan/UserImages/karrow_neg_ad_front600.jpg

Lonegan took a huge stand in defending Doherty who has been labeled as a "radical Ron paul supporter" and someone who advocates "surrendering in Iraq". He still isn't worthy of your support I presume.

You keep comparing these men to Christie and his associates like we are voting for Christie.....and that's not the case. You're comparing apples to oranges.

What I think most people want to know is why should they vote for Lonegan, who does have a questionable record as mayor and whose flat tax will raise taxes on many individuals, when they could vote for Kaplan who is a true libertarian candidate that will ELIMINATE the income tax and turn our economy into a true free market economy by doing away with excessive regulation.

The only answer you seem to have is "He can't win" and "Christie doesn't like Lonegan" which isn't even pertinent to the discussion.

Furthermore, Mike Doherty is very questionable. He may have voted no on some taxes, but he wrote a lot of legislation that isn't exactly conservative friendly. I still don't know enough about Doherty to make a decision, but what I've currently discovered isn't exactly encouraging. Any cookie cutter libertarian for the same position will, likely, look miles better.

So why shouldn't we vote for the more principled candidates?

[jmlfod87]

Lonegan's tax plan is great. You are demagouging the issue, just like Christie is, that it will raise some people's taxes. IT WILL BE THE LARGEST TAX REDUCTION IN NJ HISTORY.

That is why you should support Lonegan. The larger the budget, the larger the state. Lonegan will shrink the size of the budget more than any othr viable candidate. I really don't give a shit that people who don't pay any taxes are going to have to pay a few dollars of taxes. Thats what I call social justice, where everyone pays the same percentage. Just because people are dirt poor doesn't mean wealthier individuals should have to pay a higher tax burden to make up for it.

Lonegan has a plan of massive budget cuts, massive tax cuts, and deregulation. Thats why I support him, thats why Ron Paul supports him, thats why Peter Schiff supports him. Electing Lonegan will be a tremendous boost to the NJ economy. If you actually care about the NJ economy you would support Lonegan. Instead you are going to allow him him to get steamrolled by Christie, why? Because he doesn't want to legalize drugs? We doesn't want to abolish public education? He doesn't want to legalize gay marriage? Those strikes are peanuts compared to all the benfits of electing Loneagn.

Question: If Lonegan is such a bad candidate, how come all the big names that supported RP support Lonegan?

[rockandrollsouls]

Lonegan's tax plan is great. You are demagouging the issue, just like Christie is, that it will raise some people's taxes. IT WILL BE THE LARGEST TAX REDUCTION IN NJ HISTORY.

That is why you should support Lonegan. The larger the budget, the larger the state. Lonegan will shrink the size of the budget more than any othr viable candidate. I really don't give a shit that people who don't pay any taxes are going to have to pay a few dollars of taxes. Thats what I call social justice, where everyone pays the same percentage. Just because people are dirt poor doesn't mean wealthier individuals should have to pay a higher tax burden to make up for it.

Lonegan has a plan of massive budget cuts, massive tax cuts, and deregulation. Thats why I support him, thats why Ron Paul supports him, thats why Peter Schiff supports him. Electing Lonegan will be a tremendous boost to the NJ economy. If you actually care about the NJ economy you would support Lonegan. Instead you are going to allow him him to get steamrolled by Christie, why? Because he doesn't want to legalize drugs? We doesn't want to abolish public education? He doesn't want to legalize gay marriage? Those strikes are peanuts compared to all the benfits of electing Loneagn.

Question: If Lonegan is such a bad candidate, how come all the big names that supported RP support Lonegan?

No, I am not. I wouldn't consider raising taxes on many New Jerseyians "great." Cutting taxes for the more wealthy at the expense of the working class isn't great, nor is raising taxes on the wealthy class and cutting them for the lower class. Both are wrong.

So why should I choose someone that does that over someone that cuts the income tax for EVERYONE, and whose plan is undeniably better for business and citizens? And Schiff justified his endorsement of the tax plan as a necessary evil, and he's made it very clear in the speech I heard. "Raising taxes now is nothing for the long run." Sorry, that doesn't fly with me.

Furthermore, Christie won't come close to steamrolling Lonegan....not from the signs and press I've seen in my area and surrounding areas. Haven't seen one Christie sign....have seen literally hundreds of Lonegan signs.

Additionally, Ron Paul has supported questionable characters in the past and it's well known he doesn't always scrutinize those he endorses.

I do care about the NJ economy which is why I'm supporting the man with the MUCH better plan for the economy. I'm not supporting Lonegan because HE'S NOT A CONSERVATIVE. In addition to all of the things you've mentioned his plan will hardly put a dent in our troubled economy because he's not doing anything to help it. He won't be changing zoning ordinances or regulations, he won't be cutting taxes like Kaplan. He's not a free market guy like Kaplan is and simply put Kaplan is the better person for the state and YOU KNOW IT. The only excuse you have is "He can't win." Give me a break. Lonegan ain't no conservative and he certainly isn't getting my vote. I'm not willing to compromise my principles and vote a moderate into office when there is a much better alternative a stone's throw away.

[jmlfod87]

If you dont think the largest tax cuts in New Jersey history would help our economy there is no talking to you. Peter Schiff supports Lonegan tax plan. Maintaing an injust system is worse than cutting tax for the wealthy and raising them for the poor. If he could abolish taxe all together he certainly would, but doesn't want to look like a crank like Ron Paul did. He has a feasible plan that would free up major capital to stimulate the private sector.

Lonegan is definitely a free market guy. You want to pretend Lonegan is someone he isn't. Keep living in lalaland.

And lastly, Lonegan is still down in the polls. Last time I checked he was down by 9% with likely Republican voters. Looking at yard signs is not a scientific method of analyzing support.

[rockandrollsouls]

If you dont think the largest tax cuts in New Jersey history would help our economy there is no talking to you. Peter Schiff supports Lonegan tax plan. Maintaing an injust system is worse than cutting tax for the wealthy and raising them for the poor. If he could abolish taxe all together he certainly would, but doesn't want to look like a crank like Ron Paul did. He has a feasible plan that would free up major capital to stimulate the private sector.

Lonegan is definitely a free market guy. You want to pretend Lonegan is someone he isn't. Keep living in lalaland.

And lastly, Lonegan is still down in the polls. Last time I checked he was down by 9% with likely Republican voters. Looking at yard signs is not a scientific method of analyzing support.

You keep saying "in history" like it means something. Let me tell you, NJ does not have any history of great tax cuts. Kaplan will cut by FAR MORE. And, we've went over this numerous times so you clearly aren't reading, Schiff acknowledges there will be a "tax hike." He even calls it a "tax hike." Additionally, his predictions haven't been performing too well so I'd be skeptical to use him as any kind of indicator of success.

Lonegan is not a free market guy. Raising taxes on MOST individuals to cut taxes for SOME individuals is not free market. Cutting taxes for ALL individuals is free market. Eliminating the state sponsored school monopoly is free market. Eliminating excessive regulation is free market.

You clearly don't know the definition of "free market." Lonegan is anything but.

[Epic]

You keep saying "in history" like it means something. Let me tell you, NJ does not have any history of great tax cuts. Kaplan will cut by FAR MORE. And, we've went over this numerous times so you clearly aren't reading, Schiff acknowledges there will be a "tax hike." He even calls it a "tax hike." Additionally, his predictions haven't been performing too well so I'd be skeptical to use him as any kind of indicator of success.

Lonegan is not a free market guy. Raising taxes on MOST individuals to cut taxes for SOME individuals is not free market. Cutting taxes for ALL individuals is free market. Eliminating the state sponsored school monopoly is free market. Eliminating excessive regulation is free market.

You clearly don't know the definition of "free market." Lonegan is anything but.

Lonegan wants a flat tax, which is by definition fair (if one accepts taxation as moral). Sure it might be raising it very slightly for some people - but they will be paying the same percentage as everyone else. Furthermore, they will benefit by the greater availability of jobs and general economic progress when limited government and a favorable business environment is allowed.

[rockandrollsouls]

Lonegan wants a flat tax, which is by definition fair (if one accepts taxation as moral). Sure it might be raising it very slightly for some people - but they will be paying the same percentage as everyone else. Furthermore, they will benefit by the greater availability of jobs and general economic progress when limited government and a favorable business environment is allowed.

And can anyone tell my why someone who is truly free market would vote for a flat tax over the elimination of the income tax?

There is no logical reason.

[TER]

And can anyone tell my why someone who is truly free market would vote for a flat tax over the elimination of the income tax?

There is no logical reason.


Because Lonegan has a better chance of winning than Kaplan?

Truth is, the truly free markets will not emerge over night. It will take steps to get us there. And Lonegan has an astronomically statisticaly greater chance of getting us there than Kaplan at this very moment in time (with elections around the corner)

[rockandrollsouls]

Because Lonegan has a better chance of winning than Kaplan?

Truth is, the truly free markets will not emerge over night. It will take steps to get us there. And Lonegan has an astronomically statisticaly greater chance of getting us there than Kaplan at this very moment in time (with elections around the corner)

I like how you guys claim to be for the free market and freedom but when it comes down to it you choose the candidate that is the opposite.

Socialize the school system, let big brother monitor your personal life, let them tell you what you can and can't do on your property. You have the opportunity to change that and you sit down and shutup.

Don't talk about fighting for freedom....don't speak any of the dogma because when it comes down to it you guys don't walk the walk.

[TER]

I like how you guys claim to be for the free market and freedom but when it comes down to it you choose the candidate that is the opposite.

Socialize the school system, let big brother monitor your personal life, let them tell you what you can and can't do on your property. You have the opportunity to change that and you sit down and shutup.

Don't talk about fighting for freedom....don't speak any of the dogma because when it comes down to it you guys don't walk the walk.

Vote for whomever you want to vote for. :)

[jmlfod87]

I like how you guys claim to be for the free market and freedom but when it comes down to it you choose the candidate that is the opposite.

Socialize the school system, let big brother monitor your personal life, let them tell you what you can and can't do on your property. You have the opportunity to change that and you sit down and shutup.

Don't talk about fighting for freedom....don't speak any of the dogma because when it comes down to it you guys don't walk the walk.


Go back to the farm, straw man.

[rockandrollsouls]

Go back to the farm, straw man.

Well you can't seem to answer the question or justify you decision.

All you can do is spew nonsense and throw out personal insults.

[Knightskye]

If you dont think the largest tax cuts in New Jersey history would help our economy there is no talking to you. Peter Schiff supports Lonegan tax plan. Maintaing an injust system is worse than cutting tax for the wealthy and raising them for the poor. If he could abolish taxe all together he certainly would, but doesn't want to look like a crank like Ron Paul did. He has a feasible plan that would free up major capital to stimulate the private sector.

Lonegan is definitely a free market guy. You want to pretend Lonegan is someone he isn't. Keep living in lalaland.

And lastly, Lonegan is still down in the polls. Last time I checked he was down by 9% with likely Republican voters. Looking at yard signs is not a scientific method of analyzing support.

Dude, you didn't answer my other question.

Who are the 25% of New Jersey taxpayers who will see a tax increase with Lonegan's plan?

[jmlfod87]

My flat tax plan will start with a flat tax rate of 2.9% on every dollar earned. The rate will decrease to 2.5% the following year, and further to 2.1% in the third year.
http://lonegan.com/The_Flat_Income_Tax.aspx

Anyone that is currently paying less than 2.9% of state income tax would receive a tax increase under this plan. This plan will destroy the progressive income tax and replace it with the same flat tax rate for all New Jerseyians. This would be a major tax cut for New Jersey, although some poorer people will be paying more.

[jmlfod87]

Well you can't seem to answer the question or justify you decision.

All you can do is spew nonsense and throw out personal insults.


Keep making stuff up. I've justified myself plenty of times, as did Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, Mike Doherty, and any other free market loving people of New Jersey.

And lets not forget that you were the first to throw out personal insults.

You're trying to paint Lonegan as someone he isn't. You're wasting everyone's time.

[rockandrollsouls]

Keep making stuff up. I've justified myself plenty of times, as did Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, Mike Doherty, and any other free market loving people of New Jersey.

And lets not forget that you were the first to throw out personal insults.

You're trying to paint Lonegan as someone he isn't. You're wasting everyone's time.

You still refuse to answer the question. How is raising taxation on anyone free market? How is keeping socialized schooling and excessive market regulations in play free market?
Why won't you vote for a true free market candidate?

You keep backing up your choice with Ron Paul and Peter Schiff, but they've been wrong in the past and Peter has been wrong fairly frequently. He even admits there will be a tax hike but that it's necessary to "lower taxes" which is horse shit. However, you still won't acknowledge that.

Stop saying Lonegan is free market and that you support free market because it's evident you don't know what a true free market is and you're supporting someone that is putting bars on the free market by raising taxes and keeping excessive regulation in place. Get over yourself and don't post another mindless post, buddy. You refuse to address any of my points and just run in circles and it's getting obnoxious.

[jmlfod87]

You still refuse to answer the question. How is raising taxation on anyone free market?

Raising taxes on some people in order to dramatically reduce them across the board is free market. He is taking money away from the public sector to put back into the free private markets. Taking a little from everyone that is paying less than 2.9 in order to greatly reduce taxes for everyone paying more than 2.9 does great good for the free market. Perhaps you need to visit mises.org and brush up on your economics.


How is keeping socialized schooling and excessive market regulations in play free market?

How is keeping the socialized police force, the socialized fire departments, and the socialized national guard, and any regulations at all in play with free market?

Just because Lonegan wont go to the same extremes as Kaplan doesn't mean he isn't promoting the free market, he just isn't promoting it to as great an extent. Just because Kaplan is more radical, doesn't make everyone else a socialist.




Why won't you vote for a true free market candidate?

Because there is another candidate who is fairly free market who possesses an exponentially higher chance of winning.



You keep backing up your choice with Ron Paul and Peter Schiff, but they've been wrong in the past and Peter has been wrong fairly frequently. He even admits there will be a tax hike but that it's necessary to "lower taxes" which is horse shit. However, you still won't acknowledge that.

I bet they haven't been wrong as frequently as you have. If not they wouldn't be the leaders of this movemenet while you are stuck posting on an old election forum.


Stop saying Lonegan is free market and that you support free market because it's evident you don't know what a true free market is and you're supporting someone that is putting bars on the free market by raising taxes and keeping excessive regulation in place. Get over yourself and don't post another mindless post, buddy. You refuse to address any of my points and just run in circles and it's getting obnoxious.


Lonegan is cutting taxes, Lonegan is cutting regulation, Lonegan is abolishing socialist programs. All of that sounds like pretty free market stuff to me. Just because he wont pursue those objectives as aggressively as your candidate doesn't mean he isn't free market. If we held all our candidates to the same standards as you are holding yours, we wouldn't be electing anyone, would we?

Lonegan is for less government, that means I'm for him.

[Imperial]

You still refuse to answer the question. How is raising taxation on anyone free market? How is keeping socialized schooling and excessive market regulations in play free market?
Why won't you vote for a true free market candidate?

How is taxation at all free market? I really could care less about having a litmus test of "degree of free market ideas".

Why not vote for lonegan and if he loses then go kaplan?

[rockandrollsouls]

Raising taxes on some people in order to dramatically reduce them across the board is free market. He is taking money away from the public sector to put back into the free private markets. Taking a little from everyone that is paying less than 2.9 in order to greatly reduce taxes for everyone paying more than 2.9 does great good for the free market. Perhaps you need to visit mises.org and brush up on your economics.

Raising taxes is NEVER free market. Don't tell ME to brush up on MY economics when I've been dead on with predictions and I've championed the free market since day one. My job involves economics so I think I know what I'm talking about and I think Mises knew what he was talking about when he denounced the income tax. You're a stuck up college kid talking out of his ass. YOU go read up on mises.org because you just tried to pass off complete and total bullshit as fact.



How is keeping the socialized police force, the socialized fire departments, and the socialized national guard, and any regulations at all in play with free market?

You clearly don't understand economics. The free market functions in regard to more than taxation. Incentives are what drives the economy, and when you have state run industries you minimize incentive. The regulations I was referring to involve issues such as the codes and standards (plumbing, housing regulations, construction code) and pertinent property law and legislation. Not to mention Lonegan hasn't really addressed the issue of our welfare state. He falls short by miles.


Just because Lonegan wont go to the same extremes as Kaplan doesn't mean he isn't promoting the free market, he just isn't promoting it to as great an extent. Just because Kaplan is more radical, doesn't make everyone else a socialist.

You either have a free market or you don't. There isn't an in between. What don't you understand about that? Like I said, you clearly don't understand economics. A pseudo free market is not a free market and it doesn't function like a free market. It's night and day. To be for a free market you have to support free market principles. Lowering taxes is ONE of MANY, and Lonegan doesn't even get that right because he won't commit to cutting the income tax.





Because there is another candidate who is fairly free market who possesses an exponentially higher chance of winning.

As I've stated and proven, Lonegan is not free market. There is no middle ground.





I bet they haven't been wrong as frequently as you have. If not they wouldn't be the leaders of this movemenet while you are stuck posting on an old election forum.

Grasping for straws, are we? Purely speculation on your part. Ron has endorsed some very questionable characters (Benton speaks for him so I'm sure Ron didn't scrutinize Lonegan, not to mention Benton pushes for Sanford who isn't a conservative either). Schiff's clients have lost just as much, if not more, money than those in the American markets. He acknowledges it and tries to justify it by saying he didn't see a deflationary period coming. Don't give me the "long term" BS. If Schiff can't run his brokerage firm and make good recommendations what makes you think he knows what he's talking about? Raising taxes to get lower taxes is NOT a justification. That's like saying we have to give up freedom to GAIN freedom. It's BULLSHIT.





Lonegan is cutting taxes, Lonegan is cutting regulation, Lonegan is abolishing socialist programs. All of that sounds like pretty free market stuff to me. Just because he wont pursue those objectives as aggressively as your candidate doesn't mean he isn't free market. If we held all our candidates to the same standards as you are holding yours, we wouldn't be electing anyone, would we?

Lonegan is for less government, that means I'm for him.

Lonegan is NOT cutting taxes effectively, he ISN'T cutting regulation (you pulled that out of your ass, nowhere has he addressed our codes and standards issues), and he hasn't touched on MANY, if not ALL of our Socialist programs in place. He is, at best, MODERATE. That is not free market, there is no half ass in a free market. Free market is what it implies; FREE. It's not about "being aggressive." A real free market would be considered "aggressive" by today's standards because we haven't had one in AGES. But that's what a true free market is and if you think a real free market is "too radical" then you don't really support a free market. Your definition of a free market economy is not what a true free market is so stop saying it. You are WRONG. Kaplan is the only individual in the race that will restore a TRUE free market. Lonegan just wants to backup and restore a slightly better psuedo free market than what we have now, although it's still absolutely horrific.

[rockandrollsouls]

How is taxation at all free market? I really could care less about having a litmus test of "degree of free market ideas".

Why not vote for lonegan and if he loses then go kaplan?

BECAUSE HE'S NOT A FREE MARKET CANDIDATE. No offense, but you guys clearly don't know what a free market is. You want a pseudo free market. I want a FREE MARKET. That is free of government interference and regulation and is championed by the Austrian School. You are incorrectly defining "free market."

[alaric]

Bump.

Who do we believe? :D

uh, I believe Ron Paul! Cristie is another julie annie and we don't need another rino in the peoples republik of nj. I'm supporting Lonegan, as is RP!;)

[alaric]

Murray Sabrin joined Bret Schundler as formerly good candidates who were screwed by the nj rino msm 'republican' party. Instead of fighting back, they both sold out as did Steve Forbes to the julie annie rockefellerrepublicantraitors.

[jmlfod87]

Yawn. I understand full well what it means to have a free market and am a Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist. Where in Lonegan's platform does it state he is for more government control of the economy?

Is it here?:


We must transform our current government from 16 departments to 13 by eliminating and/or realigning 4 Departments and establishing one new department. These rectifications will allow us to decrease spending from its current level in excess of $30 billion to $25 billion.

Wait, how bout here. This is where he shows he
s a real socialist:

As your governor, I will implement a proven plan that will revitalize our state’s economy and bring businesses and people back to New Jersey. This plan will include cutting our state government by no less than 20%, cutting taxes (including the personal and corporate income taxes), cutting regulations and burdensome bureaucracies, and allowing the free market to work without the unnatural interference of a heavy-handed government.


No wait, here is shwere is real anti-free market colors show:

The Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) is a group of nameless, faceless bureaucrats who are determined to force over 100,000 taxpayer-subsidized, low-income housing units into every town around the state of New Jersey. This radical agenda, promoted by Jon Corzine, flows from the New Jersey Supreme Court’s Mt. Laurel decision that created a previously non-existent constitutional right to an affordable house.

Corzine’s plan, based upon this court legislated creation, will result in higher taxes, greater wealth redistribution, and elimination of our hometowns and ways of living. Furthermore it is an obvious attempt to re-engineer the state’s demographics for political gain. It is a liberal law created by a liberal court, passed by a liberal legislature, and implemented by a liberal executive, and the problems it has generated are too many to count. It must be completely overturned.

In order to eliminate COAH, I will get a question placed on the ballot allowing the voters to overturn the Mt. Laurel decision so that housing and zoning decisions can be returned to local municipalities, as was the case for our entire state history. Until I can place the question on a ballot, I will cut funding for COAH so it cannot impose its unrestrained will upon local communities.


Wait, I got him! Now we know Lonegan is a socialist!

In 2005 the Supreme Court issued its ruling in the case of Kelo v. The City of New London, where 5 justices rewrote the Federal Constitution and held that a municipality could use the power of eminent domain for “economic gain,” or increased tax ratables.

In response to the Kelo decision, an overwhelming number of states passed laws or amended their constitutions to reinforce the fact that governments cannot take a person’s property unless it is for a public use. However, New Jersey remains one of only a handful of states that has taken no action in response to the Kelo decision. Instead, New Jersey allows all governmental entities in the state to steal private property if the government thinks it can find a better use for the property.

As governor I will pose a question on the ballot so that voters can decide whether eminent domain should once again be limited to cases of a traditional public use. When I was Mayor of Bogota, I put a referendum in that regard on the ballot and it passed with 95% of the vote. I am sure the statewide question will pass with a similar result.



I want to live in a free society just as much as you do, if not more. The difference is I know we're not going to get there over night. We need to start with electing officials who are interested in reducing the size of government, not attempt to elect extreme radicals who have no chance of winning. Lonegan might not be a rothbardian anarcho-capitalist like you or I, but he is for the free market, and will shrink the size of government if elected.

You can continue to close your ears and shut your eyes to the reality of Lonegan's beliefs and intentions, but I'm done talking to you.

[rockandrollsouls]

Yawn. I understand full well what it means to have a free market and am a Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist. Where in Lonegan's platform does it state he is for more government control of the economy?

Is it here?:



Wait, how bout here. This is where he shows he
s a real socialist:


No wait, here is shwere is real anti-free market colors show:


Wait, I got him! Now we know Lonegan is a socialist!




I want to live in a free society just as much as you do, if not more. The difference is I know we're not going to get there over night. We need to start with electing officials who are interested in reducing the size of government, not attempt to elect extreme radicals who have no chance of winning. Lonegan might not be a rothbardian anarcho-capitalist like you or I, but he is for the free market, and will shrink the size of government if elected.

You can continue to close your ears and shut your eyes to the reality of Lonegan's beliefs and intentions, but I'm done talking to you.

1. 16 to 13 departments and 30 to 25 billion are not ample cuts. 2. He's contradicted himself in speeches. He is proposing a tax hike. Tax hikes are never free market. 3. He wants to eliminate COAH, not welfare programs. He is keeping many welfare programs in place. 4. Eminent domain is not subject to popular democracy, and this is his greatest pitfall. We are a republic; property rights are not subject to the will of the majority. If he is going to leave laws subject to the will of the people rather than recognizing natural rights, we are in trouble.

Now, will you respond to my previous post and show me where he states he will open up a free market economy free of government regulation, codes, and standards? Or where he says he will return health care or education to a free market? Do you even know where he stands on those issues?

You're done talking to me because you can't answer the hard questions. You blow off my valid criticism and come back with nonsense. I stated in my previous post he wants to move backward to a less restrained pseudo free market; that's STILL not a true free market.

Additionally, I'm not an anarcho capitalist. Furthermore, you aren't even a capitalist or supporter of the free market. You clearly do not want freedom in all aspects of life because you are supporting someone that does not support that. Fact of the matter is there is a choice between a true free market candidate and another republican talking head. You are choosing the latter with many people. Just because he has a "better chance of winning" does not make him right. You are casting your vote against the true free market and for restricted and regulated markets.That is a FACT.

[Knightskye]

This would be a major tax cut for New Jersey, although some poorer people will be paying more.

Tax cuts for the middle class and the rich at the expense of the poor.

I can't support that.

And not just because my taxes would be raised.

[rockandrollsouls]

Tax cuts for the middle class and the rich at the expense of the poor.

I can't support that.

And not just because my taxes would be raised.

Mine would be lowered significantly and I still can't support it. Raising taxes on anyone is a bad idea; Kaplan will get rid of the income tax.

[Knightskye]

Mine would be lowered significantly and I still can't support it. Raising taxes on anyone is a bad idea; Kaplan will get rid of the income tax.

Yeah, I wonder if jmlfod also supports Obama's tax plan, of giving "95%" of taxpayers a tax cut, and raising the highest tax rate? It's a very large tax cut, and it "only" raises the taxes of a small number of people.

What do you say, jmlfod?

[jmlfod87]

Obama's plan doesn't amount to tax cuts. The budget is substantially higher than it was before the change in tax policy. The only true tax cuts are ones that coincide with budget cuts. Lonegan will cut the budget, which means everyone will benefit from the tax cuts.

If you don't understand how raising taxes on the poor but massively cutting taxes for everyone else and cutting the budget actually helps the poor then you need to visit mises.org.

And thats the last reply you'll get from me knightskye. This thread is done, you guys dont want to support someone who has pledged to cut the budget and cut taxes at a time when NJ desperately needs someone to do these things, and thats fine with me, bye.

[rockandrollsouls]

Obama's plan doesn't amount to tax cuts. The budget is substantially higher than it was before the change in tax policy. The only true tax cuts are ones that coincide with budget cuts. Lonegan will cut the budget, which means everyone will benefit from the tax cuts.

If you don't understand how raising taxes on the poor but massively cutting taxes for everyone else and cutting the budget actually helps the poor then you need to visit mises.org.

And thats the last reply you'll get from me knightskye. This thread is done, you guys dont want to support someone who has pledged to cut the budget and cut taxes at a time when NJ desperately needs someone to do these things, and thats fine with me, bye.

Mises.org does not have ONE article that suggests raising taxes on ANYONE is beneficial. Link to one and stop spewing garbage because you're pulling lies out of your ass now. The mises.org website has many articles that says cutting taxes for everyone and cutting the budget is beneficial. It even explains how a free market in various industries and the elimination of welfare is beneficial to the poor, which is absolutely true. But it NEVER states raising taxes on them is beneficial, and you should be ashamed for saying so. Not to mention, the very thought of raising taxes on anyone is absolutely contrary to the Austrian school.

I'd suggest you back up your arguments with some substantial evidence rather than saying "go to mises.org" because I basically live on that site, I live economics, and I'm very well schooled in the subject and you're just some punk kid trying to save face.

[jmlfod87]

From Rothbard's "Ethics of Liberty"


Must the libertarian necessarily confine himself to advocating immediate abolition? Are transitional demands, steps toward liberty in practice, therefore illegitimate? Surely not, since realistically there would then be no hope of achieving the final goal. It is therefore incumbent upon the libertarian, eager to achieve his goal as rapidly as possible, to push the polity ever further in the direction of that goal. Clearly, such a course is difficult, for the danger always exists of losing sight of, or even undercutting, the ultimate goal of liberty. But such a course, given the state of the world in the past, present, and foreseeable future, is vital if the victory of liberty is ever to be achieved.


Let us consider, for example, a transition demand set forth by various libertarians: namely, that the government budget be reduced by 10 percent each year for ten years, after which the government will have disappeared. Such a proposal might have heuristic or strategic value, provided that the proposers always make crystal clear that these are minimal demands, and that indeed there would be nothing wrong


Government activity must be reduced whenever and wherever it can; any opposition to a particular tax—or expenditure—cut is impermissible for it contradicts libertarian principles and the libertarian goal.


We conclude this part of the strategy question, then, by affirming that the victory of total liberty is the highest political end; that the proper groundwork for this goal is a moral passion for justice; that the end should be pursued by the speediest and most efficacious possible means; that the end must always be kept in sight and sought as rapidly as possible; and that the means taken must never contradict the goal—whether by advocating gradualism, by employing or advocating any aggression against liberty, by advocating planned programs, or by failing to seize any opportunity to reduce State power or by ever increasing it in any area.


That took me about 5 seconds to find, just by typing in "budget cut" into the search engine.

Rothbard explains that no true libertarian can oppose a reduction in state power. Lonegan's plan is a reduction in state power. He plans to chop off billions of dollars in the state's budget. To oppose it on the techanicality that "some will pay more and some will pay less" is anti-libertarian. Liberatrians always support shrinking the size and scope of the State.

[rockandrollsouls]

From Rothbard's "Ethics of Liberty"









That took me about 5 seconds to find, just by typing in "budget cut" into the search engine.

Rothbard explains that no true libertarian can oppose a reduction in state power. Lonegan's plan is a reduction in state power. He plans to chop off billions of dollars in the state's budget. To oppose it on the techanicality that "some will pay more and some will pay less" is anti-libertarian. Liberatrians always support shrinking the size and scope of the State.

You clearly can't read. You just fully owned yourself.

"and that the means taken must never contradict the goal—whether by advocating gradualism, by employing or advocating any aggression against liberty, by advocating planned programs, or by failing to seize any opportunity to reduce State power or by ever increasing it in any area.

Do you know what gradualism is? Where you said you were for slow changes? What about "ever increasing it in any area." Wouldn't any area consist of state power in the form of raising taxation on individuals? He says very clearly the means taken must never contradict the goal? You don't think raising taxes on some contradicts the goal to get them lower taxes? Are you illiterate?

Rothbard is basically denouncing your viewpoint, but it seems you can't understand his language. He also condemns failing to seize the opportunity, which would be failing to vote for Kaplan in this case. Now, are you going to provide an article from an Austrian economist that promotes raising taxes on some to reach an end goal?

[muzzled dogg]

...

[jmlfod87]

You clearly can't read. You just fully owned yourself.

"and that the means taken must never contradict the goal—whether by advocating gradualism, by employing or advocating any aggression against liberty, by advocating planned programs, or by failing to seize any opportunity to reduce State power or by ever increasing it in any area.

Do you know what gradualism is? Where you said you were for slow changes? What about "ever increasing it in any area." Wouldn't any area consist of state power in the form of raising taxation on individuals? He says very clearly the means taken must never contradict the goal? You don't think raising taxes on some contradicts the goal to get them lower taxes? Are you illiterate?

Rothbard is basically denouncing your viewpoint, but it seems you can't understand his language. He also condemns failing to seize the opportunity, which would be failing to vote for Kaplan in this case. Now, are you going to provide an article from an Austrian economist that promotes raising taxes on some to reach an end goal?

You are misinterpreting Rothbard's view on an increase in state power. The State already has the power of taxation on all individualsd. By cutting the budget you are reducing the state's power. Just because some taxes are raised, as long as taxes in general are reduced that is an overall reduction in state power.

Rothbard wasn't entirely against gradualism, as I pointed out:
Are transitional demands, steps toward liberty in practice, therefore illegitimate? Surely not,

Ron Paul has based his entire career on gradualism. He believes we can't become a free society overnight, so we must take transitional steps. Thats why he has a bill for auditing the federal reserve, which will actually increase state power, in hopes that it will ead to an overall reduction in state power once the Fed's policies are revealed to be counterproductive.

The way you are interpreting Rothbard would suggest that you are opposed to HR1207, because it gives the state power to conduct an audit. Your view of state power is obviously cock-eyed.

And I already gave you an austrian economist. In fact I gave you two: Ron Paul and Peter Schiff. As you have already stated, you don't care for their opinions. So why should I bother hunting for more austrian economists?

Wasting resources on Kaplan when they could be appropriated to someone can win is folly. Rothbard left the LP for a reason, because he knew it was a waste of time.

EDIT: Is Bob Murphy Austrian enough for you? http://pacificresearch.org/docLib/20080505_Flat_Tax.pdf

[rockandrollsouls]

You are misinterpreting Rothbard's view on an increase in state power. The State already has the power of taxation on all individualsd. By cutting the budget you are reducing the state's power. Just because some taxes are raised, as long as taxes in general are reduced that is an overall reduction in state power.

Rothbard wasn't entirely against gradualism, as I pointed out:

Ron Paul has based his entire career on gradualism. He believes we can't become a free society overnight, so we must take transitional steps. Thats why he has a bill for auditing the federal reserve, which will actually increase state power, in hopes that it will ead to an overall reduction in state power once the Fed's policies are revealed to be counterproductive.

The way you are interpreting Rothbard would suggest that you are opposed to HR1207, because it gives the state power to conduct an audit. Your view of state power is obviously cock-eyed.

And I already gave you an austrian economist. In fact I gave you two: Ron Paul and Peter Schiff. As you have already stated, you don't care for their opinions. So why should I bother hunting for more austrian economists?

Wasting resources on Kaplan when they could be appropriated to someone can win is folly. Rothbard left the LP for a reason, because he knew it was a waste of time.

EDIT: Is Bob Murphy Austrian enough for you? http://pacificresearch.org/docLib/20080505_Flat_Tax.pdf

1. Your notion that Ron is a Gradualist is false. You're grasping for straws. He had a bill to abolish the fed before the bill to audit it.

2. Ron is not an economist. Peter is not an economist. He is an economic commentator that happens to be the owner of a brokerage firm. His micro predictions have also been wrong and he admits it. If I recall correctly, he has degrees in accounting and finance. You are wrong.

3. You use Rothbard to support your viewpoint, but when I break it down for you and show you that you just wrecked your argument you discount him and the party he supported for many years. Furthermore, you're once again spewing garbage by claiming Rothbard left the party because "it was a waste of time." He left because of the moderates diluting libertarian ideals. Furthermore, I'm very well read on Rothbard and the Austrian school. It is apparent you are not. Do not try and distort Rothbard's words because you just got served. He was very clear and precise about what he meant and how you meant it. Don't put words in his mouth by saying he'd be okay for some taxes.

4. http://mises.org/story/3316 Refer to number 1. This is an article written by Robert P. Murphy. I quote, "Eliminate the personal and corporate income tax. Don't put in a flat tax or a fair tax or a VAT or any other cute name for a very uncute process."

It does not sound like he is advocating a flat tax in any form there.

In conclusion, I once again prove you are full of shit and that you talk out of your ass. Will you do some research and give me a fact supported response this time?

[rockandrollsouls]

No response? Any takers?

[Knightskye]

Obama's plan doesn't amount to tax cuts.

So people won't actually pay less money? Really?


If you don't understand how raising taxes on the poor but massively cutting taxes for everyone else and cutting the budget actually helps the poor then you need to visit mises.org.

Link to a specific article.


And thats the last reply you'll get from me knightskye.

Can't stand common sense, get out of the fire.


This thread is done

You obviously don't understand property rights, yet you argue with me over libertarianism. :rolleyes:


you guys dont want to support someone who has pledged to cut the budget and cut taxes at a time when NJ desperately needs someone to do these things, and thats fine with me, bye.

Actually, we are. Ken Kaplan pledged to do both, as well as reform zoning laws.

[rockandrollsouls]

So people won't actually pay less money? Really?



Link to a specific article.



Can't stand common sense, get out of the fire.



You obviously don't understand property rights, yet you argue with me over libertarianism. :rolleyes:



Actually, we are. Ken Kaplan pledged to do both, as well as reform zoning laws.

He has been making up lies to support his post and I completely shelled him in my last response. I'm waiting for him to actually respond. The worst is how he claimed Rob Murphy was for the Flat tax when he's denounced it fervently. JM is absolutely pathetic.....lie and hope for the best; throw a hail mary to try and support a flawed argument. Ridiculous.

[Annihilia]

Dr. Paul is not a gradualist, but he does understands how to win through strategy. A sudden call to abolish the fed will gain zero co-sponsors as we have seen in the past. An audit, however, is more palatable to normal folk, and will illuminate the Fed and all of its shady dealings, making it easier for people to see why abolishing it might be a good idea.

Similarly, I don't for a second believe that the masses in NJ are ready to vote a Libertarian Party candidate in without understanding what that even means. Kaplan has no presence and minimal grassroots support. I think Lonegan is a good, electable stepping stone at this critical juncture and will serve as an example to the people how less government benefits them.

To me, this isn't simply about the here and now. Here we are presented with the odd electable candidate who shares many of our views and has RP's blessings, but just happens to not go as far as we'd like. If we choose to ignore this strategic opportunity and vote for the unelectable, obscure candidate, we may feel good about ourselves, but that amounts to nothing if we're still living in a tax burdened nanny state hellhole. If we elect a guy who meets us half way, it will be much easier to reach our ultimate goal. We will be able to point to a real world Jersey example of how tax reductions benefit everybody to rally popular support around Kaplan next time.

[rockandrollsouls]

Dr. Paul is not a gradualist, but he does understands how to win through strategy. A sudden call to abolish the fed will gain zero co-sponsors as we have seen in the past. An audit, however, is more palatable to normal folk, and will illuminate the Fed and all of its shady dealings, making it easier for people to see why abolishing it might be a good idea.

Similarly, I don't for a second believe that the masses in NJ are ready to vote a Libertarian Party candidate in without understanding what that even means. Kaplan has no presence and minimal grassroots support. I think Lonegan is a good, electable stepping stone at this critical juncture and will serve as an example to the people how less government benefits them.

To me, this isn't simply about the here and now. Here we are presented with the odd electable candidate who shares many of our views and has RP's blessings, but just happens to not go as far as we'd like. If we choose to ignore this strategic opportunity and vote for the unelectable, obscure candidate, we may feel good about ourselves, but that amounts to nothing if we're still living in a tax burdened nanny state hellhole. If we elect a guy who meets us half way, it will be much easier to reach our ultimate goal. We will be able to point to a real world Jersey example of how tax reductions benefit everybody to rally popular support around Kaplan next time.

Now this is an opinion I can respect. Personally, I will be voting for Kaplan but it's apparent you understand your position and why you prefer Lonegan. JM has just posted immense amounts of misinformation about Lonegan and the Austrian School and it was way out of hand.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but when you (JM) try to bullshit me into supporting your candidate I'm going to call you on it ;)

[jmlfod87]

hahaha, that was the point i've been making the whole time. and austrian economics has always been on my side.

[rockandrollsouls]

hahaha, that was the point i've been making the whole time. and austrian economics has always been on my side.

No, it's not. Why don't you respond to my clearly numbered post, in list form. I think it's simple enough that even you can address every point I've laid out.

[rockandrollsouls]

Hey, JM, I'm waiting for a supported response rather than you wrongly and falsely stating you're right. Let's go.

[Knightskye]

Lonegan needs to fix his tax plan. I'm against collectivism. His tax plan favors certain groups and punishes others. Fix that, and I could probably vote for him.

[jmlfod87]

No, it's not. Why don't you respond to my clearly numbered post, in list form. I think it's simple enough that even you can address every point I've laid out.

to be honest i didn't even read that last list you posted, and i dont intend to. if you don't understand how cutting budgets and giving tax cuts to producers helps the poor then you simply need to brush up on your econ. i'm not here to educate you.

why don't you send an emailt o one of the austrian economists on lewrockwell.com or mises.org and ask them what they think of lonegan's tax plan? I've already given you 3 Austrians and you still dont believe me.

[rockandrollsouls]

to be honest i didn't even read that last list you posted, and i dont intend to. if you don't understand how cutting budgets and giving tax cuts to producers helps the poor then you simply need to brush up on your econ. i'm not here to educate you.

why don't you send an emailt o one of the austrian economists on lewrockwell.com or mises.org and ask them what they think of lonegan's tax plan? I've already given you 3 Austrians and you still dont believe me.

Well I suggest you read it and respond considering you completely lied about Bob Murphy's position on the flat tax and used a study to put words in his mouth when he's very clear tax reform is against the platform of austrian economics.

You have NOT given me 3 austrians and I've provided ARTICLES and QUOTES that CONTRADICT what you've said.

Stop making things up to support your flawed argument. You haven't provided ANYTHING. I've given you Bob Murphy, the same one you CLAIM to have quoted, WHO FLAT OUT SAYS THE FLAT TAX SHOULD NOT BE PUT IN PLACE OF THE INCOME TAX.

You are simply making things up, I called you on it and provided evidence, and now you stick your fingers in your ears and say "la la la la la" as to not hear that you are wrong, and you're ignorant and arrogant enough to completely ignore it all.

You've never even posted in the econ section and you're a college kid not even majoring in econ and you claim to know the austrian school and economics and you can't even use the search function on mises.org

There isn't ONE article on that site that supports a flat tax, and Lew and Bob and Lawrence have railed against it. You're simply ignorant and can't admit you're wrong. You should stop saying the austrian school is for the flat tax when every austrian I've read has railed against it completely.

Edit: Please read this article that destroys the myth of the flat tax, written by a prominent austrian economist. http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/flat-tax-folly.html

Edit Two: A flat tax has never been a platform of the Austrian School of economics. The austrian school promotes the abolishment of the income tax. Furthermore, the "flat tax" is not flat and is more progressive than our current system.

You are wrong. If you'd like, I'll provide more articles from Robert Murphy and Lew Rockwell and Rothbard and Mises and even Hayek.

So in conclusion why don't you provide proof of ONE austrian economist advocating a flat tax. You're not educating anyone; you're closing your eyes and shutting your ears to the truth and evidence i've provided for you. Now you're just trying to act like you've won and brush off my wealth of information because you know you're wrong and you know you got sodomized. Put your money where your mouth is because you don't know the first thing about the Austrian school of economics and you don't have ONE PIECE of austrian literature to back your claim.

[Knightskye]

The tax cuts could create new job opportunities, but that would be for the unemployed poor, who don't pay taxes. But then once they have a job, they would have the rate twice as high as it used to. And the poor who have jobs would get a tax increase.

Even spelled out like that, I don't like the idea. Why can't we treat people as individuals and lower everyone's taxes?

[Imperial]

The tax cuts could create new job opportunities, but that would be for the unemployed poor, who don't pay taxes. But then once they have a job, they would have the rate twice as high as it used to. And the poor who have jobs would get a tax increase.

Even spelled out like that, I don't like the idea. Why can't we treat people as individuals and lower everyone's taxes?

Because state governments are so screwed up you start getting into the problem of figuring out where to find things to cut. Lonegan it seems would be cutting alot but he is having to figure out the best way possible.

[rockandrollsouls]

Of course none of the lonegan supporters, including JM fold, will respond to my post in defense of the true principles of Austrian economics. Whatever. Turn tail and run when you lose.