My Economic Plan

[TomL]

PART I

Three 10 Tax Plan


This is another simple tax plan. The difference between this plan and others is this is a pro-American plan.

First we must eliminate all other forms of Federal taxation whether direct or indirect, with the exception of Social Security, and replace it all with the following:

Update: 2-9-12

The Border Tax Provision was removed as the Jobs portion of my plan calls for tariffs.




1. A 10% Tax On Revenues Of Individual States.


This is a 10% tax on the revenues, no matter how derived, of the several states in the United States of America. Each State has sources of revenue. 10% of those revenues will go to the Federal Government.


2. A 10% Tax On Revenues Derived From The Sale Of Foreign Goods And Services.


This is a 10% tax on all revenues that come from the retail sales of all goods and services that do not originate within the boundaries of the United States of America.


3. A 10% Tax On All Primary Retail Revenues.


This is a 10% tax on all revenues derived from retail sales of goods and services in the United States of America. This is a one-time tax on goods. However all retail services are subject to this tax.


How do these retail revenue taxes work?

Here's an example. An individual is the first buyer of a car. The dealership pays a 10% tax on the revenue from the sale of that car. If the car is a foreign made car, the dealership pays an additional 10% on the revenue from the sale of that car. When the individual who bought that car then sells that car he pays no tax on the revenue he gets from the sale of that car. If he trades the car in on another car, the dealership that then sells the same car pays no taxes on the revenue from the sale.

Let's say the dealer price of this car is $20,000. After the sale, the dealer pays 10% tax which is equal to $2,000. If a foreign made car, another 10% tax is paid which is another $2,000. Total tax is $4,000. If a dealer were to adjust the price in anticipation of this tax to $24,000. Then the tax burden is $4,800, because the tax is assessed after the sale of the car, not before.

The border tax is already explained, and the State Revenue tax I think is self explanatory.

This plan also calls for the repeal of the current tax code and the 16th Amendment.




PART II

Pro-American Jobs Plan


The President, along with Democrats and Republicans, talk about creating jobs, but I don't believe they are serious. If they were they would advocate the following:

1. With Capital Gains and Corporate taxes eliminated, investors should have no fear that when they make a sound investment that the government is going to swoop down like a vulture and grab the profit they make. Business owners should have no fear that when they do make a profit, that instead of sharing it with their workers or investing it back into their business, the government should grab it like a hungry fox in a hen house. We should not simply reduce the level of taxation to zero. We need to repeal all laws that allow the government to take that money in the first place. If the laws remain on the books, future liberals could start taking that money again.

2. We need to eliminate all OSHA regulations. These regulations add a costly burden to the cost of doing business in the United States. Those regulations should be in the purview of the States.

3. We need to eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency, and all the regulations that go with it. Again, those regulations should be in the purview of the States.

4. We need to stop enacting unfair trade agreements that do nothing but open the U.S. market to other countries creating a trade imbalance, and create loopholes for U.S. companies to move to other countries. And as quickly as possible we need to get out of the unfair trade agreements already enacted. The only trade agreements I would favor are ones that say, "If you want to sell your manufactured goods in the United States, they must be made in the United States.

5. Congress should levy tariffs on all goods coming into the United States to recuperate lost revenues due to the elimination of Capital Gains and Corporate taxes. These tariffs would last no more than 10 years, allowing the United States time to enter into "Manufacture in the United States" trade agreements.

What this 5-point plan would do, theoretically, is encourage investment in American markets, and put Americans back to work. By allowing the States to tax and regulate business as they see fit, would set up competition between the States. The States with the most conservative tax and regulative policies will get the most business, and the States with the most liberal tax and regulative policies will get the least business, in theory. Either way, the American people will benefit from a better business climate in the United States.

This plan would give the American worker a level playing field. It would spur investment without the fear of government taking the profits. It would reduce the cost of doing business in America. It would give incentive to businesses that have moved factories out of this Country to bring them back into this Country. It would put trade deals on an equal footing. We need balance of trade, and we should not enter any unbalanced trade deal, and we should get out of all unbalanced trade agreements.




PART III

My Spending Plan


This seems to be the biggest part of the economic debate, which is spending. What to do about entitlements. Where should the spending cuts come from. There are those who would like to make cuts in entitlements. Others who would like to make cuts in defense. Some want to make cuts in housing subsidies and food stamps. I'm not in favor of either. At this time, I ask that you read the quoted article I wrote about entitlements. By doing so you will have an understanding of where I am coming from regarding entitlements.



My understanding of Entitlements you could say is the difference between "now and then."

Does anyone remember what this nation was like before entitlements? Parents took care of their children, and when the parents got old, the children took care of their parents. Parents were not shoved into a home and forgotten about, paid for by some entitlement. In times of trouble, communities helped one another, and churches helped people as well.

Even during the "great depression," THERE WAS NOT ONE ENTITLEMENT THAT HELPED ANYONE. I wanted to make that point plain. If you can find one entitlement that helped one person through the great deperession, I would like to know about it. There was no cash assistance, no food stamps, and no Social Security. By the time any governemnt program started, the depression was pretty much over.

You might wonder where I get my facts. I talked to people who lived through those years, like my dad, my mother, aunts and uncles, and older people when I volunteered at a nursing home. One lady was very specific. While the government would have us believe that if it weren't for the government people would not have made it though the great depression. But, older folks that lived through those days had a different story. That one lady at the nursing home pretty much hated the government for their lies. She was upset with her children for putting her in a home. "This didn't happen when I was younger," she said. "We took care of our parents." She had a lot to say about those days. I will never forget her.

If you want to see what life was like in this country before entitlements, simply read or watch "Little House on the Prairie." When the Ingalls suffered through a tornado that destroyed the entire crop, and killed their cow, there was not one government program to apply for aid. It was the people of Walnut Grove that helped the Ingalls family. And that is what life was like in this country before entitlements. "People helping people" was more than than a slogan, it was a reality. Of course, to make things interesting, Walnut Grove had Mrs. Oleson, their resident capitalist. If redistribution of the wealth is evil, it seems the people of Walnut Grove were very evil. Because, to help the Ingals family, they, at times had to redistribute the wealth. And that is the way it was. People helping people by distributing to anyone who had need. And it was all done without some Government Control Program.

This country survived very well without Federal Entitlement/Government Control Programs for about 150 years.

That was then. What about now? For that part of this discussion, I will draw on personal experience. And I hope I do not lose any respect from those who hate Entitlements, because I hate them too. And I wouldn't be on any if I didn't have to be.

In 1977 I developed something in my left ring finger that was very painful. Bumping that finger felt like being hit by a sledge hammer. I had to really protect that finger or suffer excruciating pain every time I bumped it. It is really hard to work with your hands when you only have one hand that you can use. So, I went to see a doctor. He said I needed surgery. Well, I didn't have the money, neither did my family. So I went to the church I was a member of. The preacher told me to go to the government for help. I had no choice. About 15 hospitalizations later I am still on Government Control Programs. And that is what they are.

I hate it. Federal Entitlements have ripped the heart and soul out of the nation. My church telling me to go to the government for help is just plain wrong. But, that is a symptom of a greater problem. People don't help people anymore, not like they did. Why should they when the government does it? But these goverment programs are not about helping people, they are about government control.

Becuase of my situation, I understand both sides of the Entitlement issue.
The reason there are so many people on entitlement programs is because Government has created and atmosphere where they have to be. Overtaxation, overregulation, free trade agreements that do nothing but send jobs overseas, have all created this atmosphere. The economy is being destroyed by the Government, as a result, people are losing good paying jobs, being forced to to get jobs that do not pay as well, if they are fortunate enough to get a job at all. My conservative friends know these things to be true, but fail to see the connection between the government destruction of the economy and the need for people to collect from the government. It seems to me that everytime we have economic problems in this country we place blame on poor people, instead of blaming those that have created these economic problems in the first place, which is Congress. Congress has been whittling away at our economy and our freedom for at least the last 50 years, and it's time for that to change.

If we want to do something about Entitlements, we must first change the direction of our Government. Therefore, I propose we end all business taxes, end all OSHA regulations, create a minimum wage system that is based on the cost of living. No one should be denied a living wage. I further propose that we end our participation is job stealing treaties, such as NAFTA. I further propose that we once again collect tariffs. These steps would once again allow businesses to earn a decent profit, while at the same time hire American workers, and pay them a living wage.

In the 60s and early 70s, there were all kinds of factories. Shirt factories, undergarment factories, etc. But, today, even the "Great American Chocolate Bar" is made in Mexico. We need to bring those jobs back to America. When we do that, then we can do something about Entitlements.

I use to be a radio announcer, but because of national shows like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, etc., and radio stations being controlled by computers, or satallite hook up, people like me are no longer needed. So we can't just simply say we need to get rid of Entitlements. It would be inhumane to all of a sudden take people off Entitlements when they are dependent on them.

I hate what Entitlements have done to this country, and if we could just end them without hurting anyone, that would be great. But that is not reality.


So, I think now you understand that in my spending plan, entitlements are not on the chopping block. I believe the best entitlement reform in a job. When America is working again, entitlements will become the safety net they were designed to be. They were not designed to be a way of life.

The abiding principle in my spending plan is that government must not spend more than it takes in. That would pose a bit of a problem. In the short run, if my tax plan and my jobs plan would be in place, revenues to the Federal Government will likely go down. In the long run, I believe revenues will go up as the economy goes up. When Americans are back at work, they will have more money, and their buying power will also go up.
When they buy more, revenues to the Federal Government will also go up, which will ease the short term budgetary shortfall.

The equation in my spending plan is very simple. 10% of revenue goes to paying down the debt, and 90% goes to government spending.


The Chopping Block


My spending plan calls for the elimination of whole departments. But I believe it would be easier to list the Departments, Agencies, Offices, etc., not on the chopping block.

1. The State Department
2. The Defense Department
3. The Commerce Department
4. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services
5. The Transportation Department (limited)
6. Bureau of the Census (limited)
7. Copyright & Patent Offices
8. The Federal Court System
9. The Justice Department
10. The Treasury Department
11. The District of Columbia
12. The Federal Communications Commission
13. Congress
14. Social Security Administration

If a Department, Bureau, Agency or Office is not in the above list, then I believe they should be eliminated. These Offices will allow the Federal Government to fulfill it's Constitutional duties. This is all we should be spending on besides entitlements.

Now, in order to educate you, I give you a link to the A-Z Index of U.S. Government Departments and Agencies.
http://www.usa.gov/directory/federal/index.shtml There is no reason we have all those departments, bureaus, agencies and offices. There are thousands. And these people in Washington today are having a hard time figuring out where to cut.

That is my economic plan for America. If you like it, please tell Congress. If you don't, please tell me. I am not beyond learning.

If Ron Paul would sign on to this plan, he would be a perfect candidate in my view. My plan is based largely on many things I heard Ron Paul say.

[ShaneEnochs]

That plan is a whole lot like Cain's plan. National sales tax? Plus it'd be hella hard to get the Congress to repeal the 16th amendment. By the way, many states are nearly bankrupt already. Making them pay taxes to the government will push them off a cliff. The crossing the border tax is pretty harsh as well.

[truelies]

Tom ya make Cain look good and he is a witless loon. Don't quit yer dayjob, k.

[The Gold Standard]

The best plan is to eliminate all economic plans and planning.

[TomL]

That plan is a whole lot like Cain's plan. National sales tax? Plus it'd be hella hard to get the Congress to repeal the 16th amendment. By the way, many states are nearly bankrupt already. Making them pay taxes to the government will push them off a cliff. The crossing the border tax is pretty harsh as well.

First of all, my plan has no National Sales Tax. They are retail revenue taxes. They are not added at the point of sale.

You might be right about Congress repealing the 16th Amendment.

With the elimination of all federal direct taxes to the people, and shifting of many of what the Federal Government does as far as regulation to the states, the states will probably have to raise taxes anyway. And without the federal tax burden to the people, they will better be able to afford the taxes the state governments levy.

The border tax is mainly for foreign goods and services. We could eliminate the travel portion of the border tax. But the travel portion of the border tax was to make the border tax uniform which is Constitutional.

I don't see how my plain is like Cain's plan. My plan eliminates all direct taxes, and corporate taxes. No 9% sales tax, no 9% corporate tax, and no 9% income tax. So, how can you say my plan is a lot like Cain's plan?

[Travlyr]

How about we legalize freedom and let people keep what they earn? Washington D.C. has raped the country enough already. Economics will take care of itself. Enough with the Socialism...

The 10 PLANKS stated in the Communist Manifesto and some of their American counterparts are... (http://www.libertyzone.com/Communist-Manifesto-Planks.html)

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal liability of all to labor.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools.
Complete separation of money and government. Honesty in trading. Enforce the rule of law. Bring the troops home.

[TomL]

Tom ya make Cain look good and he is a witless loon. Don't quit yer dayjob, k.

Is that the best you can do? Have any specifics?

[Jtorsella]

I stopped reading at the part about an imports tax. Protectionism doesn't work.
Great article by Rothbard:
http://mises.org/rothbard/protectionism.asp

[TomL]

How about we legalize freedom and let people keep what they earn? Washington D.C. has raped the country enough already. Economics will take care of itself. Enough with the Socialism...

What you just said here is the foundation for my plan. Let the people keep what they earn (no imcome taxes), that will give the people of this country economic freedom. Get the government off the backs of the American by eliminating direct taxes and all federal regulations. And that is what my plan does.

I hope you weren't say my plan reminds you of the communist manifesto.


Complete separation of money and government. Honesty in trading. Enforce the rule of law. Bring the troops home.

Complete separation of money and government would be unconstitutional. I agree with honesty in trading, enforcing the rule of Constitutional law, and bringing the troops home.

[TomL]

I stopped reading at the part about an imports tax. Protectionism doesn't work.
Great article by Rothbard:
http://mises.org/rothbard/protectionism.asp

If you take a part of my plan out of context you might conclude errantly that my plan is protectionist. Quoted here is a portion of another article I posted:

"Made in America trade treaties." If another country wants to sell their goods in the United States, they have to make those goods in the United States. Likewise, if we want to sell our goods in another country, we have to make them in that other country. This will help with our problem with the southern border. We should re-negotiate NAFTA, and amend it. If Mexico wants to sell it's goods in the United States, they have to make them here. Likewise, if we want to sell our goods in Mexico, we have to make them there. This will create a jobs base in Mexico, and the need for Mexicans to come to the United States illegally will be diminished.

These types of treaties will help all of us. Sharing the jobs and the markets is the way to solve problems even in the global economy. So, not only does the United States need my plan, so does the rest of the world.
We are currently in a trade imbalance, and the United States is at the short end of the trade stick. My plan promotes balanced trade. The tariff suggested is limited to 10 years to give the President and Congress time to enact "made in America" trade agreements and to re-negotiate the current unbalanced trade agreements.

I don't believe my plan is protectionist.

[Jtorsella]

If you take a part of my plan out of context you might conclude errantly that my plan is protectionist. Quoted here is a portion of another article I posted:

We are currently in a trade imbalance, and the United States is at the short end of the trade stick. My plan promotes balanced trade. The tariff suggested is limited to 10 years to give the President and Congress time to enact "made in America" trade agreements and to re-negotiate the current unbalanced trade agreements.

I don't believe my plan is protectionist.
Sorry, but that is protectionism.

[TomL]

Sorry, but that is protectionism.

If China wants to sell their goods here, they would have to buy/build factories here and make their goods here. Also if American businesses want to sell their goods in China, they would have to buy/build factories in China and make those goods in China. It's called a Reciprocal "Made In" Trade Agreement. How is that protectionism?

[helmuth_hubener]

Tom, cutting spending is key. If you don't want to cut transfer payments, and you don't want to cut the military, you can't cut very much. OK, you want to ax OSHA, EPA, and a bunch of others, but that's not going to substantially reduce the budget. Ron Paul's plan goes from 3.6 trillion to 2.6 trillion in one year. Frankly, that's not nearly enough, and I'm confident that actually, if he's elected President, Paul would push much more aggressively for even more cuts than that. We need to get down to 1 trillion, very very quickly (immediately) and then 500 billion, and then 200 billion, then 50 billion, and then by the end of Paul's first term we're looking at a proposed federal budget of 20 billion after the previous year's budget of 50 billion and the country is starting to look actually free again.

I'm sorry (no I'm not) but I don't care one single bit about these so-called entitlement programs. No one's entitled to a monthly check on my dime. Burn the checks. Demolish the IRS building. And breathe the free air.

[ILUVRP]

i still think my idea is very good.

1) everyone gets the first $30,000 with no tax ( even gates/buffet ) , then pays 20% on anything over 30k, no deductions for anything , no one could bitch as everyone gets the 30k.

2) all business pays 20% tax on the profits they tell their stock holders they made , if they have 100 million shares and tell stock holders they made $1/share that is 100 million, now they will tell the goverment they lost 50 million ( loop holes ) and get a tax refund.

as a futher note , i will believe congress wants to cut spending when they reduce their staff and their office budget.

[Travlyr]

What you just said here is the foundation for my plan. Let the people keep what they earn (no imcome taxes), that will give the people of this country economic freedom. Get the government off the backs of the American by eliminating direct taxes and all federal regulations. And that is what my plan does.

I hope you weren't say my plan reminds you of the communist manifesto.



Complete separation of money and government would be unconstitutional. I agree with honesty in trading, enforcing the rule of Constitutional law, and bringing the troops home.
Your plan is too controlling. You tax too much, you spend too much, and you meddle too much. Redistribution of wealth is not government's job. Controlling wages doesn't work. Excessive taxation enriches the people who work for the government at the expense of productive people... it stifles innovation. Why keep the FCC? Why keep minimum wage laws? Why keep entitlements?


Complete separation of money and government is unconstitutional. It shouldn't be. Yet, I would take lawful money over the counterfeiter's currency any day. The sooner the better. But ultimately, it would be great to amend the constitution to allow people complete freedom from control by others.

[archangel689]

"For there is one crucially important power inherent in the nature of the State apparatus. All other persons and groups in society (except for acknowledged and sporadic criminals such as thieves and bank robbers) obtain their income voluntarily: either by selling goods and services to the consuming public, or by voluntary gift (e.g., membership in a club or association, bequest, or inheritance). Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion, by threatening dire penalties should the income not be forthcoming. That coercion is known as “taxation,” although in less regularized epochs it was often known as “tribute.” Taxation is theft, purely and simply even though it is theft on a grand and colossal scale which no acknowledged criminals could hope to match. It is a compulsory seizure of the property of the State’s inhabitants, or subjects."


And don't start babbling about how it's constitutional, I didn't agree to the constitution.

There is no Social contract.

Yes, we are citizens of the State default, by virtue of our birth. But, we never really made a voluntary agreement to support the State.

And, yes, it would be nice to live outside the State in our own land of paradise unless some State comes in and thrashes us out claiming the area to be it's own. All in the name of the 'social contract'.

[helmuth_hubener]

So what do you think of my economic plan? $50 billion federal budget by 2016, entire executive branch eliminated (maybe 3 cabinet posts remaining out of the current army of millions of bureaucrats), all unconstitutional laws nullified by Presidential pardon. Thoughts? Sound good?

[Travlyr]

"I like it. And take the federal budget to $50 million by 2020."

[archangel689]

I would take a seriously look and break down who this debt is owed to and investigate it. I wouldn't presume outright that 100% of it is legitimate debt.

[jason43]

The best plan is to eliminate all economic plans and planning.

^This

[helmuth_hubener]

I would take a seriously look and break down who this debt is owed to and investigate it. I wouldn't presume outright that 100% of it is legitimate debt. Well none of it is legitimate debt that I owe to anyone. Is any of it legitimate debt that you have incurred? Have any of us, as taxpayers, entered into legally or morally binding contracts agreeing to borrow X dollars and then pay back X dollars by X time? No?

The best solution is repudiation. Harry Browne had a solution where federal assets were to be sold off to make several trillion bucks which would pay off the debt completely and vest an account to keep paying the oldsters but eliminate the SS tax. Maybe that was feasible back in 1996 when the debt was "only" 5.2 trillion. But really, why not just repudiate the whole thing? The bond holders get stuck with nothing, but is it right to rob people of their incomes in order to make sure that some individuals who decided to loan money to an evil and corrupt institution, with no collateral other than their expected continuing ability to rob -- to make sure that these opportunists get all their precious money back?

Sorry, guys: you loaned your money to a group of psychopathic mass murderers. Not only that, a group of consummate liars. Not only that, a group with no financial sense whatsoever, which has a long and publicly-advertised history of insane and irrational behavior, and carries huge and unmanageable debt load already. And your loans allowed them to slaughter even more people, and to destroy American civilization in ever-more ambitious ways. You get what you deserve. Total repudiation.

[Steven Douglas]

Just as Roosevelt's confiscation of wealth made depositors into "bad investors", rather than bankers into "embezzlers", collectivizing the entire money pool made "bad investors" out of all of us. Ironically, ordinary "depositors" are used as human shields; the very rationale for bailing out truly bad investors AND embezzlers, given that so many "innocents" would be caught in the crossfire and lose wealth as a result. So the only remaining question is one of how to "bail out the economy" - as if there really was a "THE ECONOMY".

[Travlyr]

Well none of it is legitimate debt that I owe to anyone. Is any of it legitimate debt that you have incurred? Have any of us, as taxpayers, entered into legally or morally binding contracts agreeing to borrow X dollars and then pay back X dollars by X time? No?

The best solution is repudiation. Harry Browne had a solution where federal assets were to be sold off to make several trillion bucks which would pay off the debt completely and vest an account to keep paying the oldsters but eliminate the SS tax. Maybe that was feasible back in 1996 when the debt was "only" 5.2 trillion. But really, why not just repudiate the whole thing? The bond holders get stuck with nothing, but is it right to rob people of their incomes in order to make sure that some individuals who decided to loan money to an evil and corrupt institution, with no collateral other than their expected continuing ability to rob -- to make sure that these opportunists get all their precious money back?

Sorry, guys: you loaned your money to a group of psychopathic mass murderers. Not only that, a group of consummate liars. Not only that, a group with no financial sense whatsoever, which has a long and publicly-advertised history of insane and irrational behavior, and carries huge and unmanageable debt load already. And your loans allowed them to slaughter even more people, and to destroy American civilization in ever-more ambitious ways. You get what you deserve. Total repudiation.

Total repudiation of all government debt, individual homesteading of all productive federal lands through a colorblind lottery system, and legalize industrial hemp.

[Steven Douglas]

Total repudiation of all government debt, individual homesteading of all productive federal lands through a colorblind lottery system, and legalize industrial hemp.

I'll buy that for a dollar!

[helmuth_hubener]

That would create some jobs, alright, Travlyr! And more importantly, some wealth! And I like that it's three points, just like 9-9-9 -- Welch-Free land-Hemp. A winning combo!

[Travlyr]

That would create some jobs, alright, Travlyr! And more importantly, some wealth! And I like that it's three points, just like 9-9-9 -- Welch-Free land-Hemp. A winning combo!

For sure helmuth. I am so tired of hearing that we are headed for certain doom when the counterfeiters lose their power. Opportunity abounds in this abundant world as soon as it is legal to prosper. I believe that the Autumn of 2011 will go down in history as the death of the lying media monopoly.

Honest prosperity is ours if we want it. It is just waiting for us to take it.

Welsh - Land - Hemp ... FTW!

[TomL]

Tom, cutting spending is key. If you don't want to cut transfer payments, and you don't want to cut the military, you can't cut very much. OK, you want to ax OSHA, EPA, and a bunch of others, but that's not going to substantially reduce the budget. Ron Paul's plan goes from 3.6 trillion to 2.6 trillion in one year. Frankly, that's not nearly enough, and I'm confident that actually, if he's elected President, Paul would push much more aggressively for even more cuts than that. We need to get down to 1 trillion, very very quickly (immediately) and then 500 billion, and then 200 billion, then 50 billion, and then by the end of Paul's first term we're looking at a proposed federal budget of 20 billion after the previous year's budget of 50 billion and the country is starting to look actually free again.

I'm sorry (no I'm not) but I don't care one single bit about these so-called entitlement programs. No one's entitled to a monthly check on my dime. Burn the checks. Demolish the IRS building. And breathe the free air.

You don't see massive spending cuts in my plan? Who said I wouldn't make cuts in the military. I agree with Ron Paul, we need to bring our military home, and close down those costly bases oversees. This plan is a jobs plan more than anything else. The private sector economy must be allowed to flourish if we are to correct all of our economic problems, and I believe my plan does that.

My plan cuts spending down to legitimate government functions authorized by the Constitution. I am sorry you can't see that.

You said, "No one's entitled to a monthly check on my dime." Would you prefer those people die?

You also seem to forget we have a massive debt. What do we do with that? Just forget about it? We will need revenue enough to fund legitimate government functions and pay down the debt, and whether you like it or not, that means taxes. My tax plan will generate the needed revenue, and get off the backs of the American people at the same time. Mine is the only plan that does that.
:cool:

[TomL]

i still think my idea is very good.

1) everyone gets the first $30,000 with no tax ( even gates/buffet ) , then pays 20% on anything over 30k, no deductions for anything , no one could bitch as everyone gets the 30k.

2) all business pays 20% tax on the profits they tell their stock holders they made , if they have 100 million shares and tell stock holders they made $1/share that is 100 million, now they will tell the goverment they lost 50 million ( loop holes ) and get a tax refund.

as a futher note , i will believe congress wants to cut spending when they reduce their staff and their office budget.

Believe it or not, my original tax plan was something similar. I called it my 20/20 plan. 20% flat income tax, and a $20,000 cost of living tax deduction in the base year, that would go up every year as the cost of living goes up. But, I junked it as it really keeps the tax code pretty much in tact. And that tax code, along with massive federal regulations is killing American businesses.

I researched various forms of taxation. Mainly, direct versus indirect taxation. As I researched, I have come to the conclusion that it is direct taxes that are the most detrimental to our economy. But taxes are not the only detriment to our economy. That fact that many of our business have moved to other countries, which has cost our economy 1 trillion dollars. I heard Ron Paul speak of this. We have to bring that money back. And we need to give incentives for businesses to do so.

To accomplish this, in my opinion, we not only need a good tax plan, we also need a good jobs plan. I believe my tax and jobs plan will accomplish what needs to be done to repair the economy. Put people back to work, encourage investment.

I personally want to see a day when we have no federal entitlements. If you have read what I said about entitlements. But to take people off entitlements without having a job, and nothing else to sustain them would be heartless and cruel. And if that is what Ron Paul supporters are about, then I am obviously in the wrong, and I may have to find another candidate to support and hope for the best.

:toady:

[TomL]

Oh my. Some of you are real looney-tunes. If the media has been exposed to some of you, I can understand why Ron Paul is getting a bad rap.

[helmuth_hubener]

First off, Tom, I'm not trying to attack you nor your plan. I personally would prefer to live in a place with your plan rather than the current USA system. If nothing else, it would be much easier for me to evade the retail tax you're talking about than the income tax :). So anyway, it would be an improvement, but maybe not a real big improvement. Not as big of an improvement as I'd like.


You don't see massive spending cuts in my plan? Who said I wouldn't make cuts in the military?Feel free to correct my understanding, but this is where I read it.


This seems to be the biggest part of the economic debate, which is spending. What to do about entitlements. Where should the spending cuts come from. There are those who would like to make cuts in entitlements. Others who would like to make cuts in defense. Some want to make cuts in housing subsidies and food stamps. I'm not in favor of either.[emph. added]

If you do want to cut the military, and are just making a distinction between defense and the military as Ron Paul cleverly does, let me know. What would your defense budget be? $300 billion? $30 billion? How much would you cut?

It may be that I don't see massive cuts in your plan just because you haven't expressed those massive cuts clearly and because I know the budgets of PBS, OSHA, and the EPA really are not that much. So I welcome you to correct me on this and join the Massive Budget Cuts Alliance. Would you cut the budget by at least a trillion the first year? What do you want the federal govt budget to be, ultimately?


My plan cuts spending down to legitimate government functions authorized by the Constitution. I am sorry you can't see that. Well, don't take this the wrong way, but where in the Constitution does it authorize Social Security or any other entitlement? Where does it say "Congress shall have power to run transfer payment programs"? That is what I don't see. Show me that clause.


You said, "No one's entitled to a monthly check on my dime." Would you prefer those people die? Look, I am not running for any office (at the moment) and so I can say this: of course! If the choice is between 1 million people dying and 1 million people living off of me for the rest of their lives, cut the cord, man! I can do way, way better and cooler stuff with my resources than support a bunch of deadbeats. I don't accept that this is the choice. I don't think any meaningful amount of people would die as a result of sudden and complete termination of welfare, AFDC, the SS, and every other robbery racket you call an "entitlement". But even if it were the choice, I don't accept that I have any moral responsibility to prevent 1 million people from killing themselves due to their refusal or inability to do anything productive. That is their responsibility, not mine.


You also seem to forget we have a massive debt. What do we do with that? Just forget about it? I didn't forget that "we" have it; didn't you read the whole thread? I said exactly what I want to do about it: repudiate it.

We will need revenue enough to fund legitimate government functions and pay down the debt, and whether you like it or not, that means taxes. My tax plan will generate the needed revenue, and get off the backs of the American people at the same time. Mine is the only plan that does that.
So again, just let me know how much you think you need for legitimate govt functions. Me, I think the govt was way too big in the 90s, way too big in the 80s,..... and on and on, and so if you're just wanting to go back to 2 trillion or to the 1 trillion dollar budgets of the 90s, I'm not that excited or interested, though certainly it would be an improvement.


1. The State Department
2. The Defense Department
3. The Commerce Department
4. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services
5. The Transportation Department (limited)
6. Bureau of the Census (limited)
7. Copyright & Patent Offices
8. The Federal Court System
9. The Justice Department
10. The Treasury Department
11. The District of Columbia
12. The Federal Communications Commission
13. Congress
14. Social Security Administration The SS and FCC are not Constitutionally authorized. The rest of them I guess are, but they're not Helmuth-authorized so they should eliminated too.

[helmuth_hubener]

I personally want to see a day when we have no federal entitlements. If you have read what I said about entitlements. But to take people off entitlements without having a job, and nothing else to sustain them would be heartless and cruel. And if that is what Ron Paul supporters are about, then I am obviously in the wrong, and I may have to find another candidate to support and hope for the best.Ron Paul himself would not just cut people off; he wants to gradually phase entitlements out in a very humane and reasonable manner. That is, in a way that the mainstream and probably you yourself would see as humane and reasonable.

I myself think it would be perfectly humane and reasonable to just stop sending the checks! Just cut the welfare off! Give people a two month notice if you must; that is plenty of time to prepare. The USA are prosperous and no one will starve, they will adapt and life will go on.

[Zippyjuan]

Ron Paul himself would not just cut people off; he wants to gradually phase entitlements out in a very humane and reasonable manner. That is, in a way that the mainstream and probably you yourself would see as humane and reasonable.

I myself think it would be perfectly humane and reasonable to just stop sending the checks! Just cut the welfare off! Give people a two month notice if you must; that is plenty of time to prepare. The USA are prosperous and no one will starve, they will adapt and life will go on.

Send notice to your grandmother that you are going to end her social security payments in two months and that she should "lip up" and take care of herself now. Tell her that "life will go on" when the money she needs from Medicare to help purchase her medications will also be cut off. She will surely thank you. Or not. Perhaps you can take her in?

[runamuck]

Send notice to your grandmother that you are going to end her social security payments in two months and that she should "lip up" and take care of herself now. Tell her that "life will go on" when the money she needs from Medicare to help purchase her medications will also be cut off. She will surely thank you. Or not. Perhaps you can take her in?

Thank you for bringing some rationality to the conversation.

[ShaneEnochs]

Ron Paul himself would not just cut people off; he wants to gradually phase entitlements out in a very humane and reasonable manner. That is, in a way that the mainstream and probably you yourself would see as humane and reasonable.

I myself think it would be perfectly humane and reasonable to just stop sending the checks! Just cut the welfare off! Give people a two month notice if you must; that is plenty of time to prepare. The USA are prosperous and no one will starve, they will adapt and life will go on.

Can't do something like that cold turkey. My family, for instance, depends on food stamps. Without them, we wouldn't be able to afford to pay the rent. This isn't because of us taking on a place we can't afford, it's because I haven't been able to find a job in the last year and my fiance is supporting us working fast food. The job market is tight. If you want to get people off welfare, you have to create an environment where the market can flourish, and this, currently, is not that environment. If you want to see real rioting in the streets where tens of thousands of people will die, then yeah, stop sending the checks.

[runamuck]

Can't do something like that cold turkey. My family, for instance, depends on food stamps. Without them, we wouldn't be able to afford to pay the rent. This isn't because of us taking on a place we can't afford, it's because I haven't been able to find a job in the last year and my fiance is supporting us working fast food. The job market is tight. If you want to get people off welfare, you have to create an environment where the market can flourish, and this, currently, is not that environment. If you want to see real rioting in the streets where tens of thousands of people will die, then yeah, stop sending the checks.

I think the OP needs to understand that Ron's position is very understanding of the realities of today's economy, society, and government.

You cannot and should not just cut all "entitlements" at the drop of a hat. It's unrealistic, unfeasible, and cruel due to the environment that has been created by our crony-capitalistic, fiat monetary, Keynesian run economy.

Even Ron, the purest of free market thinkers, understands you cannot pull the rug out.

[helmuth_hubener]

If you want to get people off welfare, you have to create an environment where the market can flourish, and this, currently, is not that environment.Ending all transfer payment programs would create that environment, and very quickly. No one is going to starve. No one is even close to starving in the USA. Outside of a very very few homeless people, no one in the USA even understands what starvation is. Do you have any idea how long it would take for your family to starve to death? A long time, let me tell you. If you suddenly had no food stamps, I have every confidence that you are ingenuitive, scrappy, and determined to survive, and that furthermore you are a decent person who has not burned every bridge you ever had via atrocious behavior and thus you have many friends and family willing to help you out. Your family is in no danger of death without food stamps.

[TomL]

First off, Tom, I'm not trying to attack you nor your plan. I personally would prefer to live in a place with your plan rather than the current USA system. If nothing else, it would be much easier for me to evade the retail tax you're talking about than the income tax :). So anyway, it would be an improvement, but maybe not a real big improvement. Not as big of an improvement as I'd like.

Feel free to correct my understanding, but this is where I read it.

If you do want to cut the military, and are just making a distinction between defense and the military as Ron Paul cleverly does, let me know. What would your defense budget be? $300 billion? $30 billion? How much would you cut?
That's it exactly. We have a Department of Defense, and that is what they should do. It is not a Department of Offense.

A year ago, I tested the waters for a run for the Presidency. I had a platform which I placed on several conservative forum sites to get feed back. Since I decided not to run, I deleted the platform. But the ideals are in tact in various articles scattered throughout the internet. Some of them are on my own sites. My foreign policy was practically identical to that of Ron Paul.

I have no problem with the military in the role of defense in a Congressionally declared war.

It may be that I don't see massive cuts in your plan just because you haven't expressed those massive cuts clearly and because I know the budgets of PBS, OSHA, and the EPA really are not that much. So I welcome you to correct me on this and join the Massive Budget Cuts Alliance. Would you cut the budget by at least a trillion the first year? What do you want the federal govt budget to be, ultimately?
I think I have. Considering my plan would only fund 14 or 15, I forgot to add the Post Office, that means there are thousands of agencies, departments and offices that would be eliminated. Did you look at that list I gave a link to?

Well, don't take this the wrong way, but where in the Constitution does it authorize Social Security or any other entitlement? Where does it say "Congress shall have power to run transfer payment programs"? That is what I don't see. Show me that clause.
There is an ongoing debate about the "general welfare clause" of the Constitution. I will not go into that here.

Did you read what I said about entitlements? If you did you would know that I hate them. I hate what they did to this country, to the people of this country. If I could I would eliminate all of them. But, with so many people, including me, depending on them, it would heartless and cruel to to that.

Look, I am not running for any office (at the moment) and so I can say this: of course! If the choice is between 1 million people dying and 1 million people living off of me for the rest of their lives, cut the cord, man! I can do way, way better and cooler stuff with my resources than support a bunch of deadbeats. I don't accept that this is the choice. I don't think any meaningful amount of people would die as a result of sudden and complete termination of welfare, AFDC, the SS, and every other robbery racket you call an "entitlement". But even if it were the choice, I don't accept that I have any moral responsibility to prevent 1 million people from killing themselves due to their refusal or inability to do anything productive. That is their responsibility, not mine.
I take it then that you are not a Christian.

I didn't forget that "we" have it; didn't you read the whole thread? I said exactly what I want to do about it: repudiate it.
So again, just let me know how much you think you need for legitimate govt functions. Me, I think the govt was way too big in the 90s, way too big in the 80s,..... and on and on, and so if you're just wanting to go back to 2 trillion or to the 1 trillion dollar budgets of the 90s, I'm not that excited or interested, though certainly it would be an improvement.
And yet you are supporting Ron Paul who only wants to go back to 2.6 trillion.

The SS and FCC are not Constitutionally authorized. The rest of them I guess are, but they're not Helmuth-authorized so they should eliminated too.
Before I answer about the FCC, do even know what their function is?

[helmuth_hubener]

Send notice to your grandmother that you are going to end her social security payments in two months and that she should "lip up" and take care of herself now. Tell her that "life will go on" when the money she needs from Medicare to help purchase her medications will also be cut off. She will surely thank you. Or not. Perhaps you can take her in?Of course I would! I totally would! Both of my grandmothers are plenty wealthy enough and provident enough that they can take care of themselves as respectable human beings. They have no need to stoop to accept a dole -- they have some dignity.

[TomL]

Send notice to your grandmother that you are going to end her social security payments in two months and that she should "lip up" and take care of herself now. Tell her that "life will go on" when the money she needs from Medicare to help purchase her medications will also be cut off. She will surely thank you. Or not. Perhaps you can take her in?


Can't do something like that cold turkey. My family, for instance, depends on food stamps. Without them, we wouldn't be able to afford to pay the rent. This isn't because of us taking on a place we can't afford, it's because I haven't been able to find a job in the last year and my fiance is supporting us working fast food. The job market is tight. If you want to get people off welfare, you have to create an environment where the market can flourish, and this, currently, is not that environment. If you want to see real rioting in the streets where tens of thousands of people will die, then yeah, stop sending the checks.

Thank you Shane. That is the purpose for my plan, to get the markets flourishing again. I have said it before, the best entitlement reform is a job.

[TomL]

I think the OP needs to understand that Ron's position is very understanding of the realities of today's economy, society, and government.

You cannot and should not just cut all "entitlements" at the drop of a hat. It's unrealistic, unfeasible, and cruel due to the environment that has been created by our crony-capitalistic, fiat monetary, Keynesian run economy.

Even Ron, the purest of free market thinkers, understands you cannot pull the rug out.

The OP does understand that. I have heard Ron Paul say many times that you can't just "pull the rug out." That is my position as well. Where did you get the idea that I didn't understand that?

[Travlyr]

Why keep the FCC? Why keep minimum wage laws? Why keep entitlements?
Tom?

[runamuck]

The OP does understand that. I have heard Ron Paul say many times that you can't just "pull the rug out." That is my position as well. Where did you get the idea that I didn't understand that?

Sorry - that wasn't what I meant. It sounded like you're a new supporter of Ron and the impression you were getting from some of the feedback on this forum was that Ron's position was to just cut all welfare spending on day 1.

I just wanted to make sure you knew his position.

[ShaneEnochs]

Ending all transfer payment programs would create that environment, and very quickly. No one is going to starve. No one is even close to starving in the USA. Outside of a very very few homeless people, no one in the USA even understands what starvation is. Do you have any idea how long it would take for your family to starve to death? A long time, let me tell you. If you suddenly had no food stamps, I have every confidence that you are ingenuitive, scrappy, and determined to survive, and that furthermore you are a decent person who has not burned every bridge you ever had via atrocious behavior and thus you have many friends and family willing to help you out. Your family is in no danger of death without food stamps.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I don't believe ending entitlements is going to get jobs to start hiring. I do agree that it needs reform, but right now may not be the best time to start that.

I've personally seen two people die in my city from being homeless in the past four years, whether it be from starving or no protection from the elements/no medical care, I'm not sure. No one is going to hire a homeless person. It's a fact of life. If I lost my food stamps, yes, I would lose my home, and no, I would not have anywhere to go. My parents are those religious fundamentalists that wouldn't allow my family to move in simply because we are not married. In their eyes, my family being homeless would be our punishment for living together. It's fucked up, but that's how it is.

[Travlyr]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I don't believe ending entitlements is going to get jobs to start hiring. I do agree that it needs reform, but right now may not be the best time to start that.

I've personally seen two people die in my city from being homeless in the past four years, whether it be from starving or no protection from the elements/no medical care, I'm not sure. No one is going to hire a homeless person. It's a fact of life. If I lost my food stamps, yes, I would lose my home, and no, I would not have anywhere to go. My parents are those religious fundamentalists that wouldn't allow my family to move in simply because we are not married. In their eyes, my family being homeless would be our punishment for living together. It's fucked up, but that's how it is.
You are right. The jobs are not coming back. The entitlements are ending unless Ron Paul is elected. The homelessness will accelerate. The government statistics will not reflect this. The media will not report it. It is happening in front of our eyes. Ron Paul has the right plan. No one else is putting it forth.

[TomL]

Originally Posted by Travlyr
Why keep the FCC? Why keep minimum wage laws? Why keep entitlements?


Tom?

The FCC overseas broadcast treaties with other nations. Nations have "clear channels" U.S. clear channels on AM are the 10s. 610, 710, 810, 910, 1010, 1110,.... Canadian clear channels are the 40s. 540, 640, 740, 840, 940,..... Mexican clear channels are the 30s. 530, 630, 730,.... Having treaties with other nations is a legitimate Constitutional function of the Federal government. FCC rules and regulations are to uphold those treaties. That is their main function.

I have no idea why we have to have a minimum wage.

Have you read my quoted article on entitlements?

[TomL]

Sorry - that wasn't what I meant. It sounded like you're a new supporter of Ron and the impression you were getting from some of the feedback on this forum was that Ron's position was to just cut all welfare spending on day 1.

I just wanted to make sure you knew his position.

I am not a new supporter. I just recent removed the 2008 bumper sticker in anticipation of a 2012 sticker. I know Ron's positions very well. I am just concerned that others that might stumble on this site and get the wrong idea about as you thought I did.

Anyway, thanks for your concern.

[Travlyr]

I did read your take on entitlements, yet the entitlement system impoverishes people. The last two years in a row seniors have been denied their COLA adjustments and this year they can expect less than 4% increase while true inflation is closer to 10%/year. Seniors are losing the entitlement game fast as it is. There is something to be said to wean people off of entitlements, but if Ron Paul doesn't get elected, then those entitlements will go away as the dollar self-destructs just like the jobs have gone away already.

[Steven Douglas]

I did read your take on entitlements, yet the entitlement system impoverishes people. The last two years in a row seniors have been denied their COLA adjustments and this year they can expect less than 4% increase while true inflation is closer to 10%/year. Seniors are losing the entitlement game fast as it is. There is something to be said to wean people off of entitlements, but if Ron Paul doesn't get elected, then those entitlements will go away as the dollar self-destructs just like the jobs have gone away already.


^^ This.

Wait until the market picks up again and the debt machine finally gets cranked back up and starts belching out all those pent up bailout reserves. Nothing slashes entitlements like a frog in a blender like spiraling inflation.

[Travlyr]

^^ This.

Wait until the market picks up again and the debt machine finally gets cranked back up and starts belching out all those pent up bailout reserves. Nothing slashes entitlements like a frog in a blender like spiraling inflation.
That's right. Inflation like we've never seen before. And Ron Paul has a plan that will work for the transition. Nobody else is offering to keep seniors and the indigent fed, warm, and dry through the process. If Ron Paul doesn't win in 2012, then the warmongers in charge will spend the money on bombs, drones, and pad their own pockets while low income and fixed income earners will be left to fend for themselves.

[helmuth_hubener]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I don't believe ending entitlements is going to get jobs to start hiring. I do agree that it needs reform, but right now may not be the best time to start that. As Travlyr and Ron Paul have explained: the entitlements *are* going to end. So would you rather it end quietly, in an orderly manner, with 60 days notice, or in a situation of collapse, chaos, and maybe even hyperinflation? 60 days is a long time. It's reasonable notice, it's plenty of time to get affairs in order and prepare for a financial setback.


I've personally seen two people die in my city from being homeless in the past four years, whether it be from starving or no protection from the elements/no medical care, I'm not sure. As I said, homeless people are the only ones who do know what starvation is, and do die from starvation (and/or malnutrition, and only very occasionally... at least for now), but it's only a small subset of homeless people even then. People in the USA are homeless because of specific lifestyle choices they have made, usually involving substance abuse, and sometimes so bizarre and self-destructive we would classify the choices as mental illness. It's not that they just can't afford housing or something. No way. At least not currently. If we keep going down the socialist path, then the economy will deteriorate and eventually things will get so bad that this could change.


No one is going to hire a homeless person. It's a fact of life. If I lost my food stamps, yes, I would lose my home, and no, I would not have anywhere to go. My parents are those religious fundamentalists that wouldn't allow my family to move in simply because we are not married. In their eyes, my family being homeless would be our punishment for living together. You would not be homeless, not like a real homeless person like we think of and like I discussed above. I am confident that you are not a horrible person who has burned all his bridges, as I said. If it came down to it, your parents may well let you move in. If it came down to it, for that matter, you may very well get married, if it's a choice between marriage and desperate circumstances. But beyond your parents, if you are a decent person the world is filled with friends and family for you who are not willing to see you out on the street and certainly will not permit your starving to death. Even truly horrible people often have someone who likes them enough to let them crash on their couch.

Also, what you say is a fact of life is not a fact of life. There's no reason your employer need know you're homeless. Shower and laundry facilities are all over the place and can be utilized for cheap or free. I've gotten a job while homeless. Multiple times, in fact.

[Revolution9]

Is that the best you can do? Have any specifics?

Yeah. The guy I am working for is having a hard enough time getting merely 75 million into the country to do business here. He has to pay tax on it even though it is his money because it is coming from outside the country. He would probably park billions in US accounts but they want to rape his accounts on the transition. So he pulls only what he needs and has to wait two to three weeks plus to get his cash over here so he can invest in America and American jobs. Your plan would make it hard for the upper economic sector to re-liquidify this country with investments from foreign monies brought in or repatriated cash.

Don't quit your day job.

Rev9

[Revolution9]

People in the USA are homeless because of specific lifestyle choices they have made, usually involving substance abuse, and sometimes so bizarre and self-destructive we would classify the choices as mental illness. It's not that they just can't afford housing or something. No way.

I don't know where you live but this is an unrealistic assessment. A one bedroom apartment in an area you won't get robbed in will cost 800 USD average in Atlanta for a half decent one. Decent and yer above a grand. Yer an average worker in the service industry making 8 to 10 bucks an hour. You have to work 80 to 100 hours each month just to cover rent. Add utilities at 200USD and that is another 20 to 25 hours just to keep that roof over your head. Right now with just the basics that is 120 hours worked and a single grocery item has not been bought. Add transport costs and you end up eating badly with the little you have left. You will get sick at some point. Your service job will not pay you for sick days and if you lose five days you have a roof and heat and lights and water but no food. Yer only a short tumble to the street from there. A very tough place to wrench yourself out of as all your resources..shower..fresh clothes..hot meal, home address, phone line are all gone.

Like i said.. I don't know where you live but in the old days rent was one weeks work, groceries and household items was one week. other bills was one week and savings was one week.

Rev9

[helmuth_hubener]

That's it exactly. We have a Department of Defense, and that is what they should do. It is not a Department of Offense.

A year ago, I tested the waters for a run for the Presidency. Etc. Etc. and you go on, like a true politician, to answer absolutely none of my questions and to give absolutely no specifics. Well at least now I understand who you are and where you're coming from and can stop foolish dreams about getting straight answers to reasonable questions.


There is an ongoing debate about the "general welfare clause" of the Constitution. I will not go into that here. OK, so there's your clause. You're one of those. You do realize, of course, that PBS, EPA, and OSHA are promoting and furthering the general welfare. You do realize, of course, that under your interpretation there is no field of human activity solidly and definitely outside the purview of the central govt. You do realize, of course, that because you have this interpretation your claim that your plan would allow the govt to do only its Constitutional functions is utterly, utterly meaningless.


Did you read what I said about entitlements? If you did you would know that I hate them. I hate what they did to this country, to the people of this country. If I could I would eliminate all of them. But, with so many people, including me, depending on them, it would heartless and cruel to to that. To the contrary, it would be heartless to keep destroying them and their families with the dole. I mean, how long are you planning on depending on the dole? Another month? Another year? Until you die? There has to be a limit to the madness! 60 days is a reasonable amount of time, don't you think?


I take it then that you are not a Christian.I am a follower of Jesus. I try to follow his teachings. I think He would not approve at all of me deciding to scrap my life, throw it in the garbage, and direct all my time, energy, and resources toward allowing idle strangers a comfortable lifestyle, rather than pursuing my own worthy goals. I think He'd be horrified at the idea. This idea is anti-life.


And yet you are supporting Ron Paul who only wants to go back to 2.6 trillion.Oh there's no way he'll be satisfied with 2.6 tees. This is what he's devoted his life to. Cut, cut, cut, cut, cut. He is going to cut every dollar that can be cut. He does not want to only go back to 2.6 Ts. That is a total misunderstanding of who Ron Paul is and what he wants. That is not what he wants. That is a very clever campaign tool and a very modest beginning that nevertheless is a whole lot more cutting than his opponents have proposed (which is zip), and a whole lot more than you have proposed (which is vague and effectively also zip). What would be the total budget a President TomL would propose? Would it be 2.6 Big Ts? Would you want to trim at least a trillion ferns the first year? You're not going to tell us, see, because you're a wannabe-politician. You'll never say, not ever. It's a secret.

Ron Paul, you know where he stands. He'll give you specifics.


Before I answer about the FCC, do you even know what their function is?Well FCC stands, I think, for the Fruitloops and Cheerios Chickens and their job is to make sure I don't ever see cigarettes. That's what I've been informed. And now are you going to try to claim that I'm wrong?

[Steven Douglas]

Well FCC stands, I think, for the Fruitloops and Cheerios Chickens and their job is to make sure I don't ever see cigarettes. That's what I've been informed. And now are you going to try to claim that I'm wrong?

Oh sheesh, I knew it!

Well, they can just keep their stinking paws off my cigarettes, those damned dirty FCC apes!

That's one thing I love about China. They smoke. A LOT. At dinner and in the middle of meals. It is so much a part of Chinese culture and customs that it is not uncommon to hear a young Chinese woman list "and he should also be a smoker" as one of her criteria for a man to marry, given that it opens up more opportunities to him.

Oh, and their cigarettes are much, much better than ours. Damn, they're good! The Chinese can buy some of the most popular American brands for about 10RMB a pack - very cheap, but also way down on the lower shelf with all the other "lower class" smokes.

Sorry for the interruption, anti-smoking prohibitionist nazis can all go straight to hell, and we now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

[/hijack]

[SpicyTurkey]

Oh sheesh, I knew it!

Well, they can just keep their stinking paws off my cigarettes, those damned dirty FCC apes!

That's one thing I love about China. They smoke. A LOT. At dinner and in the middle of meals. It is so much a part of Chinese culture and customs that it is not uncommon to hear a young Chinese woman list "and he should also be a smoker" as one of her criteria for a man to marry, given that it opens up more opportunities to him.

Oh, and their cigarettes are much, much better than ours. Damn, they're good! The Chinese can buy some of the most popular American brands for about 10RMB a pack - very cheap, but also way down on the lower shelf with all the other "lower class" smokes.

Sorry for the interruption, anti-smoking prohibitionist nazis can all go straight to hell, and we now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

[/hijack]

hahaha

+rep

[TomL]

First off, does anyone here know how to read. I have changed my mind about the Department of Education. My Department of Education would be for one purpose only. Demand that children learn to read in English or never get out of 1st grade, which is where some of you obviously belong.

Where in the world did I say anything about the FCC being allowed to take someone's cigarettes? What the FCC was designed to do and what they have been used to do by big government politicians are two different things, and I have never said otherwise.

And Helmuth, you said, "I am a follower of Jesus. I try to follow his teachings. I think He would not approve at all of me deciding to scrap my life, throw it in the garbage, and direct all my time, energy, and resources toward allowing idle strangers a comfortable lifestyle, rather than pursuing my own worthy goals. I think He'd be horrified at the idea. This idea is anti-life."

With that attitude there is no way that you are a follower of Jesus. I have studied the Bible ever since I was 7, and I am now 55. So let me educate you about what it means to follow Christ. Here is an article I have written called, "Following Christ."

Have you ever wondered what Jesus meant when he said, "come follow me"? I have. Therefore, I have recently did a bit of a study on the subject, using both, Vines's, and Strong's dictionaries.

The Greek word, "akoloutheo" , is defined in Strong's as, "to be in the same way with, to accompany." In Vine's as, "a follower, companion, expressing union." Obviously, it is more than simply walking behind someone. It seems more of a joining. And that makes sense. In fact, following Christ seems to be connected with making sacrifices.

When Jesus said to the disciples, "come follow me," they left their businesses and their families behind. When Jesus said to the rich ruler, "come follow me," it was prerequisite that he sell all his belongings and give to the poor. So, it seems that following Christ also brings with it making sacrifices. Definitely more than simply walking behind someone.

Is making sacrifices a requirement for following Christ today? Considering the sacrifices made by the apostles, I would say there are sacrifices to be made when you follow Christ. We are called upon to make sacrifices. Following Chrsit could mean leaving the family business in service to Christ. Maybe leaving the family, or not having a family at all. Maybe helping the poor in a sacrificial way. When you join Christ, you may be called upon to sacrifice everything, even your life.

When you join Christ and come into union with him, you sacrifice self-ownership. Scripture teaches that we are bought with a price. We are then owned by Christ. We are not our own, we belong to Christ.

Can you appreciate the full ramification of following Christ? If indeed following Christ means we come into union with him, are we not bound by union rules. My dad worked for Bethlehem Steel. Once in a while, they would hammer out a new contract. Once the new contract was approved by the membership, both sides were bound by the provisions of the contract. The same is true when you join union with Christ. There is a contract called the New Testament that all union members are bound by. And that is what following Christ is all about.

A part of that contract we have in union with Christ is, "Love your neighbor as yourself." And what did Jesus say about the good Samaritan? Let me refresh you memory. A man was on the road outside of the city. He was mugged. Religious people just passed him by. A Samaritan came a long and helped the "stranger." He took care of his wounds, then took him in the city, took him to a hotel, put him up in a room. He told the hotel owner to take care of the stranger, and when he returns, he will pay for everything. Obviously you are no good Samaritan. Followers of Jesus are compassionate toward the downtrodden, as Jesus was.

I also wrote an article called: "Was Jesus A Capitalist?" You can see it at this link: http://sonofdavid.myfreeforum.org/Was_Jesus_a_Capitalist__about46.html

For anyone interested, I went through the internet and found portions of my platform when I was thinking of running for President. You can find it at the following link: http://wayoftruth.motion-forum.net/t217-my-platform-when-i-was-thinking-about-running-for-president#506

I would hope some of you read what I said, and not comment on what I didn't say. If you are responding to someone else, please make that plain. Any comment standing alone, I assume it is meant to respond to the OP in someway. And Helmuth, please learn what it means to actually follow Jesus.

[helmuth_hubener]

I don't know where you live but this is an unrealistic assessment. A one bedroom apartment in an area you won't get robbed in will cost 800 USD average in Atlanta for a half decent one.I am not saying that housing is affordable and that everyone can afford housing. I'm saying that even those who cannot, do not end up literally living on the street, sleeping under the overpass or in the woods, digging through dumpsters, and generally being objects of pity and shock. They move in with friends, they move back in with parents, they go to shelters, they go to YWCAs, they get assistance from their churches, etc. etc. There's an almost unlimited number of layers of protections and fall-back plans for those needing housing. The ones who are forced to actually live on the streets in bad situations, not just during the day but even overnight, as derelicts, full-time beggars, weirdos, etc. are those who are kicked out of the shelters because of their substance abuse problems and those who are just so confused or deranged that they don't want to go to the shelters or anywhere else.

I have driven through downtown Atlanta. Believe me, the people there did not look like they were an exception to this rule. They were not normal, well-adjusted individuals.

Now there are some "homeless" people who are not really in any kind of desperate nor even uncomfortable situation, but are leftists doing it as a hip lifestyle choice, kind of like hippies. You find this type in warm, pleasant climates, like The People's Park in Berkeley.

[helmuth_hubener]

Tom, you are hilarious. I love to laugh, so do stick around, please. "Where in the world did I say anything about the FCC being allowed to take someone's cigarettes?" Outrage!!!!!

Look, the type of "sacrifice" Jesus would look upon favorably and promote would be to give up something good for something even better. I'm not sure that can properly be called a sacrifice, but whatever you want to call it, there it is.

The kind of sacrifice you have somehow determined I should make is the kind where I give up something good for something ugly and lousy. Like I should sacrifice a beautiful painting that I spent a year of my life making to donate it to The People's Park for the express purpose of them using it to spit on and wipe their dirty hands. Now that is a real sacrifice. It's also a horrifyingly evil notion.

I am very gratified that you have chosen to fulfill my words absolutely by refusing to answer any questions directly or provide any specifics whatsoever. That's pretty hilarious, too.

[helmuth_hubener]

I think you should sue Herman Cain for plagiarizing your campaign platform.

I am still formulating my foreign policy. And, I can only speak in generalities anyway since I am not privy to all the information a President needs to be to have a specific foreign policy.

You, sir, are the mastermind behind The Cain. Nine Nine NINE!!

[helmuth_hubener]

I also love it that 14.5% of your platform is devoted to the Pressing Issue of Amanda Someone in Italy. :D

[Revolution9]

I am not saying that housing is affordable and that everyone can afford housing. I'm saying that even those who cannot, do not end up literally living on the street, sleeping under the overpass or in the woods, digging through dumpsters, and generally being objects of pity and shock. They move in with friends, they move back in with parents, they go to shelters, they go to YWCAs, they get assistance from their churches, etc. etc. There's an almost unlimited number of layers of protections and fall-back plans for those needing housing. The ones who are forced to actually live on the streets in bad situations, not just during the day but even overnight, as derelicts, full-time beggars, weirdos, etc. are those who are kicked out of the shelters because of their substance abuse problems and those who are just so confused or deranged that they don't want to go to the shelters or anywhere else.

I have driven through downtown Atlanta. Believe me, the people there did not look like they were an exception to this rule. They were not normal, well-adjusted individuals.

Now there are some "homeless" people who are not really in any kind of desperate nor even uncomfortable situation, but are leftists doing it as a hip lifestyle choice, kind of like hippies. You find this type in warm, pleasant climates, like The People's Park in Berkeley.

Downtown Atlanta is where the certified scary tinfoil hat homeless wander at night. I moved from Little Five Points recently after 30 years and I know a few dozen hard working folks who cannot find any work and they dig all day, scrounge cell phone money to have a phone to call for jobs, are not substance abusers yet sleep in the weeds quite frequently as nobody wants someone on their couch nightly. But for the grace of God and good friends I would be there too. One of the scariest of thoughts. I was there from 14 to 17 in the early seventies in much freer and friendlier days. I got stuck once in Berkeley in 2002 as well, when FedEx misdelivered my computer, I lost the contract I came for and I was stuck in an RV for six months until I finally nailed a good stage design contract for big rock tour and returned home to Atlanta.

Rev9

[helmuth_hubener]

I know a few dozen hard working folks who cannot find any work and they dig all day, scrounge cell phone money to have a phone to call for jobs, are not substance abusers yet sleep in the weeds quite frequently as nobody wants someone on their couch nightly. Then things are getting worse. :( That does not bode well.

[TomL]

Yeah. The guy I am working for is having a hard enough time getting merely 75 million into the country to do business here. He has to pay tax on it even though it is his money because it is coming from outside the country. He would probably park billions in US accounts but they want to rape his accounts on the transition. So he pulls only what he needs and has to wait two to three weeks plus to get his cash over here so he can invest in America and American jobs. Your plan would make it hard for the upper economic sector to re-liquidify this country with investments from foreign monies brought in or repatriated cash.

Don't quit your day job.

Rev9

Where have I said money coming into this country should be taxed?

[TomL]

But the FCC also effectively controls what is said over the airwaves. That is in violation of the 1st Amendment and it makes it tough to get the message out that the Federal Reserve counterfeits money. If we heard that on the nightly news and all day long, then we could stop their theft in no time at all. The sooner the better.

We don't need minimum wage laws. Your focus is on jobs rather than opportunity. Opportunity and entrepreneurship is what people need. The Federal government "owns" 650 million acres of land. They are not allowed to "own" any. When individuals are allowed to homestead those lands, competing currencies, and industrial hemp become legalized, then the economy will boom and employees will be competing for jobs while employers will be forced to pay competing wages.

I did read your take on entitlements, yet the entitlement system impoverishes people. The last two years in a row seniors have been denied their COLA adjustments and this year they can expect less than 4% increase while true inflation is closer to 10%/year. Seniors are losing the entitlement game fast as it is. There is something to be said to wean people off of entitlements, but if Ron Paul doesn't get elected, then those entitlements will go away as the dollar self-destructs just like the jobs have gone away already.

Property rights, honest sound money, laissez-faire free-market capitalism and the rule of law are the keys to prosperity.


1. I have given you the legitimate Constitutional function of the FCC. And those should be funded. That's what this thread is about. It's the economy, not what some government agencies do that they shouldn't. But, I agree with you.

2. And I agree with you about the minimum wage, so I don't know what your problem is.

3. And so because the elderly are not getting enough, you would even take that away too. You may have read my take on entitlements, but I don't think you understand it. I am all favor of weaning people off entitlements as long as there is an alternative.

4. From a political standpoint I agree with you. But as a Christian I believe the poor must be helped from whatever source. Scriptures are full of statements about helping the poor. So I would prefer that the church and private sector charities take care of the poor. Unfortunately, they are not doing an adequate job.

[ShaneEnochs]

People in the USA are homeless because of specific lifestyle choices they have made, usually involving substance abuse, and sometimes so bizarre and self-destructive we would classify the choices as mental illness. It's not that they just can't afford housing or something. No way. At least not currently. If we keep going down the socialist path, then the economy will deteriorate and eventually things will get so bad that this could change.

Are you being serious? You're kidding, right? So no one has lost a job, lost their home, had no friends and no family, and ended up on the street?


You would not be homeless, not like a real homeless person like we think of and like I discussed above. I am confident that you are not a horrible person who has burned all his bridges, as I said. If it came down to it, your parents may well let you move in. If it came down to it, for that matter, you may very well get married, if it's a choice between marriage and desperate circumstances. But beyond your parents, if you are a decent person the world is filled with friends and family for you who are not willing to see you out on the street and certainly will not permit your starving to death. Even truly horrible people often have someone who likes them enough to let them crash on their couch.

Unfortunately, this is not the case. Case in fact, I became homeless for a short time back in December of last year. We were lucky enough to be able to move in with some extended family, but they made it clear that should it happen again, they wouldn't be willing to take us in.

So I guess you're offering your place?


Also, what you say is a fact of life is not a fact of life. There's no reason your employer need know you're homeless. Shower and laundry facilities are all over the place and can be utilized for cheap or free. I've gotten a job while homeless. Multiple times, in fact.

Every application I've put in I've had to provide proof of residence.

[ShaneEnochs]

I'm saying that even those who cannot, do not end up literally living on the street, sleeping under the overpass or in the woods, digging through dumpsters, and generally being objects of pity and shock. They move in with friends, they move back in with parents, they go to shelters, they go to YWCAs, they get assistance from their churches, etc. etc. There's an almost unlimited number of layers of protections and fall-back plans for those needing housing. The ones who are forced to actually live on the streets in bad situations, not just during the day but even overnight, as derelicts, full-time beggars, weirdos, etc. are those who are kicked out of the shelters because of their substance abuse problems and those who are just so confused or deranged that they don't want to go to the shelters or anywhere else.

I have driven through downtown Atlanta. Believe me, the people there did not look like they were an exception to this rule. They were not normal, well-adjusted individuals.

Now there are some "homeless" people who are not really in any kind of desperate nor even uncomfortable situation, but are leftists doing it as a hip lifestyle choice, kind of like hippies. You find this type in warm, pleasant climates, like The People's Park in Berkeley.

I live in West Virginia. Temperatures can get down to below zero in bad winters. Since I've moved to where I live currently, I have heard homeless people digging through our trash every night. They go around with a shopping cart. These people are not homeless by choice. At my apartment alone, I've seen seven different homeless people.

[TomL]

Tom, you are hilarious. I love to laugh, so do stick around, please. "Where in the world did I say anything about the FCC being allowed to take someone's cigarettes?" Outrage!!!!!

Look, the type of "sacrifice" Jesus would look upon favorably and promote would be to give up something good for something even better. I'm not sure that can properly be called a sacrifice, but whatever you want to call it, there it is.

The kind of sacrifice you have somehow determined I should make is the kind where I give up something good for something ugly and lousy. Like I should sacrifice a beautiful painting that I spent a year of my life making to donate it to The People's Park for the express purpose of them using it to spit on and wipe their dirty hands. Now that is a real sacrifice. It's also a horrifyingly evil notion.

I am very gratified that you have chosen to fulfill my words absolutely by refusing to answer any questions directly or provide any specifics whatsoever. That's pretty hilarious, too.

Helmuth, I am through with you. We obviously do not have a common frame of reference to continue this discussion.

[Fox McCloud]

I cannot and would not support your plan, as protectionism is a strong column in it--I could not support any plan that hand protectionism in it, for that matter.

[helmuth_hubener]

Helmuth, I am through with you. We obviously do not have a common frame of reference to continue this discussion.Oh, OK! Or you could just answer the simple question of what you want the federal budget to be. But that would be too hard. So you could just type "yes" or "no" to the question whether you would decrease the budget by at least a trillion dollars the 1st year, as Ron Paul proposes. But that would be too hard, too. Ah, well, what can one do?

[TomL]

I cannot and would not support your plan, as protectionism is a strong column in it--I could not support any plan that hand protectionism in it, for that matter.

As you wish. I just don't see the protectionism? Could you please tell me where it is?

[bolil]

The best plan is to eliminate all economic plans and planning.

Free market right? Means free.

[helmuth_hubener]

Are you being serious? You're kidding, right? So no one has lost a job, lost their home, had no friends and no family, and ended up on the street?People with no friends and family are that way for a reason.




Unfortunately, this is not the case. Case in fact, I became homeless for a short time back in December of last year. We were lucky enough to be able to move in with some extended family, but they made it clear that should it happen again, they wouldn't be willing to take us in.

So I guess you're offering your place?I don't know you. If you are seriously saying that those who know you think so lowly of you they'd be indifferent to your well-being, then you deserve whatever you get. Who am I to disagree with them? If what you say is true and not, as I charitably think, a mis-estimation, then you are a fairly worthless human being in the eyes of those who know you best, who are in the best position to judge. Losing someone like that will be no loss to humanity.

I frankly think it's too hard for people to die nowadays from a genetic point of view. In centuries past, being either useless or stupid was usually enough to kill you off. Now, even heaping portions of both will hardly ever be enough to kill a person. So the useless and the stupid go on to propagate their kind prolifically, with food stamps and welfare checks to encourage them, and destroy the species. This alone would be sufficient reason to end welfare and food stamps. How about we not enable survival of the weakest, survival of the unfit? I vote for survival of the fit, and let nature take its course on the unfit.


Every application I've put in I've had to provide proof of residence. What in the world are you talking about? Are you applying at the CIA or something? No one cares where you live! At all!

[TomL]

Free market right? Means free.

We supposedly have free markets. How are they working for you?

[Fox McCloud]

1. A 10% Border Tax

If you are buying something from over seas, you or your agent will pay the 10% tax on the cost of that item when you claim that item at the border depot. All items not claimed will remain at the border depot for a reasonable time, and space is available, then dispensed with.


2. A 10% Tax On Revenues Of Individual States.

This is a 10% tax on the revenues, no matter how derived, of the several states in the United States of America. Each State has sources of revenue. 10% of those revenues will go to the Federal Government.

4. We need to stop enacting unfair trade agreements that do nothing but open the U.S. market to other countries creating a trade imbalance, and create loopholes for U.S. companies to move to other countries. And as quickly as possible we need to get out of the unfair trade agreements already enacted. The only trade agreements I would favor are ones that say, "If you want to sell your manufactured goods in the United States, they must be made in the United States.

5. Congress should levy tariffs on all goods coming into the United States to recuperate lost revenues due to the elimination of Capital Gains and Corporate taxes. These tariffs would last no more than 10 years, allowing the United States time to enter into "Manufacture in the United States" trade agreements.

That's all protectionism. Freed trade isn't a bilateral agreement; that's a modern perversion of what free trade is. Free trade is a purely domestic policy of no taxing/penalizing imports into the country, regardless of origin--it doesn't mean that the countries we import from have to necessarily accept all of our products in return.

[DamianTV]

We supposedly have free markets. How are they working for you?

Too many posts to read thru. Does your plan include creating an Honest Money System that prevents Money Manipulators from Abusing the Common Man?

Does it transfer the Real Wealth of the Country back into the hands of the people that create it? And by create, I mean create, not print. The Real Value of Wealth is the standards that it is measured against. Thus, it is the Goods and Services that the People Produce. Banking is the apitomy of what is NOT an Honest Money System, and it allows those with the power to create money (Banks, through loans) to acquire the wealth (being the Goods and Services of the People) through deceptive practices, such as foreclosures, repossession, etc.

Do you intend to get us off of a Debt Backed Interest Based Fiat Currency?

[helmuth_hubener]

We supposedly have free markets. How are they working for you?Who supposes that?
Can suppositions be wrong?
Do you believe everything that someone, somewhere, supposedly supposes?

[DamianTV]

We've all made the supposition that Fiat Currency is money. It is NOT.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Uyif8Z7x2Q

[Zippyjuan]

The video claims that "In God We Trust" was put on money by the Founding Fathers. That is not true. It made its first appearance on US money in 1864- on the two cent coin. http://www.treasury.gov/about/education/Pages/in-god-we-trust.aspx

It was found that the Act of Congress dated January 18, 1837, prescribed the mottoes and devices that should be placed upon the coins of the United States. This meant that the mint could make no changes without the enactment of additional legislation by the Congress. In December 1863, the Director of the Mint submitted designs for new one-cent coin, two-cent coin, and three-cent coin to Secretary Chase for approval. He proposed that upon the designs either OUR COUNTRY; OUR GOD or GOD, OUR TRUST should appear as a motto on the coins. In a letter to the Mint Director on December 9, 1863, Secretary Chase stated:
I approve your mottoes, only suggesting that on that with the Washington obverse the motto should begin with the word OUR, so as to read OUR GOD AND OUR COUNTRY. And on that with the shield, it should be changed so as to read: IN GOD WE TRUST.
The Congress passed the Act of April 22, 1864. This legislation changed the composition of the one-cent coin and authorized the minting of the two-cent coin. The Mint Director was directed to develop the designs for these coins for final approval of the Secretary. IN GOD WE TRUST first appeared on the 1864 two-cent coin.


It did not stay on money.

The use of IN GOD WE TRUST has not been uninterrupted. The motto disappeared from the five-cent coin in 1883, and did not reappear until production of the Jefferson nickel began in 1938. Since 1938, all United States coins bear the inscription

It was not used on paper money until 1957. http://www.uspapermoney.info/history/1957.html

In 1955, Congress ordered the motto "In God We Trust", which had long appeared on U.S. coins, to be added to all of the paper currency designs as well. At the time, the BEP was planning yet another upgrade of its presses, this time to models that could handle even larger sheets of 32 notes each. It was decided, therefore, that the new motto would be added to the back design of each denomination as the new 32-subject printing plates were adopted.


$1 back with "In God We Trust"Once again, it was the $1 SC that was first to get the makeover. The new notes, dated Series 1957, had face designs basically unchanged from those of the 1935 series, but had "In God We Trust" added to the back just above the large "ONE". Since the $1 denomination made up the bulk of the BEP's production, and since the new 32-subject presses replaced the old 18-subject ones gradually over a period of years, there was an extended interval during which the 1935 and 1957 series $1 SCs were both in production. In particular, Series 1935F through 1935H all actually began printing after the Series 1957 notes were already in circulation. Therefore, the BEP finally added the "In God We Trust" to some of the 18-subject back plates as well, so that part of Series 1935G and all of Series 1935H were printed with the motto.



I have some other problems with some of the things he says in the video but don't have time for that now (and probably too much off topic anyways).

[DamianTV]

It wasnt the point. And youre right, he did mention that he screwed up in the vid with text about his error. The point of the video was that Fiat Currency is not Money, and no matter how you stack a deck when you use Fiat Currency, the deck is still stacked against the People.

[TomL]

That's all protectionism. Freed trade isn't a bilateral agreement; that's a modern perversion of what free trade is. Free trade is a purely domestic policy of no taxing/penalizing imports into the country, regardless of origin--it doesn't mean that the countries we import from have to necessarily accept all of our products in return.

Would you rather foreign goods and services be tax-free? Should we continue to over-tax the American people? What you have quoted is a tax plan. Not a trade plan. My trade plan calls for reciprocal "made in" trade agreements and treaties. That certainly is not protectionism.

I believe in fair and balanced trade, and my plan would do that. All our trade policies for past 50 years has been a detriment to the private sector economy. Once the reciprocal trade agreements are in place, the border taxes and the 10% revenue tax on revenue derived from the primary sale of foreign goods and services would be eliminated, which they are designed to do. From that point, the my tax plan will be reduced to 10% revenue derived from the primary sales of all goods and services, and the 10% tax on the revenue from the fifty states.

I still don't see see the protectionism. In the beginning, it may seem that way, but the end result is not protectionism.

[TomL]

Too many posts to read thru. Does your plan include creating an Honest Money System that prevents Money Manipulators from Abusing the Common Man?

Does it transfer the Real Wealth of the Country back into the hands of the people that create it? And by create, I mean create, not print. The Real Value of Wealth is the standards that it is measured against. Thus, it is the Goods and Services that the People Produce. Banking is the apitomy of what is NOT an Honest Money System, and it allows those with the power to create money (Banks, through loans) to acquire the wealth (being the Goods and Services of the People) through deceptive practices, such as foreclosures, repossession, etc.

Do you intend to get us off of a Debt Backed Interest Based Fiat Currency?

My plan eliminates all direct taxation except Social Security. My plan abolished the Federal Reserve and the IRS. Returns the control of money back to the Congress which is what the Constitution says. If Congress doesn't get it right, we just vote them out. We can't vote out the Federal Reserve.

[helmuth_hubener]

What your plan does is expend a whole huge amount of effort shuffling deck chairs around and accomplishing nothing. Do you have any idea how much time and political capital it would require to switch from an income tax to this state apportionment tax, plus a retail tax? It would be a battle to dwarf ObamaCare's, because it would be a massive, massive change. And for what? We can argue for one form of taxation being somewhat better than another but what it comes down to is that when you've got to collect 3.6 trillion dollars, it doesn't really matter all that much how you do it: it's going to be terrible. When you only need to collect 50 million, no matter how you do it it's going to be pretty light and trivial. What's more, your plan doesn't even eliminate income tax, it keeps it hanging around for Social Security's sake! So it just adds more creative revenue streams for politicians to suck dry and abuse. Eliminate the IRS? How is your retail tax going to be collected? And believe me, no one is going to just roll over and pay it. There will be massive evasion. Your retail tax goons are going to be given broad and brutal powers to try to instill absolute horror into people. Swat raids, life sentences, and even death penalties will be given to evaders in an attempt to raise compliance rates.

You can only do so much, even as President. So why not expend your blood, sweat, and tears on something that actually matters? That is what Ron Paul will do. His plan focuses on the Number 1, first-tier, very-most important issues. The only important issue you'll touch that matters is the Fed, and I'm not convinced you know anything about economics nor finances such that you could actually pull off an abolition of the Federal Reserve; if you tried, massive collapse probably would ensue, and the powers-that-be would be able to talk you into reinstating it, probably as a bargaining chip in exchange for getting Amanda So-and-So back from Italy :D.

You bemoan a lack of a common frame of reference. You easily could fix that and create a common frame of reference by naming a specific figure for your badget plan. But you don't want to do that. You don't want to give specifics. So really, you are just wasting all of our time.

[TomL]

Apparently I need to offer a greater explanation of where I'm coming from

Let me tell you what I set out to do. I set out to solve the jobs
problem. To eliminate all things at the federal level that strangle
business and eliminate jobs. Those things are. 1. The Federal tax
code, 2. Federal regulations, 3. Trade agreements that allowed a glut
of foreign goods and services to flood American markets.

I did some research on taxation. There are basically two types of
taxation. Direct and indirect. After my research I have concluded
that direct taxes are more detrimental than indirect taxes.

As I see it we have to give the American people the power and
incentive to buy American made products. That is close to the root of
the problem. People can't afford to buy American. The more the
Americans buy foreign products, the less need there is for American
made products to be made. And that means less people needed to make
those products.

And so, I crafted a plan that, I believe, would accomplish my goals.
I am certainly open to better ideas and plans. To date, I haven't
seen any.

According to news reports I heard that on Black Friday Americans spent
in the neighborhood of 350 billion dollars. That's 350 billion
dollars of retail revenue. And, more than likely most items sold were
probably foreign made. So, under my plan, the Federal Government
would have taken in near 70 billion dollars in taxes in one day. At
that rate of spending during this "holiday season" it could eclipse 1
trillion dollars. Under my plan, the Federal Government would take in
200 billion dollars. And that is not considering how much that would
be taken in at the border or from the States.

With my proposed spending cuts, that should be enough revenue. And
that's just in one month.

As I said, I am open to better ideas and plans. Where are they?

[DamianTV]

My plan eliminates all direct taxation except Social Security. My plan abolished the Federal Reserve and the IRS. Returns the control of money back to the Congress which is what the Constitution says. If Congress doesn't get it right, we just vote them out. We can't vote out the Federal Reserve.

The Federal Reserve Bank has a Charter that can be allowed to Expire...

[TomL]

The Federal Reserve Bank has a Charter that can be allowed to Expire...

When does it expire?

[TomL]

Originally Posted by Steven Douglas
Where do I begin? I wanted to state that I am a loser for having my own individual liberty - the untrammeled freedom to come and go as I please - taxed. But let's take on just one from your list:

5. Congress should levy tariffs on all goods coming into the United States to recuperate lost revenues due to the elimination of Capital Gains and Corporate taxes.

Firstly, I don't care about lost revenues for Capital Gains, which are often tantamount to "inflation taxes" (paying for the privilege of having your currency devalued by an already hidden tax). That one is not always about profits anyway, and is already a tax that picks winners and losers.

Furthermore, levying a tariff on foreign goods coming into the United States gives an artificial incentive for American interests not be as competitive. I don't see that as a good thing at all, or anything but damaging - especially in the long term. It sounds good on paper, as it appears on the surface only to choose winners and losers on the manufacturing side, but the additional loser that you left out is the CONSUMER.

In addition, you will have incentivized (as we have done so many times in the past) those on the foreign side to a) devalue their own currency to remain competitive, and/or b) slash their own prices (offer a sale and accept less, even long term) to make themselves more competitive, and/or c) work all the harder to make a superior product which is naturally more competitive despite the difference in price. In reality, it is a combination of all the foregoing, and then some. They don't just sit back and take it. AND, you don't have control over the amounts or tariffs they will NO DOUBT put up in return, to try and make up the artificial difference with one that is equally artificial on their part.

First, I should explain that my plan was written in stages. Part II was actually written before Part I. The plan is designed to pass one part at a time if need be. If all parts were enacted at the same time, Part II, Section 5 would not be needed. When I put together my jobs plan (Part II), I was dealing with current circumstances. Current tax code, and current regulations. The changes I propose in my jobs plan are changes I believe are the least needed to help the American worker to get back to work. It is designed to spur on investment and do something about the regulatory atmosphere businesses have to operate in, and to do something about the trade imbalance, and therefore create jobs. The reason for the tariffs are as I said, to offset lost revenue, as I was aiming for a plan that is revenue neutral. We still have a huge National Debt that must be dealt with. Loss of revenue is not wise till the debt is paid down. And, again, I was dealing with current circumstances. Current tax code, current form of spending, current type of currency we are all forced to lose. If all that changes, then my jobs plan might be moot.

The tax plan and the spending plan came some time later.

I still don't see how I am picking winners and losers.

[helmuth_hubener]

Loss of revenue is not wise till the debt is paid down. Loss of revenue is always, always wise. Criminal gangs ought to have as little revenue as possible. It is the duty of all decent people to try to take actions and support measures which will minimize the power and prosperity of criminal gangs and instead encourage and reward honest and upright behavior.

[TomL]

Loss of revenue is always, always wise. Criminal gangs ought to have as little revenue as possible. It is the duty of all decent people to try to take actions and support measures which will minimize the power and prosperity of criminal gangs and instead encourage and reward honest and upright behavior.

Don't be so stupid.

[Travlyr]

That's not stupid. What is stupid is to go another day letting the criminal gang plunder.

[Seraphim]

I think you've come to the wrong place.

The Paul Krugman convention is down the road.


Don't be so stupid.

[TomL]

Travlyr and Seraphim, What I was referring too was Helmuth's statement, "Loss of revenue is always, always wise." I think that is stupid. When a factory that employs 300 people loses revenue, is that always wise? When a family loses revenue, is that always wise?

[Travlyr]

Travlyr and Seraphim, What I was referring too was Helmuth's statement, "Loss of revenue is always, always wise." I think that is stupid. When a factory that employs 300 people loses revenue, is that always wise? When a family loses revenue, is that always wise?
Yeah, simple misunderstanding. I read Helmuth's statement to mean "Loss of (government) revenue is always, always wise."

[TomL]

Yeah, simple misunderstanding. I read Helmuth's statement to mean "Loss of (government) revenue is always, always wise."

That's not what he said. And the examples he gave were not necessarily government.

[Seraphim]

He meant a loss of government revenue.


That's not what he said. And the examples he gave were not necessarily government.

[helmuth_hubener]

That is definitely what I meant; thanks guys. Anyway, I watched Meet the Robinsons the other day and on that note, I'd like to say:

I'm just not sure how well this plan was thought through.

[TomL]

That is definitely what I meant; thanks guys. Anyway, I watched Meet the Robinsons the other day and on that note, I'd like to say:

I'm just not sure how well this plan was thought through.

Then you must believe that our government is a criminal organization. You should have been plainer.

You should like my tax plan then, it is guaranteed to bring revenues down.

[Travlyr]

Do you consider theft to be a crime?

[TomL]

A lot of people already know that our government is controlled by a criminal organization.

Do you consider counterfeiting to be a crime?
Do you consider conspiracy to overthrow a government a crime?
Do you consider theft to be a crime?

In November 1910, a gang of international banking interests and members of their families, who were American government leaders, International Banker Paul Warburg and Senator Nelson Aldrich, et.al., conspired for 9 days on how to overthrow the U.S. government. They were successful in overthrowing our government on the eve of Christmas eve in 1913. The conspirators admitted to this fact before they died. The Federal Reserve System is a system of "elastic" money which is a technical term for counterfeiting. Through inflation the people who have the unconstitutional power to print money are stealing from taxpayers.

Our government is controlled by a group of counterfeiting thieves who subverted the American constitutional republic.
This is not conspiracy theory. These are proven facts. You can learn all about it here. "The Secrets of the Federal Reserve (http://www.apfn.org/apfn/reserve.htm)" by Eustace Mullins.

Personally, I like Ron Paul's economic plan a lot better than yours. You can learn about it here: "Gold, Peace, and Prosperity (http://mises.org/books/goldpeace.pdf)" by Ron Paul

I have struggled with the idea of a conspiracy. It's hard for me to believe that this was just allowed to happen, and yet the evidence is plain, isn't it.

I have research the Federal Reserve, and in my opinion, they should all be tried and convicted of treason.

But, I have a hard time believing that everyone in our government has been co-opted. Ron Paul hasn't been, has he? And will he be if he is elected to the Presidency?
While I am concerned about these things, I am uncertain of the depth of the conspiracy. Is it as strong today as it once was? Who in government is part of it?

And, I will admit, I do not have a full knowledge of all this. But I do know enough to be concerned.

[Steven Douglas]

But, I have a hard time believing that everyone in our government has been co-opted. Ron Paul hasn't been, has he?

To the heart of the principle: I have a loathing for the AMA that is very close to my loathing of our treasonous Fed. But I don't have a loathing for doctors in general - including Dr./Sen. Paul - even though the AMA has been the highly protectionist, health care system corrupting, union for doctors. I also have a loathing for the two party system, the electoral college system, and campaign and election laws that favor two behemoths, and block all otherwise viable challenges to national office - but that loathing does not carry over to Ron Paul, or any specific member of any party or system.

Likewise, I consider our banking system evil and systemically corrupt to its core, but not bankers in general.

The undisputed, fully corroborated facts behind what happened on Jekyll Island leaves no doubting of a past conspiracy. There is no other way to define that secret meeting, and all the meticulous planning of a full-on campaign to dupe banks, educational institutions, Congress and the American public, all of which were leery of central banking, that it was a heartland inspired cry as a vehicle for a necessary control over banks, so that the panic of 1907 could not be repeated.

So while I am absolutely certain that conspiracies happen now, even as they did then, I don't waste time with things I can't prove. In a very big way they are an irrelevant distraction, as my focus is only on what is already untenable, criminal on its face, and in broad daylight. Criminal deeds spoken of as "normal", and "acceptable", with straight faces, no less. Thus, I don't need to prove or even understand what is going on behind any closed doors. I have plenty to work with that is completely out in the open. End those things, and what happens behind closed doors becomes irrelevant.

[TomL]

To the heart of the principle: I have a loathing for the AMA that is very close to my loathing of our treasonous Fed. But I don't have a loathing for doctors in general - including Dr./Sen. Paul - even though the AMA has been the highly protectionist, health care system corrupting, union for doctors. I also have a loathing for the two party system, the electoral college system, and campaign and election laws that favor two behemoths, and block all otherwise viable challenges to national office - but that loathing does not carry over to Ron Paul, or any specific member of any party or system.

Likewise, I consider our banking system evil and systemically corrupt to its core, but not bankers in general.

The undisputed, fully corroborated facts behind what happened on Jekyll Island leaves no doubting of a past conspiracy. There is no other way to define that secret meeting, and all the meticulous planning of a full-on campaign to dupe banks, educational institutions, Congress and the American public, all of which were leery of central banking, that it was a heartland inspired cry as a vehicle for a necessary control over banks, so that the panic of 1907 could not be repeated.

So while I am absolutely certain that conspiracies happen now, even as they did then, I don't waste time with things I can't prove. In a very big way they are an irrelevant distraction, as my focus is only on what is already untenable, criminal on its face, and in broad daylight. Criminal deeds spoken of as "normal", and "acceptable", with straight faces, no less. Thus, I don't need to prove or even understand what is going on behind any closed doors. I have plenty to work with that is completely out in the open. End those things, and what happens behind closed doors becomes irrelevant.

Understood except for one thing. What is your problem with the electoral college?

[helmuth_hubener]

Then you must believe that our government is a criminal organization. You should have been plainer.

You should like my tax plan then, it is guaranteed to bring revenues down.Sometimes plainness loses to brevity.

I do like any plan which reduces revenues. How much, specifically, do you plan to reduce revenues? This will be the, what, seventh time I'm asking you this? I've been asking for spending numbers, yes, but all spending comes from one type of revenue or another and so I see it as basically the same thing.

Just for good measure, let's ask it again in the same post: precisely how much would you cut from the Federal Budget? How much would your government spend? Or, if you prefer: how much would it tax (and otherwise suck away from the private sector)? Would you support Ron Paul's plan to cut one Trillion dollars the first year?

Will you ever, ever, think your plan through sufficiently to answer such simple, rudimentary questions with actual answers?

[TomL]

Sometimes plainness loses to brevity.

I do like any plan which reduces revenues. How much, specifically, do you plan to reduce revenues? This will be the, what, seventh time I'm asking you this? I've been asking for spending numbers, yes, but all spending comes from one type of revenue or another and so I see it as basically the same thing.

Just for good measure, let's ask it again in the same post: precisely how much would you cut from the Federal Budget? How much would your government spend? Or, if you prefer: how much would it tax (and otherwise suck away from the private sector)? Would you support Ron Paul's plan to cut one Trillion dollars the first year?

Will you ever, ever, think your plan through sufficiently to answer such simple, rudimentary questions with actual answers?

I can't be specific because I don't have specific numbers. And my adding machine doesn't go that high. Can you tell me the specific value of the foreign goods and service that crosses the border? Can you tell me the specific value of the revenue from the retail sales of foreign goods and services? Can you give me the specific value of the revenue derived from all retail sales? I don't have those numbers.

My government would spend whatever is needed to fund the 14 departments, offices and agencies listed in my plan. Again, I do not have specific. But as brilliant as you obviously are, you should be able to figure it out. I am not near as intelligent as you.

[Shorty Dawkins]

For sure helmuth. I am so tired of hearing that we are headed for certain doom when the counterfeiters lose their power. Opportunity abounds in this abundant world as soon as it is legal to prosper. I believe that the Autumn of 2011 will go down in history as the death of the lying media monopoly.

Honest prosperity is ours if we want it. It is just waiting for us to take it.

Welsh - Land - Hemp ... FTW!

Excellent, Travlyr. Yes, indeed, if we were freed from perpetual serfdom, there is plenty of opportunity. In reality, it is not they who confine us, but ourselves allowing us to be confined. It is all in how you look at it. Fear is used to control us. Eliminate the fear and you can laugh at the Emperor who has no clothes.

Shorty Dawkins

[TomL]

Helmuth,

I decided that I don't need specific, real numbers to show you how my economic plan would work. So I will use fictitious numbers.

Total revenue from retail sales.................................... 10 Trillion
10% tax............................................... ......................1 Trillion

Revenue from sales of foreign goods & services................9 Trillion
10% tax............................................... ....................900 Billion

Value of foreign goods & services at the border............ 4.5 Trillion
10% tax............................................... ....................450 Billion

Revenue of the 50 States............................................ .25 Trillion
10% tax............................................... ....................2.5 Trillion

Total revenue from taxes..........................................4.8 5 Trillion

Again the numbers are fictitious. The real numbers are probably not that high. This is just to show how my tax plan will work.

What would be spent? All of it. At least 10% would go to paying down the debt. The rest would go to funding the government.

Does this help you?

[helmuth_hubener]

I think that philosophically we are just totally different, Tom. My only interest is reducing the size and scope of government.

[TomL]

I think that philosophically we are just totally different, Tom. My only interest is reducing the size and scope of government.

I too want to see a reduction in the size and scope of government. The following is the list of depatments, agencies, or offices that would be funded in my plan. Is that not reduced enough?


My spending plan calls for the elimination of whole departments. But I believe it would be easier to list the Departments, Agencies, Offices, etc., not on the chopping block.

1. The State Department
2. The Defense Department
3. The Commerce Department
4. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services
5. The Transportation Department (limited)
6. Bureau of the Census (limited)
7. Copyright & Patent Offices
8. The Federal Court System
9. The Justice Department
10. The Treasury Department
11. The District of Columbia
12. The Federal Communications Commission
13. Congress
14. Social Security Administration

[helmuth_hubener]

Not even close.

[TomL]

Not even close.

But why? It reduces the size and scope of government.

[Luciconsort]

But why? It reduces the size and scope of government.

When you hear the phrase "reduce the size and scope of govt" here it means DRASTICALLY. Even more than you are proposing here. Way More. sorry. Welcome BTW :)

[helmuth_hubener]

TomL, I think after today's caucuses it is time to suspend your campaign and officially endorse Ron Paul. This is just my personal feeling. All the best to you and the poor girl trapped in Italy if you decide to keep on keeping on. But really, at some point, come on, towels are meant to be thrown, and Ron Paul's direction is one ripe for projectile towels.

[Zippyjuan]

One place you can start is with a balanced budget. Ron Paul has said many times you need to get the budget balanced before you do anything on taxes. Here are the numbers for 2010:
"Mandtory spending" is considered to be un-cutable. We need to get rid of $1.3 trillion to balance (or some combination of cuts and higher taxes adding to that amount).

Mandatory spending: $2.173 trillion (+14.9%)

$695 billion (+4.9%) – Social Security
$571 billion (+58.6%) – Unemployment/Welfare/Other mandatory spending
$453 billion (+6.6%) – Medicare
$290 billion (+12.0%) – Medicaid
$164 billion (+18.0%) – Interest on National Debt



Discretionary spending: $1.378 trillion (+13.8%)

$663.7 billion (+12.7%) – Department of Defense (including Overseas Contingency Operations)
$78.7 billion (−1.7%) – Department of Health and Human Services
$72.5 billion (+2.8%) – Department of Transportation
$52.5 billion (+10.3%) – Department of Veterans Affairs
$51.7 billion (+40.9%) – Department of State and Other International Programs
$47.5 billion (+18.5%) – Department of Housing and Urban Development
$46.7 billion (+12.8%) – Department of Education
$42.7 billion (+1.2%) – Department of Homeland Security
$26.3 billion (−0.4%) – Department of Energy
$26.0 billion (+8.8%) – Department of Agriculture
$23.9 billion (−6.3%) – Department of Justice
$18.7 billion (+5.1%) – National Aeronautics and Space Administration
$13.8 billion (+48.4%) – Department of Commerce
$13.3 billion (+4.7%) – Department of Labor
$13.3 billion (+4.7%) – Department of the Treasury
$12.0 billion (+6.2%) – Department of the Interior
$10.5 billion (+34.6%) – Environmental Protection Agency
$9.7 billion (+10.2%) – Social Security Administration
$7.0 billion (+1.4%) – National Science Foundation
$5.1 billion (−3.8%) – Corps of Engineers
$5.0 billion (+100%-NA) – National Infrastructure Bank
$1000.1 million (+22.2%) – Corporation for National and Community Service
$0.7 billion (0.0%) – Small Business Administration
$0.6 billion (−14.3%) – General Services Administration
$0 billion (−100%-NA) – Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)
$0 billion (−100%-NA) – Financial stabilization efforts
$11 billion (+275%-NA) – Potential disaster costs
$19.8 billion (+3.7%) – Other Agencies
$105 billion – Other



And your starting point for revenues (these figures for 2009 while the spending figures are for 2010- most recent available):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget

Estimated receipts for fiscal year 2009 are $2.7 trillion (+7.1%).

$1.21 trillion - Individual income tax
$949.4 billion - Social Security and other payroll taxes
$339.2 billion - Corporate income tax
$68.9 billion - Excise taxes
$29.1 billion - Customs duties
$26.3 billion - Estate and gift taxes
$47.9 billion - Other

[TomL]

TomL, I think after today's caucuses it is time to suspend your campaign and officially endorse Ron Paul. This is just my personal feeling. All the best to you and the poor girl trapped in Italy if you decide to keep on keeping on. But really, at some point, come on, towels are meant to be thrown, and Ron Paul's direction is one ripe for projectile towels.

I have endorsed Ron Paul a long time ago. Where have you been? Of course, I have done so on my own sites. You probably never seen it.

[JackieDan]

The problem with your plan is that it contains many confusing taxes. Most people are tired of all the taxes that are in existence. I have said this many times before: Eliminate all taxes, and then institute a 10% nation-wide sales tax. That would be enough to fund the federal government.

The reason why I like the sales tax is that it isn't aggressive. No one tells you what certain time or date you must pay your taxes. You do it in a deliberate fashion when you go out and shop.

Now, obviously you cannot fund all entitlements and other programs that exists today with my listed tax plan, but this is something that should be considered after all debts, entitlements, social security etc. are gone. It's like restarting the whole process.

In my opinion, the u.s. government should just default the dollar and reboot with a gold standard and an entire new economic system. I don't think anyone will be able to lay down the scope of the current expenditures... I'm sorry to say, but it has to collapse.

I strongly recommend this budget simulator,
http://www.kowaldesign.com/budget/budget.html

[TomL]

The problem with your plan is that it contains many confusing taxes. Most people are tired of all the taxes that are in existence. I have said this many times before: Eliminate all taxes, and then institute a 10% nation-wide sales tax. That would be enough to fund the federal government.

The reason why I like the sales tax is that it isn't aggressive. No one tells you what certain time or date you must pay your taxes. You do it in a deliberate fashion when you go out and shop.

Now, obviously you cannot fund all entitlements and other programs that exists today with my listed tax plan, but this is something that should be considered after all debts, entitlements, social security etc. are gone. It's like restarting the whole process.

In my opinion, the u.s. government should just default the dollar and reboot with a gold standard and an entire new economic system. I don't think anyone will be able to lay down the scope of the current expenditures... I'm sorry to say, but it has to collapse.

I strongly recommend this budget simulator,
http://www.kowaldesign.com/budget/budget.html

What makes my plan confusing?

[TomL]

Please check out the updates in the OP. See if you like it better.

[TomL]

One place you can start is with a balanced budget. Ron Paul has said many times you need to get the budget balanced before you do anything on taxes.

A balanced budget is embedded in my plan.

[Fox McCloud]

I still don't like your protectionism embedded in your plan.