What happened to all the Fair/Flat Taxxers? [Archive]

Zippyjuan

03-03-2017, 03:34 PM

During the primary, the entire GOP and the candidates were tripping all over themselves trying to push THEIR Flat Tax or THEIR Fair Tax... it was all the rage! You would do your taxes on ONE SHEET OF PAPER! "Lower the tax rate for everyone, spread the taxes out to generate more revenue!"

And what do we hear now from the GOP? Nuts.... that's what.

There is some talk about Tax Reform, but it seems to be focused mainly on corporate taxes not individual income taxes.

What gives?

Maybe because the members of his cabinet are from Wall Street and Corporations and are interested in giving benefits to their own. (Actually a flat tax would RAISE the taxes paid by those in the lower half of incomes while reducing them for the highest income people). About half of all income tax filers owe no net taxes currently anyways.

TheTexan

03-03-2017, 03:35 PM

I think a flat tax would be great as long as rich people are still in a higher tax bracket

nikcers

03-03-2017, 04:19 PM

During the primary, the entire GOP and the candidates were tripping all over themselves trying to push THEIR Flat Tax or THEIR Fair Tax... it was all the rage! You would do your taxes on ONE SHEET OF PAPER! "Lower the tax rate for everyone, spread the taxes out to generate more revenue!"

And what do we hear now from the GOP? Nuts.... that's what.

There is some talk about Tax Reform, but it seems to be focused mainly on corporate taxes not individual income taxes.

What gives?
If you think that conservatives ever had a chance of making a change in congress because of the tea party then you have missed every article about conservatism this year. Your movement has been co-opted. You lost.
It's official — conservatism and Trumpism are now one and the same ... (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/2/24/14726028/trump-cpac-speech)

ILUVRP

03-03-2017, 05:35 PM

i have always believed that a flat tax would be best , my idea is everyone working would get $35,000 deduction and then pay 15% on anything over 35k , no deductions for anything .

as far as business tax , all public owned companies would pay 15% on the profits they report to stock holders , that is if a company had 100 million shares and reported to stock holders they made $1/share , that's 100 million dollars profit , their tax would be $15 million dollars .

any business that is not public would be treated as people .

RonPaulMall

03-03-2017, 06:13 PM

I think a flat tax would be great as long as rich people are still in a higher tax bracket

In other words, not a flat tax. And the Fair Tax (a national sales tax) has always been controversial among conservatives and libertarians because of the fear it would do nothing but open up yet another method of taxation. Taxes just aren't an important issue at this point in time. Trump has demonstrated without a shadow of a doubt that nothing positive is going to be accomplished until the neocons and mainstream media are destroyed. That is the battle we need to focus all our efforts on.

Keith and stuff

03-03-2017, 06:13 PM

The plan is still out there and Ron Paul still supports it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aLzToYEF0A

oyarde

03-03-2017, 06:19 PM

During the primary, the entire GOP and the candidates were tripping all over themselves trying to push THEIR Flat Tax or THEIR Fair Tax... it was all the rage! You would do your taxes on ONE SHEET OF PAPER! "Lower the tax rate for everyone, spread the taxes out to generate more revenue!"

And what do we hear now from the GOP? Nuts.... that's what.

There is some talk about Tax Reform, but it seems to be focused mainly on corporate taxes not individual income taxes.

What gives?

I have no interest in those plans . The ones I have actually read in the past would have been actual tax increases for me.

oyarde

03-03-2017, 06:22 PM

Bottom line is they take in about 2 trillion and spend 3 . If you want serious tax reform , first must come the spending cuts . Serious cuts . Otherwise there is no incentive for me to support taxation plans that increase my tax burden by doing away with mortgage interest , property tax , home ins deductions etc.

Sonny Tufts

03-03-2017, 06:23 PM

Athan

03-03-2017, 06:25 PM

Athan

03-03-2017, 06:27 PM

Tax plan talk gave way to $1T "infrastructure" spending. That's what it is to be conservative now.

The hilarious irony? You are lock step with Madonna, and you have problems with a clearly liberal president.

GunnyFreedom

03-03-2017, 06:32 PM

If the GOP actually cared about this, then they would have nominated Rand Paul.

MallsRGood

03-03-2017, 06:33 PM

I have no interest in those plans . The ones I have actually read in the past would have been actual tax increases for me.

Did you read Rand's plan?

$15k per filer deduction + $5k per person exemption, 14.5% flat rate rate thereafter.

And no payroll tax, at all...

It would've been a huge cut for just about everybody, possible exceptions being people using really aggressive deductions/credits.

oyarde

03-03-2017, 06:34 PM

Last one of those plans I looked at would have increased my taxes and I was probably paying 1/3 of what I made in property tax , County tax , State tax , Federal tax , Social Sec tax , Medicare tax alone . Remember this ; only 6 in 10 americans work and only three of those pay Fed income tax . Just about any plan you see will raise what you are paying if you currently are and cut no spending . Some actually open the door for new taxes . Worthless .

oyarde

03-03-2017, 06:40 PM

Did you read Rand's plan?

$15k per filer deduction + $5k per person exemption, 14.5% flat rate rate thereafter.

And no payroll tax, Unless you're taking advantage of some really crazy deductions/credits under the present system, it would almost certainly have been a cut for you.

I did not do the math , but yeah , I believe it would have increased mine . I was having 10 percent with held and managed to steal back twenty percent or more of that , so 15 percent on above 15K sounds like an increase . I voted for him though :) . But yeah , I have many deductions on interest , insurance , flood insurance , property tax on multiple homes .

oyarde

03-03-2017, 06:42 PM

I could get behind 1 percent and current medicare /social sec rates , after that , no real support from me .

oyarde

03-03-2017, 06:44 PM

If the GOP actually cared about this, then they would have nominated Rand Paul.

If they had any interest in saving the country there would be bills everywhere cutting spending .

MallsRGood

03-03-2017, 06:48 PM

I did not do the math , but yeah , I believe it would have increased mine . I was having 10 percent with held and managed to steal back twenty percent or more of that, so 15 percent on above 15K sounds like an increase . I voted for him though :) . But yeah , I have many deductions on interest , insurance , flood insurance , property tax on multiple homes .

Is your income from wages? If so, keep in mind Rand's plan eliminated payroll tax (15.3% at present for both employee/employer portions).

It also retained some of the more popular deductions, including the mortgage interest.

I'd be really surprised if you'd end up paying more.

oyarde

03-03-2017, 06:51 PM

oyarde

03-03-2017, 06:54 PM

ILUVRP

03-03-2017, 06:54 PM

That wouldn't work. Almost all private (i.e., non-public) companies have way more than $35K in expenses (salaries, rent, insurance, property taxes, etc.)

that would be a problem , then non-public business would pay 15% after all expenses are deducted .

Madison320

03-03-2017, 07:01 PM

Maybe because the members of his cabinet are from Wall Street and Corporations and are interested in giving benefits to their own. (Actually a flat tax would RAISE the taxes paid by those in the lower half of incomes while reducing them for the highest income people). About half of all income tax filers owe no net taxes currently anyways.

That would be a good thing. Progressive taxation is immoral. Laws should apply equally to all citizens. If the poor can't afford the flat rate, it needs to be lowered. There's no incentive to reduce theft (taxation) when it only gets applied to a small minority. While we're at it let's make non payment a civil offense, not a criminal offense, just like private debt.

oyarde

03-03-2017, 07:04 PM

That would be a good thing. Progressive taxation is immoral. Laws should apply equally to all citizens. If the poor can't afford the flat rate, it needs to be lowered. There's no incentive to reduce theft (taxation) when it only gets applied to a small minority. While we're at it let's make non payment a civil offense, not a criminal offense, just like private debt.

Only 3 in 10 americans pay Fed tax now .

Madison320

03-03-2017, 07:10 PM

Only 3 in 10 americans pay Fed tax now .

Another idea I like is to only allow people to vote in federal elections who receive no federal benefits. That would include all federal workers and contractors working for the fed (which would include me - I'd gladly give up my voting privilege).

The current system is totally corrupt. "Vote for Me and I'll Steal for You" is the current system we have which is why we're bankrupt.

oyarde

03-03-2017, 07:15 PM

Another idea I like is to only allow people to vote in federal elections who receive no federal benefits. That would include all federal workers and contractors working for the fed (which would include me - I'd gladly give up my voting privilege).

The current system is totally corrupt. "Vote for Me and I'll Steal for You" is the current system we have which is why we're bankrupt.
Anyone actually paying more Fed tax than they receive back , I have no real problem with them voting in Fed elections . State elections same . County and city elections should be restricted to people who pay property tax or rent from someone who does or pays other county/city taxes .

TheCount

03-03-2017, 07:37 PM

Taxes just aren't an important issue at this point in time.

http://i.imgur.com/EqQOTR9.gif

Madison320

03-03-2017, 08:33 PM

Anyone actually paying more Fed tax than they receive back , I have no real problem with them voting in Fed elections . State elections same . County and city elections should be restricted to people who pay property tax or rent from someone who does or pays other county/city taxes .

That's even better. I just figured it'd be harder to implement.

Madison320

03-03-2017, 08:38 PM

i have always believed that a flat tax would be best , my idea is everyone working would get $35,000 deduction and then pay 15% on anything over 35k , no deductions for anything .

That would be a lot less crappy than what we have now, but still crappy. There should be no deductions. Why is it ok to steal from someone if they make 35k but not 34k?

Krugminator2

03-03-2017, 09:57 PM

Only 3 in 10 americans pay Fed tax now .

55% of households pay federal income tax. https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2015/10/06/new-estimates-of-how-many-households-pay-no-federal-income-tax/#5206151f61cb

That would be a good thing. Progressive taxation is immoral. Laws should apply equally to all citizens. If the poor can't afford the flat rate, it needs to be lowered. There's no incentive to reduce theft (taxation) when it only gets applied to a small minority. While we're at it let's make non payment a civil offense, not a criminal offense, just like private debt.

I agree. The flat tax plans put out are slightly less progressive plans. There should not be an exemption. And there should not be all the deductions that distort incentives i.e. mortgage interest.

oyarde

03-03-2017, 10:00 PM

55% of households pay federal income tax. https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2015/10/06/new-estimates-of-how-many-households-pay-no-federal-income-tax/#5206151f61cb

Only 6 in 10 americans work , of those 6 three pay tax. You are participating in a country of deadbeats .

oyarde

03-03-2017, 10:08 PM

Welfare nation is not strong enough for a flat tax . One percent would be the most burden the poorest could handle . Get rid of the welfare first and then the nation will be more prepared and less weak .

anaconda

03-03-2017, 10:21 PM

Flat tax (like Rand) seems stupid to me. I don't see how it solves the problem of income determination, which is a big source of IRS aggravation. Fair tax would solve many problems, however (IRS).

TheCount

03-03-2017, 11:53 PM

Only 6 in 10 americans work , of those 6 three pay tax. You are participating in a country of deadbeats .That's a poor measurement, as it counts only one of the types of income tax.

Nearly every American pays tax.

oyarde

03-03-2017, 11:58 PM

That's a poor measurement, as it counts only one of the types of income tax.

Nearly every American pays tax.

Little Jimmy paying sales tax on his bag of red licorice does not pay for a Navy , roads , coining money or any of the few things the Fed govt is supposed to be doing .

TheCount

03-03-2017, 11:59 PM

Little Jimmy paying sales tax on his bag of red licorice does not pay for a Navy , roads , coining money or any of the few things the Fed govt is supposed to be doing .Because sales tax is not a federal tax.

One of the gas taxes is.

Weston White

03-04-2017, 06:26 AM

That's a poor measurement, as it counts only one of the types of income tax.

Nearly every American pays tax.

Well, depends on how many of those individuals are paying those other taxes with money they were awarded through social justice antics (or get service fee exemptions and the like.)

ILUVRP

03-04-2017, 06:43 AM

That would be a lot less crappy than what we have now, but still crappy. There should be no deductions. Why is it ok to steal from someone if they make 35k but not 34k?

15% on anything over 35k , if a person made 45k then the tax would be 15% of 10k or $1500 .

jmdrake

03-04-2017, 07:12 AM

Suzanimal

03-04-2017, 08:14 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aLzToYEF0A

oyarde

03-04-2017, 08:45 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aLzToYEF0A

A tax plan I would support .

pcosmar

03-04-2017, 11:10 AM

I support a "TIP" jar.

Voluntary support of what government program you approve of.

Limited government needs limited funds.

nikcers

03-04-2017, 11:14 AM

I support a "TIP" jar.

Voluntary support of what government program you approve of.

Limited government needs limited funds.

We kind of have that now, if you tip the politicians enough they will support any government program you want them to. I'm not sure if that's what you mean by tipping the government though.

pcosmar

03-04-2017, 11:20 AM

I'm not sure if that's what you mean by tipping the government though.

I mean,,
if you want potholes fixed,, you drop change in the pothole jar.
If you want to support a school,, you put money in the school jar.

If you want to start a war..you put money in the war jar.

If you don't put money in the jar,, money doesn't go in the jar...

Simple.

Sonny Tufts

03-04-2017, 11:37 AM

Only 6 in 10 americans work , of those 6 three pay tax. You are participating in a country of deadbeats .

If they're working they're paying payroll taxes (FICA and Medicare).

Zippyjuan

03-04-2017, 12:45 PM

Is your income from wages? If so, keep in mind Rand's plan eliminated payroll tax (15.3% at present for both employee/employer portions).

It also retained some of the more popular deductions, including the mortgage interest.

I'd be really surprised if you'd end up paying more.

More on Rand's idea: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/rand-paul-my-tax-plan-gets-rid-of-the-payroll-tax/article/2569919

He said under his plan Social Security would be paid for by businesses rather than individuals. That would give those who make $40 thousand a year an extra $2 thousand in their paycheck each year, he said.

Paul's proposal would tax all income at 14.5 percent, which the Tax Foundation found would increase the incomes of those earning over $1 million by 13 percent, while the incomes of those earning between $50,000 and $75,000 would rise by a much more modest 3 percent.

Technically, half of the Social Security Tax is paid by you and half by your employer. Your boss has a certain budget for payroll. If instead of 6.5% he pays now, he has to pay 13%, he either has to lower the wages he pays workers by the additional amount he now has to pay or he has to raise prices consumers pay for his goods to cover the amount. There is no net gain to society.

MallsRGood

03-04-2017, 12:59 PM

More on Rand's idea: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/rand-paul-my-tax-plan-gets-rid-of-the-payroll-tax/article/2569919

Technically, half of the Social Security Tax is paid by you and half by your employer. Your boss has a certain budget for payroll. If instead of 6.5% he pays now, he has to pay 13%, he either has to lower the wages he pays workers by the additional amount he now has to pay or he has to raise prices consumers pay for his goods to cover the amount. There is no net gain to society.

No, Rand's plan eliminates both employer and employee portions of payroll taxes.

Medicare and SS are funded out of the 14.5 flat rate corporate tax (which replaces the existing corporate tax).

And this is not just burden shifting; the total burden is less.

The plan reduces total revenues by $300 billion/year.

Zippyjuan

03-04-2017, 01:07 PM

No, Rand's plan eliminates both employer and employee portions of payroll taxes.

Medicare and SS are funded out of the 14.5 flat rate corporate tax (which replaces the existing corporate tax).

And this is not just burden shifting; the total burden is less.

The plan reduces total revenues by $300 billion/year.

https://taxfoundation.org/senator-rand-paul-s-payroll-tax-swap/

However, if you look closely he really isn’t getting rid of the Social Security or Medicare taxes. His plan actually shifts the revenue from current payroll taxes to the revenue from a portion of his new business VAT. This shift will mean that individuals will end up paying about the same amount of payroll tax, but it will be collected in a different way.

Under the Rand Paul plan, these payroll taxes go away. However, the new business transfer tax would impose a 14.5 percent tax on all of a business’s payroll. Economically, this would work like the current employer-side payroll tax. The business would reduce an employee’s compensation by precisely the amount they need to pay on their payroll. For the exact same worker the business would now to pay 14.5 percent tax on its payroll of $43,060 or $6,243. The worker ends up being paid $36,816 or about $3,000 less in pre-tax income. But with no employee-side payroll tax, the total tax wedge under the Rand plan would be $6,243, which is slightly more than under current law.

MallsRGood

03-04-2017, 01:12 PM

zippy

In other words, taxing corporations indirectly reduces their employees' wages.

Well, yea, of course, but that's true of existing corporate taxes (which Rand's plan eliminates).

And under Rand's plan, the total burden is less.

Zippyjuan

03-04-2017, 01:16 PM

True. If tax cuts are not offset by cuts in spending though, they add to our deficit and National Debt.

Superfluous Man

03-04-2017, 01:18 PM

Who in the primary, besides Huckabee (I assume), was for the Fair Tax this time around?

I don't remember any.

I also don't remember a flat tax being a big issue, even in the GOP primaries.

Superfluous Man

03-04-2017, 01:19 PM

True. If tax cuts are not offset by cuts in spending though, they add to our deficit and National Debt.

Thanks, Captain Obvious.

Tax cuts are still a good thing 100% of the time.

NorthCarolinaLiberty

03-04-2017, 01:22 PM

More on Rand's idea:

Are you assuming that's as far as he's going to go and that's only part of the plan? Or, are you taking into account his entire plan and incrementally eliminate these burdens?

If you are assuming this is the be all-end all, then wouldn't you be for it? After all, progressives want to tax businesses more and the people less. If this is the total end result, then corporations would begin to pay their "fair share" right? You are for the $15 per hour minimum wage, right? You're for more "tax distribution," right? Why wouldn't you get behind this?

http://03178f8.netsolhost.com/blog2/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Federal_receipts_by_Source_Historical_1950-2010.jpg

http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/images/u-s-federal-government-revenue-source-percentage-gdp.jpg

Superfluous Man

03-04-2017, 01:26 PM

You are for the $15 per hour minimum wage, right? You're for more "tax distribution," right?

Why in the world do you think Zippy would be for either of those?

NorthCarolinaLiberty

03-04-2017, 01:30 PM

Why in the world do you think Zippy would be for either of those?

Because he is for those, "Captain Obvious."

MallsRGood

03-04-2017, 01:31 PM

True. If tax cuts are not offset by cuts in spending though, they add to our deficit and National Debt.

Rand was/is proposing $500 billion in spending cuts.

Superfluous Man

03-04-2017, 01:33 PM

Because he is for those, "Captain Obvious."

Can you link to a quote of him saying so?

I'd be surprised if he were.

NorthCarolinaLiberty

03-04-2017, 01:35 PM

Can you link to a quote of him saying so?

I'd be surprised if he were.

He's online right now. Why don't you just ask him.

Superfluous Man

03-04-2017, 01:39 PM

He's online right now. Why don't you just ask him.

Because you're the one who made the assertion.

I also doubt that he would answer the question. That's not his style.

NorthCarolinaLiberty

03-04-2017, 01:44 PM

Because you're the one who made the assertion.

I asked him. I said: "You are for the $15 per hour minimum wage, right? You're for more "tax distribution," right?"

I also doubt that he would answer the question.

Why would you doubt that he would answer the question?

That's not his style.

What is his style?

Suzanimal

03-04-2017, 01:49 PM

A tax plan I would support .

The only one worth supporting. Just thought this forum might need a reminder.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiNGnNRADwk&index=3&list=PLkqnoXHnh-J6hnmgQYWItWQtOMAVlUvZp

Superfluous Man

03-04-2017, 01:54 PM

I asked him. I said: "You are for the $15 per hour minimum wage, right? You're for more "tax distribution," right?"

Like I said, you're the one who made the assertion. You also said to me, "he is for those."

So do you have evidence? Or did you just make that up?

NorthCarolinaLiberty

03-04-2017, 01:57 PM

Like I said, you're the one who made the assertion. You also said to me, "he is for those."

So do you have evidence? Or did you just make that up?

Are you going to aks him or not?

Superfluous Man

03-04-2017, 02:00 PM

Are you going to aks him or not?

Got it. So you have no basis for your assertion.

In that case, you shouldn't have said it. Please stop doing that.

NorthCarolinaLiberty

03-04-2017, 02:09 PM

Got it. So you have no basis for your assertion.

In that case, you shouldn't have said it. Please stop doing that.

I certainly do have a basis, but why aren't you going to ask him? And why would you neg rep me and say, "I'm also reporting this post."

Superfluous Man

03-04-2017, 02:20 PM

I certainly do have a basis

Great. Please show the quotes.

I'm really getting sick of you doing this all the time. It's all you ever do. And I've never once seen you back up your assertions.

I neg repped you and reported the post because you lied about Zippy, and lying about other members is against the site rules.

I like how you publicly shared my private message to you, btw. That's really manly.

NorthCarolinaLiberty

03-04-2017, 02:29 PM

I'm really getting sick of you doing this all the time.

Oh, a sickness, huh? Maybe you should go to the doctor?

It's all you ever do.

Can you prove that's ALL I ever do? Please post quotes.

Superfluous Man

03-04-2017, 02:30 PM

Oh, a sickness, huh? Maybe you should go to the doctor?

Can you prove that's ALL I ever do? Please post quotes.

No need. Anyone can click your profile and see all your posts.

NorthCarolinaLiberty

03-04-2017, 02:33 PM

No need.

No need? So should I report you for lying?

(Reporting someone isn't unmanly, is it?) :confused:

oyarde

03-04-2017, 02:47 PM

Rand was/is proposing $500 billion in spending cuts.

Half a Trillion is a start , I will take it . When the wailing slows down , cut it some more . Do not stop until there is blood in the real tears .

MallsRGood

03-04-2017, 02:51 PM

Half a Trillion is a start , I will take it . When the wailing slows down , cut it some more . Do not stop until there is blood in the real tears .

Yea, I'd say $500 billion is about the most you can do at once without getting blood in the street.

Or at least without losing the next election in a landslide and having everything you accomplished reversed.

Start by cutting what people won't much notice, encourage economic growth, and when people are in better shape, cut more.

Rinse and repeat.

oyarde

03-04-2017, 02:55 PM

Who in the primary, besides Huckabee (I assume), was for the Fair Tax this time around?

I don't remember any.

I also don't remember a flat tax being a big issue, even in the GOP primaries.
I would hope not going forward . I want to see cuts after they get elected .

NorthCarolinaLiberty

03-04-2017, 03:07 PM

I'd be surprised if he were.

Why would you be surprised?

Zippyjuan

03-04-2017, 06:35 PM

Yea, I'd say $500 billion is about the most you can do at once without getting blood in the street.

Or at least without losing the next election in a landslide and having everything you accomplished reversed.

Start by cutting what people won't much notice, encourage economic growth, and when people are in better shape, cut more.

Rinse and repeat.

If you don't touch Social Security, Medicare/ Medicaid and the Department of Defense, and interest on the debt (all of which are responsible for a combined 3/4 of the US budget and are politically dangerous to suggest cutting), $500 billion is 100% of everything else.

https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/2017_pres_budget_disc_spending_pie_large.png

NorthCarolinaLiberty

03-04-2017, 07:18 PM

[pie chart]

So you're source is saying the Medicare is going from 27% to 5%? And Social Security is dropping from 33% down to 3%? And military is climbing from 16% to 54%? Here's a 2015 chart from the same organization you cite, National Priorities.

https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/total_spending_pie,__2015_enacted.png

Could it be that your source of the National Priorities Project is inflating numbers for its own purposes? Even CNN only said 54 billion extra for military.

So who is the National Priorities project you cite? They claim to be non-partisan, but their own website says that their federal budget funding "priorities" include "funding for people's issues such as inequality...and the need to build a green economy."

National priorities aligns with such groups as ACORN and the Children's Defense Fund. They are part of the Moving Ideas Network, which is a conglomeration of left wing activists and started out with funding from Hillary Clinton and John Podesta.

Eight of their nine senior staff are women. Nora Ranney, Exec Director, has "more than 20 years of experience working for social and economic justice,"

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/

angelatc

03-04-2017, 07:52 PM

Why in the world do you think Zippy would be for either of those?

October 2016, defending Zippy?

Damn. Too bad we can't attract any actual libertarians these days.

oyarde

03-04-2017, 08:10 PM

nikcers

03-04-2017, 08:10 PM

October 2016, defending Zippy?

Damn. Too bad we can't attract any actual libertarians these days.
Why would actual libertarians come here when they got railroaded on here by Trump supporters for agreeing with Ron Paul and voting third party?

Superfluous Man

03-04-2017, 08:17 PM

Why would you be surprised?

Because everything I've seen from him here seems fairly conservative/libertarian. I've never seen him support any policies like those.

Usually the people who call him a liberal are the Trump trannies who support protectionism.

NorthCarolinaLiberty

03-04-2017, 08:19 PM

Why would actual libertarians come here when they got railroaded on here by Trump supporters for agreeing with Ron Paul and voting third party?

Maybe for the same reason that long time members here can't even distinguish between libertarians opposed to Don and progressive shills opposed to Don.

Superfluous Man

03-04-2017, 08:21 PM

Why would actual libertarians come here when they got railroaded on here by Trump supporters for agreeing with Ron Paul and voting third party?

Rest assured I'm far more of an actual libertarian than angelatc.

nikcers

03-04-2017, 08:24 PM

Maybe for the same reason that long time members here can't even distinguish between libertarians opposed to Don and progressive shills opposed to Don.
Well I just don't like the divide and conquer tactics. I joined this forum because I saw a lot of it when Rand Paul was on the Daily Show and a lot of people came on here and people were attacking people who would of been a great addition to the Rand Paul coalition.

NorthCarolinaLiberty

03-04-2017, 08:26 PM

Because everything I've seen from him here seems fairly conservative/libertarian.

LOL. And you said I'm the one making stuff up.

Superfluous Man

03-04-2017, 08:30 PM

LOL. And you said I'm the one making stuff up.

Well, think about it. He posts here all the time. You constantly accuse him of holding liberal positions. I have asked you what your basis was on multiple occasions. And you've never been able to find any posts where he actually says he supports anything like what you say he does. You'd think in all these posts of his you'd actually be able to catch him saying what you think he believes one of these days. But you can't. It looks to me like that's because he doesn't.

NorthCarolinaLiberty

03-04-2017, 08:30 PM

Rest assured I'm far more of an actual libertarian than angelatc.

One thing's for sure. You're far more erowe1 than Angela.

LOL @ http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?3403-erowe1

timosman

03-04-2017, 08:32 PM

October 2016, defending Zippy?

Damn. Too bad we can't attract any actual libertarians these days.

We no longer live in a world of ideologies.

nikcers

03-04-2017, 08:33 PM

Well, think about it. He posts here all the time. You constantly accuse him of holding liberal positions. I have asked you what your basis was on multiple occasions. And you've never been able to find any posts where he actually says he supports anything like what you say he does. You'd think in all these posts of his you'd actually be able to catch him saying what you think he believes one of these days. But you can't. It looks to me like that's because he doesn't.
That's what destroyed the Ron Paul coalition. Anyone who wasn't pure enough libertarian they were liberal or progressive or cucks. Trumps analytical company bragged about it when they were still running Cruz's campaign, they said it was their secret weapon to win the Ron Paul coalition.

timosman

03-04-2017, 08:35 PM

Well, think about it. He posts here all the time. You constantly accuse him of holding liberal positions. I have asked you what your basis was on multiple occasions. And you've never been able to find any posts where he actually says he supports anything like what you say he does. You'd think in all these posts of his you'd actually be able to catch him saying what you think he believes one of these days. But you can't. It looks to me like that's because he doesn't.

You sound like a sock puppet. If you do not know it is not a good thing.:cool:

NorthCarolinaLiberty

03-04-2017, 08:36 PM

Well, think about it.

That's pretty funny, considering all that you've said.

NorthCarolinaLiberty

03-04-2017, 08:37 PM

You sound like a sock puppet. If you do not know it is not a good thing.:cool:

He's erowe1. I don't know why he has such a crush on Zip.

timosman

03-04-2017, 08:38 PM

That's what destroyed the Ron Paul coalition. Anyone who wasn't pure enough libertarian they were liberal or progressive or cucks. Trumps analytical company bragged about it when they were still running Cruz's campaign, they said it was their secret weapon to win the Ron Paul coalition.

Ron could reign in and everybody would follow. Instead we got stuck with Jessie B. calling the shots. Anywho, there is no point crying over the spilt milk. :cool:

Suzanimal

03-04-2017, 08:39 PM

He's erowe1. I don't know why he has such a crush on Zip.

Really? I wondered what happened to him.

NorthCarolinaLiberty

03-04-2017, 08:41 PM

Are people here really this naive? You got people like Superfluous, who it seems can't even tell the difference between someone like Zip and Angela.

Thanks, No Child Left Behind.

otherone

03-04-2017, 08:54 PM

Really? I wondered what happened to him.

The Michigan logo is a clever deception. I've always been confused by why Notre Dame would want a Calvinist to teach theology.
In other news, my son has been accepted into the PhD program at Michigan.
Kinda ironic, given my disdain for academia.
I'm still proud of him. He's a better man than I. :)

nikcers

03-04-2017, 08:59 PM

Ron could reign in and everybody would follow. Instead we got stuck with Jessie B. calling the shots. Anywho, there is no point crying over the spilt milk. :cool:
Well OP asked where the low tax people went- that was exactly what they did with us. Ted Cruz announced running for president intentionally right before Rand already said he would announce and Fox spent years turning Ted Cruz into Rand Paul lite. His analytical company bragged about stealing the Ron Paul coalition, were with the same group of people who rand negative ads against Rand Paul the day he announced, also went to supporting Trump basically after he made a speech to AIPAC promising to rip of the Iran deal on day 1. The only reason why they probably gave Trump the nod is because they probably polled Rand supporters who said they would be never Cruz BC Rand went nuclear on Ted Cruz for betraying him.

Suzanimal

03-04-2017, 09:06 PM

The Michigan logo is a clever deception.

I just thought SM was a fan.

I've always been confused by why Notre Dame would want a Calvinist to teach theology.

Erowe is a Calvinist? Who teaches theology at Notre Dame? How'd I miss that? :confused:

In other news, my son has been accepted into the PhD program at Michigan.
Kinda ironic, given my disdain for academia.
I'm still proud of him.

Congrats! If it makes him happy, more power to him.

He's a better man than I. :)

My sons are better men than me. :)

Superfluous Man

03-04-2017, 09:07 PM

Are people here really this naive? You got people like Superfluous, who it seems can't even tell the difference between someone like Zip and Angela.

I don't think Zippy is an ancap or voluntaryist or anything like that. But neither is Angela. She's a zealous statist.

Just recently she said I was wrong about believing that an unjust law is no law at all. I've never seen Zippy say anything worse than that.

NorthCarolinaLiberty

03-04-2017, 09:12 PM

I don't think Zippy is an ancap or voluntaryist or anything like that. But neither is Angela. She's a zealous statist.

Just recently she said I was wrong about believing that an unjust law is no law at all. I've never seen Zippy say anything worse than that.

Wow, you really convinced me. Are you really just Ron Paul posting on his own forum here?

Superfluous Man

03-04-2017, 09:15 PM

Wow, you really convinced me. Are you really just Ron Paul posting on his own forum here?

Not precisely. But for all intents and purposes.

timosman

03-04-2017, 09:22 PM

Wow, you really convinced me. Are you really just Ron Paul posting on his own forum here?

Who +repped this dude so hard?:confused:

oyarde

03-04-2017, 09:25 PM

I am putting on the Beatles , Taxman .

NorthCarolinaLiberty

03-04-2017, 09:31 PM

Who +repped this dude so hard?:confused:

erowe1

NorthCarolinaLiberty

03-04-2017, 09:32 PM

I am putting on the Beatles , Taxman .

If you drive a car, I'll tax the street
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat
If you get too cold I'll tax the heat
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet

nikcers

03-04-2017, 09:32 PM

Wow, you really convinced me. Are you really just Ron Paul posting on his own forum here?
I think if Ron Paul was posting on this forum you would call him a liberal.

NorthCarolinaLiberty

03-04-2017, 09:34 PM

I think if Ron Paul was posting on this forum you would call him a liberal.

I think if Hillary Clinton posted on this forum, you would call her a libertarian.

CPUd

03-04-2017, 09:34 PM

I think if Ron Paul was posting on this forum you would call him a liberal.

Well, he has been called a Hillary supporter by others, so I wouldn't be surprised.

nikcers

03-04-2017, 09:35 PM

I think if Hillary Clinton posted on this forum, you would call her a libertarian.

Triggered

NorthCarolinaLiberty

03-04-2017, 09:40 PM

I think ZippyJuan should buy this forum. It could be renamed Roger Hollis's MI5.

JohnWeeks613

03-04-2017, 09:42 PM

Who is representing this to legislature if any?

angelatc

03-04-2017, 09:44 PM

Rest assured I'm far more of an actual libertarian than angelatc.

No you're not. You're a liberal.

angelatc

03-04-2017, 09:45 PM

erowe1

Interesting. I wondered what happened to him.

Superfluous Man

03-04-2017, 09:49 PM

No you're not. You're a liberal.

I can't think of a single issue where I'm a liberal, unless it's in areas where liberals want less government and more freedom.

If you think I'm lying, go find a post where I support a liberal position.

angelatc

03-04-2017, 09:53 PM

We no longer live in a world of ideologies.

We never did. But while we were never 100% in lockstep about abortion or immigration, asshats like Zippy and Cpud were banned pretty quickly for not supporting the mission of the site. These days when I ask friends on Facebook why they stopped coming here, it's either trump or trolls.

angelatc

03-04-2017, 09:55 PM

NorthCarolinaLiberty

03-04-2017, 09:56 PM

Who is representing this to legislature if any?

I motion that we commission ZippyJuan and TheCount to represent us in all things libertarian before our great leaders. Superfluous Man and Nikcers, can you second this motion?

NorthCarolinaLiberty

03-04-2017, 10:02 PM

Ron Paul Forum, 2017

https://bunkstrutts.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/kitty-whack-a-mole1.gif

otherone

03-04-2017, 10:05 PM

Ron Paul Forum, 2017

https://bunkstrutts.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/kitty-whack-a-mole1.gif

CATURDAY!

Superfluous Man

03-04-2017, 10:07 PM

"There's no such thing as an illegal!"

First of all, that's just a statement of fact. It happens to be true. You want to pretend that your insult of choice for unlawful residents is a factual label. But it isn't. It's a value judgment that is supported neither by either US law, nor by the Creator's law.

I had a feeling that's what this was about. You support the marxist position of having the government limit immigration. You want to pretend that people like me and Ron Paul who disagree with you about that are liberals. We aren't. And even if you do think that makes us liberal, that only shows the uselessness of that right-left dichotomy. Notice that the post of mine you were answering includes the qualifier, "unless it's in areas where liberals want less government and more freedom." If you want to call the libertarian position on immigration "liberal," then that would qualify.

I have a hunch that just about all of the people who insist Zippy's a liberal are these these single-issue voter, anti-immigration, alt-right types too.

Superfluous Man

03-04-2017, 10:09 PM

I motion that we commission ZippyJuan and TheCount to represent us in all things libertarian before our great leaders. Superfluous Man and Nikcers, can you second this motion?

Seconded.

nikcers

03-04-2017, 10:09 PM

We never did. But while we were never 100% in lockstep about abortion or immigration, asshats like Zippy and Cpud were banned pretty quickly for not supporting the mission of the site. These days when I ask friends on Facebook why they stopped coming here, it's either trump or trolls.
Make RPF great again, we need better trolls.

timosman

03-04-2017, 10:13 PM

Ron Paul Forum, 2017

https://bunkstrutts.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/kitty-whack-a-mole1.gif

Mr. Animal.

CPUd

03-04-2017, 10:21 PM

angelatc

03-04-2017, 10:22 PM

I motion that we commission ZippyJuan and TheCount to represent us in all things libertarian before our great leaders. Superfluous Man and Nikcers, can you second this motion?

I never paid much attention to Superfluous before, but he's apparently showed up just to be antagonistic. A very high percentage of his posts are simply accusing people of being Trump trolls (except he calls them trannies) or creating straw men. You you you - anybody who uses that word in over half his posts isn't here to discuss anything, or support anything.

You're talking about anti-Trump threads, aren't you?

You constantly accuse him of holding liberal positions.

I'm really getting sick of you doing this all the time. It's all you ever do. And I've never once seen you back up your assertions.

Your threads are getting really annoying.

Do you have something to say, or just post a link without comment?

So you have no basis for your assertion.

In that case, you shouldn't have said it. Please stop doing that.

Why did you give this thread the title you did, rather than starting it with the words "Trump tweets"? You state it like it's a fact or something.

Your main point in this thread has been to push immigration control.

By my observation he's more libertarian than a great number of longtime site members who are now unabashed Trump trannies

You must not have read the mission statement.

After all, undermining Trump's presidency is pretty much the #1 mission of this website for the time...

Actually, what I've seen of your posts here haven't included anything about your experiences with illegal immigration,...

Honestly, most of the ones who turned out to be Trump trannies (we're not supposed to say trolls), are not surprising.

When you take out the ones who have always been racists, protectionists, high...

So, just to be clear, you really are for the first part. And you really are against free market capitalism, and ridicule it.

Are you under the impression that people who take economics classes are likely to come away from them thinking that protectionism is good for the economy? Have you ever actually taken any? I have.

You're putting your views on display all by yourself.

Are you being serious?

Why in the world do you think that's a good definition?

and so on and so on. I suppose the positive is that I'm no longer the most obnoxious twat on the forums.

(@lucille - the "so" tell. :) )

UWDude

03-04-2017, 10:22 PM

I can't think of a single issue where I'm a liberal, unless it's in areas where liberals want less government and more freedom.

If you think I'm lying, go find a post where I support a liberal position.

Tell us who you were before you were banned, and we'll find plenty, I am sure.

You surely posted about 300 posts a month before you were banned, too.

angelatc

03-04-2017, 10:24 PM

First of all, that's just a statement of fact. It happens to be true.

No it isn't. It's a liberal tell.

timosman

03-04-2017, 10:28 PM

I support the mission of the site, not sure where you are getting the idea that I don't.

:cool:

angelatc

03-04-2017, 10:29 PM

Make RPF great again, we need better trolls.

This one has proclaimed that the Mission Statement means we're supposed to be undermining Trump's presidency. I mean, he's been here 4 months, so he obviously knows far more than we do about the mission of the forums.

Mark my words - when Rand runs again, he'll be here telling us Rand is not libertaran enough to warrant support.

timosman

03-04-2017, 10:30 PM

Make RPF great again, we need better trolls.

Step 1. Ban low quality trolls.

NorthCarolinaLiberty

03-04-2017, 10:35 PM

Tell us who you were before you were banned, and we'll find plenty, I am sure.

He's erowe1. He got banned and reinstated. I really don't even see why he made a new account. Erowe was just a regular poster here. His zealous support of people like Zip and TheCount almost seems bizarre.

NorthCarolinaLiberty

03-04-2017, 10:37 PM

I motion that we commission ZippyJuan and TheCount to represent us in all things libertarian before our great leaders. Superfluous Man and Nikcers, can you second this motion?

Seconded.

http://img.pandawhale.com/23138-excellentjpg-zryq.jpeg

NorthCarolinaLiberty

03-04-2017, 10:50 PM

I have a hunch that just about all of the people who insist Zippy's a liberal are these these single-issue voter, anti-immigration, alt-right types too.

Oh be quiet. You don't have a hunch on anything. Zip's behavior is as obvious as the nose on your face and you know it. But go ahead and continue to be zealous in your anti-Don postings. Align with Zip and his version of progressive, big government. It will be so much better than what you oppose now. I'm sure Zip's side must be splitting from all his laughing at you.

nikcers

03-04-2017, 10:52 PM

Oh be quiet. You don't have a hunch on anything. Zip's behavior is as obvious as the nose on your face and you know it. But go ahead and continue to be zealous in your anti-Don postings. Align with Zip and his version of progressive, big government. It will be so much better than what you oppose now. I'm sure Zip's side must be splitting from all his laughing at you.
This is why the terrorists have won.

NorthCarolinaLiberty

03-04-2017, 10:53 PM

This is why the terrorists have won.

Brain surgeons like you are why common sense lost.

angelatc

03-04-2017, 11:45 PM

CPUd

03-05-2017, 12:01 AM

timosman

03-05-2017, 12:05 AM

oyarde

03-05-2017, 12:10 AM

This one has proclaimed that the Mission Statement means we're supposed to be undermining Trump's presidency. I mean, he's been here 4 months, so he obviously knows far more than we do about the mission of the forums.

Mark my words - when Rand runs again, he'll be here telling us Rand is not libertaran enough to warrant support.
If Rand runs again I will vote for him again , but I think he is out of opportunities in the near future .

oyarde

03-05-2017, 12:11 AM

One of the mods recently posted that Zippy is pretty open about being a Democrat.

Where he lives , I cannot imagine anyone who is not .

angelatc

03-05-2017, 12:16 AM

CPUd

03-05-2017, 12:19 AM

You won't find me prattling about the non=aggression principle. They're horrible people - ugly and greedy and condescending. I would rather stomp them out of existence than anything.

You do not belong here any more than I belong at Democratic Underground. Difference being, of course, that the mods at DU are smart enough not to allow trolls to destroy their site.

How do I not belong here? And who are you to decide?

NorthCarolinaLiberty

03-05-2017, 12:20 AM

With all this smoking out of "liberals" going on, the obvious question- why is it such a big deal to certain folks?

I think a better question is why is it a big deal to them. Who in the world trolls a site every day for almost 10 years? I have never heard of that. Doesn't that strike you as bizarre?

NorthCarolinaLiberty

03-05-2017, 12:29 AM

One of the mods recently posted that Zippy is pretty open about being a Democrat.

I'd like to see that. Zip mostly declines to answer his voting choices when I aks him. He said he voted for Gary Johnson, which I might believe; however, he never acknowledges voting for Brock, Feinstein, Boxer, etc. when I ask him about those.

Marenco

03-05-2017, 01:35 AM

http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-when-more-of-the-people-s-sustenance-is-exacted-through-the-form-of-taxation-than-is-grover-cleveland-54-76-97.jpg

timosman

03-05-2017, 02:22 AM

I'd like to see that. Zip mostly declines to answer his voting choices when I aks him. He said he voted for Gary Johnson, which I might believe; however, he never acknowledges voting for Brock, Feinstein, Boxer, etc. when I ask him about those.

Zippy is still waiting for the naturalization process to complete. He can not really vote. He was told participating on the liberty forum may help with the application and he took it to heart. :cool:

Superfluous Man

03-06-2017, 08:57 AM

No it isn't. It's a liberal tell.

Great. Find the law then and get back to us.

Superfluous Man

03-06-2017, 08:59 AM

One of the mods recently posted that Zippy is pretty open about being a Democrat.

I'd like to see that.

Yes, I would too. Funny how nobody can find the evidence they insist is there.

He said he voted for Gary Johnson

That's certainly interesting. So the Johnson voter is a Democrat troll, but the Trump trannies aren't?

Superfluous Man

03-06-2017, 09:02 AM

I support the mission of the site, not sure where you are getting the idea that I don't.

:cool:

Timo's man is commenting on other peoples' support for the site mission. That's rich.

timosman

03-06-2017, 11:51 AM

Timo's man is commenting on other peoples' support for the site mission. That's rich.

http://marcykate.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/bite-off-more-than-you-can-chew.jpg

NorthCarolinaLiberty

03-06-2017, 01:24 PM

Yes, I would too. Funny how nobody can find the evidence they insist is there.

What would be even funnier is you showing all Zip's posts that support your statement of "everything I've seen from him here seems fairly conservative/libertarian."

Athan

03-06-2017, 02:36 PM

With all this smoking out of "liberals" going on, the obvious question- why is it such a big deal to certain folks? Seems like it would be a good thing if these people are coming here, and flaming them is probably not the best way to turn them on to liberty-oriented ideas.

Concerned shill is deeply concerned.

How do I not belong here? And who are you to decide?

You $h!t up discussion. Your intellectually dishonest and prevent serious criticism of Trump to happen because you shills don't know how to make a libertarian/pro-liberty argument. You make a liberal democrat argument which is basically typical $h!tflinging. A lot of us do want to discuss Trump's actions with a critical eye and seriousness because there is historical events transpiring within the deep state civilian coup with Trump's counter coup. And you instead are here being shills with your heads up your ass for your little corporate masters.

Mods need to get rid of you and members like Zippyjuan. We all know what you are doing, and it has nothing to do with others supporting Trump's administration.

NorthCarolinaLiberty

03-06-2017, 02:40 PM

You $h!t up discussion. Your intellectually dishonest and prevent serious criticism of Trump to happen because you shills don't know how to make a libertarian/pro-liberty argument. You make a liberal democrat argument which is basically typical $h!tflinging. A lot of us do want to discuss Trump's actions with a critical eye and seriousness because there is historical events transpiring within the deep state civilian coup with Trump's counter coup. And you instead are here being shills with your heads up your ass for your little corporate masters.

Mods need to get rid of you and members like Zippyjuan. We all know what you are doing, and it has nothing to do with others supporting Trump's administration.

I think this hits it on the head.

Ender

03-06-2017, 04:12 PM

Concerned shill is deeply concerned.

You $h!t up discussion. Your intellectually dishonest and prevent serious criticism of Trump to happen because you shills don't know how to make a libertarian/pro-liberty argument. You make a liberal democrat argument which is basically typical $h!tflinging. A lot of us do want to discuss Trump's actions with a critical eye and seriousness because there is historical events transpiring within the deep state civilian coup with Trump's counter coup. And you instead are here being shills with your heads up your ass for your little corporate masters.

Mods need to get rid of you and members like Zippyjuan. We all know what you are doing, and it has nothing to do with others supporting Trump's administration.

And name-calling and insults is definitely the best way to show your own intellectual dishonesty.

Try reading the Ron Paul forum and behaving with his kind of decorum.........???

Athan

03-06-2017, 04:41 PM

And name-calling and insults is definitely the best way to show your own intellectual dishonesty.

Try reading the Ron Paul forum and behaving with his kind of decorum.........???

FYI, there is no need treating shills like they are deserve to be treated with respect. In fact, its laughable.

They are here for a specific purpose and that isn't to be a contributing part of the community. They are here with a specific political agenda and that is to create the type of contentious and antagonistic environment those two have created on behalf of larger parties and organizations that have targeted RonPaulForums among other online forums.

You can tell when a liberty minded Ron Paul Forum member is a purist and when one is a pragmatist. I've been here for years. My "intellectual dishonesty" isn't called into question because I treat shills as they should be treated. As they say: it is, to laugh. By calling them shills and reminding them they are all sorts of wonderfully explicit names to demean and mock them it makes the community generally happy. Well excluding the shills. I mean even their bosses mock them behind their back. Why get angry at little o'l me?

“They’re always there; they’re always working around the clock,”

“I always tease David that he finds all of these nerd virgins and locks them away in a vault where they never see sunlight or have a drink or get laid. But God Bless them!” -Paul Begala

Also, don't pretend I am dumb enough not to see the hilarious irony of you saying I am misbehaving, when the two in question are consistently causing legitimate friction with their $h!tflinging. I am also not here purposely creating a contentious environment. I have treated you with respect because I have not yet viewed your postings which are usually a consistent defense of the shills as part of a larger shilling pattern/strategy.

undergroundrr

03-06-2017, 05:02 PM

there is historical events transpiring within the deep state civilian coup with Trump's counter coup

This is often quoted as if it's that simple. Pre-alt-right, us old fogies used to call the "deep state" the "national security establishment."

But neither the deep state nor the establishment exists as some monolithic entity with a unified, agreed upon mission.

Another RPF member, before he wisely self-banned (death by mod I guess) stated it best:

That's because your establishment/anti-establishment paradigm is faulty.

There is no "The Establishment."

There is a constellation of special interests advocating statism in various forms, who often fight amongst themselves.

You're right, it is interesting to see who the new guy pisses off. But I don't for a moment think he's upended any significant element of the nation-state, particularly in the halls of war. Nothing trump has done or proposed since taking office threatens anything of the sort. A few of the names may change as they have since before Eisenhower's MIC warning, but the new blood is mixing neatly right into the swamp.

Athan

03-06-2017, 06:10 PM

This is often quoted as if it's that simple. Pre-alt-right, us old fogies used to call the "deep state" the "national security establishment."

But neither the deep state nor the establishment exists as some monolithic entity with a unified, agreed upon mission.

Another RPF member, before he wisely self-banned (death by mod I guess) stated it best:

You're right, it is interesting to see who the new guy pisses off. But I don't for a moment think he's upended any significant element of the nation-state, particularly in the halls of war. Nothing trump has done or proposed since taking office threatens anything of the sort. A few of the names may change as they have since before Eisenhower's MIC warning, but the new blood is mixing neatly right into the swamp.

What a wonderful post! Yes, I agree to a certain point. This is what what I initially meant though that so much is transpiring that is historical.

For many years, what you posted was pretty much accurate. THEN came the wikileaks discovery of the Clinton Foundation's pay-for-play schemes. Now instead of "constellation of special interests advocating statism in various forms, who often fight amongst themselves", we have a POWERFUL special interest that positioned some very heavy pieces within the body of the deep state constellation because the body of evidence that came out disturbed a lot of people in the deep state.

As well as revelations that Huma Abedin was likely a Saudi spy. As well as the likelyhood that the pedophile rings were more insidious than just rich and powerful @$$holes partaking in raping of children. That it likely was supported by foreign state actors such as Saudi Arabia and Israel which allowed them to have such a powerful stranglehold on members of Congress. You know, in case they acted like Rand Paul and didn't clap hard enough for an Israeli prime minister. This created a seismic shift within the government intelligence community. One where we now have groups dealing serious power plays between JSOC and CIA.

Listen, Trump is one guy. He couldn't not have riled up so many specific people who usually pretend to be on opposing sides under normal neocon/liberal democrat rule. Trump knew things like moving to fire the 7th floor of a state department group within a month of taking office. There is some serious $h!t going down inside the constellation. To dismiss/condemn Trump; or act like he's untouchable man who can do no wrong is folly.

NorthCarolinaLiberty

03-06-2017, 07:08 PM

Ender

03-06-2017, 07:42 PM

FYI, there is no need treating shills like they are deserve to be treated with respect. In fact, its laughable.

They are here for a specific purpose and that isn't to be a contributing part of the community. They are here with a specific political agenda and that is to create the type of contentious and antagonistic environment those two have created on behalf of larger parties and organizations that have targeted RonPaulForums among other online forums.

You can tell when a liberty minded Ron Paul Forum member is a purist and when one is a pragmatist. I've been here for years. My "intellectual dishonesty" isn't called into question because I treat shills as they should be treated. As they say: it is, to laugh. By calling them shills and reminding them they are all sorts of wonderfully explicit names to demean and mock them it makes the community generally happy. Well excluding the shills. I mean even their bosses mock them behind their back. Why get angry at little o'l me?

Also, don't pretend I am dumb enough not to see the hilarious irony of you saying I am misbehaving, when the two in question are consistently causing legitimate friction with their $h!tflinging. I am also not here purposely creating a contentious environment. I have treated you with respect because I have not yet viewed your postings which are usually a consistent defense of the shills as part of a larger shilling pattern/strategy.

I'm not angry at little o'l you. ;) I'm tired of the insults.

I have been here since I was 16 and campaigned for RP before I could vote- have seen a lot of interesting stuff- but NEVER have I seen such enormous frothing bullshit than from Trump-lovers. I've been called everything from an SWJ to a Muslim because I'm not a fan.

Zippyjuan posts different POVs- baaaad Zippy- how dare he!

CPUd began posting counter-Trump posts when all the Trump lovers, who were asked NOT to support Trump on the forum, continued to do so. Their only argument was to call him names.

TheCount is just plain dry humor and can be incredibly funny, when you get it- He is also tired of being called names because he is not a Trump-lover.

And the truely hilarious irony is that all the name-calling/insult-throwers cause more views on the so-called shills' posts than would ever happen if they just let them slide.

CPUd

03-06-2017, 08:04 PM

I remember when someone was calling Ender a Muslim all up and down these boards. Because of 1 post where they called him a Muslim and he didn't explicitly deny it.

Ender

03-06-2017, 08:50 PM

I remember when someone was calling Ender a Muslim all up and down these boards. Because of 1 post where they called him a Muslim and he didn't explicitly deny it.

That was when I was defending the 1st Amendment against the proposed Trump position of making all American Muslims register with the state. This could set a very unwanted precedence for all religions. The 1838 Extermination Order against all Mormons in Missouri was only rescinded in 1976. Up until then you could legally kill a Mormon on the streets.

And I did deny being a Muslim, as I am a Christian Minister Under a Vow of Poverty.

Athan

03-06-2017, 08:53 PM

I'm not angry at little o'l you. ;) I'm tired of the insults.

And the truely hilarious irony is that all the name-calling/insult-throwers cause more views on the so-called shills' posts than would ever happen if they just let them slide.

You realize, that if they were legitimately were not shills, it is they that are responsible for it. Not you. FURTHER, if at any time, if *I* was in their exact position, it would be easy for me to remedy it and correct the situation and end the venom directed at me within a post or two. People here aren't gullible nor do we act like social justice warriors or communists. Most of us have better than decent reasoning faculties when compared to the average American. We hated Obama because he was a continuation of Bush neocon policies. Not because of a liberal/conservative slant.

So, don't be so naive, and don't act like we are incorrigible. There are in fact NO innocent victims found here in this little $h!t fest. Deflecting "oh well these supporters are rabid supporter for politican X" is no excuse. They purposely bringing down the forum quality with their low IQ elementary playground posting and squabbles. They are dishonest, bias, and petulant and people are simply calling it out because THE MODS ARE NOT FUCXING DOING ANYTHING.

They are acting just like the mainstream media, and frankly most of us have beef with the mainstream media after Ron Paul, and are wise to the $h1+ they are trying to do with Trump. Here they are creating stupid posts like "Trump held his daughter this way instead of having 6 inches of space between this body part and so" or other examples of ridiculous posting that completely destroys any credibility. They act like Trump is the reason they can't get laid. It's beyond nonsensical. It's downright vindictive and repulsive.

They are turning even legitimate criticisms of Trump's decisions into a fuxin joke. Like Trump's military budget increase not being required when he needs to get a handle on why the military annually has billions of dollars mysteriously disappearing. But airing that grievance here is just like asking who wants to walk into a building to address a crying baby in a building full of shrill shrieking, noxious and angry idiots? Only other idiots. This is why even I don't bother criticizing Trump. This $h1+ keeps up, if he has the feds lock up critics, even I'm going to just ignore it and change the channel.

Ender

03-06-2017, 08:59 PM

You realize, that if they were legitimately were not shills, it is they that are responsible for it. Not you. FURTHER, if at any time, if *I* was in their exact position, it would be easy for me to remedy it and correct the situation and end the venom directed at me within a post or two. People here aren't gullible nor do we act like social justice warriors or communists. Most of us have better than decent reasoning faculties when compared to the average American. We hated Obama because he was a continuation of Bush neocon policies. Not because of a liberal/conservative slant.

So, don't be so naive, and don't act like we are incorrigible. There are in fact NO innocent victims found here in this little $h!t fest. Deflecting "oh well these supporters are rabid supporter for politican X" is no excuse. They purposely bringing down the forum quality with their low IQ elementary playground posting and squabbles. They are dishonest, bias, and petulant and people are simply calling it out because THE MODS ARE NOT FUCXING DOING ANYTHING.

They are acting just like the mainstream media, and frankly most of us have beef with the mainstream media after Ron Paul, and are wise to the $h1+ they are trying to do with Trump. Here they are creating stupid posts like "Trump held his daughter this way instead of having 6 inches of space between this body part and so" or other examples of ridiculous posting that completely destroys any credibility. They act like Trump is the reason they can't get laid. It's beyond nonsensical. It's downright vindictive and repulsive.

They are turning even legitimate criticisms of Trump's decisions into a fuxin joke. Like Trump's military budget increase not being required when he needs to get a handle on why the military annually has billions of dollars mysteriously disappearing. Who want's to walk into a building to address a crying baby in a room of shrill shrieking, noxious and angry idiots?

Show me where these guys have called any forum members names. It is not THEY who are creating the shitstorm- it is Trumpateers. If y'all were a bit more civil, it would do a lot to bring others to understand your way of thinking, but, except for a very few, it has never happened- only insults, name-calling and blargadee blar.

Maybe read Ron Paul's forum and get HIS perspective on El Trumpo?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?508144-Ron-s-Tweetstorm-Was-Trump-s-Speech-Libertarian

Athan

03-06-2017, 09:18 PM

Show me where these guys have called any forum members names. It is not THEY who are creating the $#@!storm- it is Trumpateers. If y'all were a bit more civil, it would do a lot to bring others to understand your way of thinking, but, except for a very few, it has never happened- only insults, name-calling and blargadee blar.

Maybe read Ron Paul's forum and get HIS perspective on El Trumpo?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?508144-Ron-s-Tweetstorm-Was-Trump-s-Speech-Libertarian

It isn't name calling by them to others. No one cares about that. You think anyone cares if you called so and so or me a coxsock? Hell no. It is the $h!tflinging. How is it you missed the point of many of my paragraphs, analogies, and explanations?

Superfluous Man

03-06-2017, 09:58 PM

What would be even funnier is you showing all Zip's posts that support your statement of "everything I've seen from him here seems fairly conservative/libertarian."

Again, anyone can just click his profile and see his entire posting history. If there's anything very liberal there, I haven't seen it.

I can't say the same for a large number of Trump trannies who post her regularly.

Ender

03-07-2017, 12:29 AM

It isn't name calling by them to others. No one cares about that. You think anyone cares if you called so and so or me a coxsock? Hell no. It is the $h!tflinging. How is it you missed the point of many of my paragraphs, analogies, and explanations?

Same way you've missed mine?

I just want to see decent dialog, and not ridiculous insults. It does your cause no good.

Athan

03-07-2017, 12:58 AM

Same way you've missed mine?

I just want to see decent dialog, and not ridiculous insults. It does your cause no good.

I didn't miss yours.

I keep trying to explain to you, the source of the lack of decent dialogue is directly because of Zippyjuan and CPU'd. They keep turning everything into "Trump's fault" by default if it is relating to an event in the Trump's administration. The event turns immediately into a form of slander on Trump whether he deserved it or not. It completely and PURPOSELY ruins the direction of the thread.

One example, the recent increased round up of pedophile criminals turned immediately into somehow bashing Trump. They clearly politicized an event that was not political in nature. You would think "Oh hey people raping children being arrested" is a good thing that Trump's administration is doing.

However, they are shills, and that type of general group consensus is a bad thing according to them. Suddenly we who are talking about it, are somehow claiming Trump is the lone ranger going in doing the house to house operations and round up. Or hey that's all well and good but look how Ivanka Trump is leaning on Trump's leg. It's intentional. They don't want us talking about the nature of the news. They want us to be directed into infighting with them about Trump. Then they pull the "look, i'm so innocent Ender. They are such bad posters" move on you so you buy it. They clearly know they shat all over the topic, and purposely directed it off topic. Then they get the suckers into camps against those complaining.

How are you in the ministry/preisthood, and yet so naive as to what they are clearly doing?

What they are doing destroys dialogue. THAT is what creates ridiculous insults. You need to stop covering for it. Stop pointing fingers at the wrong party. Even us in the sidelines know what they are doing. They are using basic text book tactics.

1 – CHARACTER ASSASSINATION

(Psychological Warfare – discredit, distract, intimidate, frustrate, divide & conquer) – Disinformation shills often make outrageous comments for the sole purpose of deflecting focus from the truth to distract us by creating a “controversial debate” where none truly exists. Often, trolls use the “Trojan Horse” method to attempt to elicit an emotional response from people online, to evoke hostility with the intent of twisting it around to make the person look volatile, a classic “character assassination” tactic to discredit them, making them appear weak. On some occasions, they intentionally keep pushing a person into a heated argument, and will go so far as to “report” the person as being a “threat” to try to get them kicked off of the forum. Another major character assassination tactic is to highlight any negative or perceived flaw of an otherwise reputable person, whether true or false, to intentionally discredit them in an attempt to invalidate their viewpoint and make them seem baseless, to detract focus from the information they are sharing. The trolls often “make stuff up” if they can’t find anything real to highlight for this goal, after all, shills are paid liars. Another trick these liars are taught is to use semantics to twist people’s words around and make it seem as though they’ve lied, to discredit them. These are all character assassination tactics that you will easily recognize happening all over the internet once you become familiar with them.

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-dRZbWQmVBiw/V33CvpaVcRI/AAAAAAAABgc/LlkXdAY1n8A_mZ3QjOYlV1pwM_xpOFA5wCLcB/s1600/criminalswhohurtinnocentpeople2.png

Ender

03-07-2017, 01:49 AM

I didn't miss yours.

I keep trying to explain to you, the source of the lack of decent dialogue is directly because of Zippyjuan and CPU'd. They keep turning everything into "Trump's fault" by default if it is relating to an event in the Trump's administration. The event turns immediately into a form of slander on Trump whether he deserved it or not. It completely and PURPOSELY ruins the direction of the thread.

One example, the recent increased round up of pedophile criminals turned immediately into somehow bashing Trump. They clearly politicized an event that was not political in nature. You would think "Oh hey people raping children being arrested" is a good thing that Trump's administration is doing.

However, they are shills, and that type of general group consensus is a bad thing according to them. Suddenly we who are talking about it, are somehow claiming Trump is the lone ranger going in doing the house to house operations and round up. Or hey that's all well and good but look how Ivanka Trump is leaning on Trump's leg. It's intentional. They don't want us talking about the nature of the news. They want us to be directed into infighting with them about Trump. Then they pull the "look, i'm so innocent Ender. They are such bad posters" move on you so you buy it. They clearly know they shat all over the topic, and purposely directed it off topic. Then they get the suckers into camps against those complaining.

How are you in the ministry/preisthood, and yet so naive as to what they are clearly doing?

What they are doing destroys dialogue. THAT is what creates ridiculous insults. You need to stop covering for it. Stop pointing fingers at the wrong party. Even us in the sidelines know what they are doing. They are using basic text book tactics.

You talkin' about yourself? YOU are the one calling names and derailing the dialog.

Try reading this thread- here's is a small example:

angelatc:
Damn. Too bad we can't attract any actual libertarians these days.

@nikcers: Why would actual libertarians come here when they got railroaded on here by Trump supporters for agreeing with Ron Paul and voting third party?

BTW- It's Priesthood; spellcheck is your friend.

LibertyRevolution

03-07-2017, 02:07 AM

Athan

03-07-2017, 07:58 AM

You talkin' about yourself? YOU are the one calling names and derailing the dialog.

Try reading this thread- here's is a small example:

BTW- It's Priesthood; spellcheck is your friend.
It has already been derailed if you haven't noticed. It keeps happening in most threads that involve those two posting. Again, why criticize me when I am not responsible for their behavior which by any reasonable standard are creating a real contentious environment. We aren't calling out simply those pro or anti Trump because of their positions on the administration.

I'll bold and caps this for you so you pay attention:
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING LIBERAL OR CONSERVATIVE ON A POSITION.
WE DON'T CARE IF YOU HATE OR LOVE TRUMP.

Frankly, a lot of us believe not a lot policy-wise will change in the end. The deep state however is being challenged or undergoing real changes as a result of the election AND people within the intelligence community. That and a lot of us are hoping to be giddy like Ron Swanson when the episode of Parks and Rec when they announced they were to fire the government fat, and scuttle agencies. There is a lot to be hopeful for and not get our hopes up for.

And my $h!t tier spelling is the least of your worries. You are too gullible and naive, and yet somehow a priest with less worldly knowledge than he should have for such an important position. To translate in the real world application, would you allow your real life congregation to be assaulted with social justice warriors posing as members of the flock with the goal of dissolving your congregation with gender fluidity, focus on homosexual advancement and homophobia attack tactics, and etc?

Even if you wanted to advise them on the real meaning of god, you'd still have to separate them from the community to stop their assaults.

I mean frannkly, I'dd raather have my problm then yurs. Wisen up pastoir.

angelatc

03-07-2017, 08:15 AM

angelatc

03-07-2017, 08:26 AM

I'd like to see that. Zip mostly declines to answer his voting choices when I aks him. He said he voted for Gary Johnson, which I might believe; however, he never acknowledges voting for Brock, Feinstein, Boxer, etc. when I ask him about those.

I thought it was either in the $25 Per Hour thread, or the Trump Illegal immigration thread but I can't find it now.

Madison320

03-07-2017, 08:40 AM

I prefer a consumption based tax over an income based tax.
You can choose to not buy stuff, or buy less stuff, you really can't choose to not have income.
It is one of the reasons I moved to a state with no income tax on wages or pensions, but instead uses a higher sales tax.

I would love to see the federal government do the same thing.

I like the consumption tax, but it has one big problem in my opinion. It puts the burden of collection, and threat of jail time on a small minority (retailers). Unless there's a way to decriminalize non payment, I'm still favoring a flat tax since it punishes everyone equally.

Ender

03-07-2017, 08:59 AM

It has already been derailed if you haven't noticed. It keeps happening in most threads that involve those two posting. Again, why criticize me when I am not responsible for their behavior which by any reasonable standard are creating a real contentious environment. We aren't calling out simply those pro or anti Trump because of their positions on the administration.

I'll bold and caps this for you so you pay attention:
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING LIBERAL OR CONSERVATIVE ON A POSITION.
WE DON'T CARE IF YOU HATE OR LOVE TRUMP.

Frankly, a lot of us believe not a lot policy-wise will change in the end. The deep state however is being challenged or undergoing real changes as a result of the election AND people within the intelligence community. That and a lot of us are hoping to be giddy like Ron Swanson when the episode of Parks and Rec when they announced they were fire government fat, and scuttle agencies. There is a lot to be hopeful for and not get our hopes up for.

And my $h!t tier spelling is the least of your worries. You are too gullible and naive, and yet somehow a priest with less worldly knowledge than he should have for such an important position. To translate in the real world application, would you allow your real life congregation to be assaulted with social justice warriors posing as members of the flock with the goal of dissolving your congregation with gender fluidity, focus on homosexual advancement and homophobia attack tactics, and etc?

Even if you wanted to advise them on the real meaning of god, you'd still have to separate them from the community to stop their assaults.

I mean frannkly, I'dd raather have my vice then yurs. Wisen up pastoir.

Ahh.... so now your tactics are to make fun of me and belittle my faith and chosen path.

Interesting how Trumpateers call names, insult their chosen "shills", take over threads and then blame everyone else.

Sad days at RPF.

Athan

03-07-2017, 09:06 AM

Ahh.... so now your tactics are to make fun of me and belittle my faith and chosen path.

Interesting how Trumpateers call names, insult their chosen "shills", take over threads and then blame everyone else.

Sad days at RPF.

Not really. You may be a pretty damn cool dude to kick back with, and well loved for your services to the community. However, you ARE being gullible and naive on the issue. That much I am afraid I can not improve my diplomacy in. You either aren't experienced in what is happening, or you are letting yourself being mislead by their feint. A modern pastor has to be knowledgeable in this; otherwise all you will do is dispense bad advice on the topic.

Which IS specifically what you are doing now.

jllundqu

03-07-2017, 09:24 AM

Not really. You may be a pretty damn cool dude to kick back with, and well loved for your services to the community. However, you ARE being gullible and naive on the issue. That much I am afraid I can not improve my diplomacy in. You either aren't experienced in what is happening, or you are letting yourself being mislead by their feint. A modern pastor has to be knowledgeable in this; otherwise all you will do is dispense bad advice on the topic.

Which IS specifically what you are doing now.

Back to the OP or GTFO...

This thread is about FAIR/FLAT TAX proposals and the like.... I'll start flagging junk posters here quick

Athan

03-07-2017, 09:31 AM

Back to the OP or GTFO...

This thread is about FLAT TAX proposals and the like.... I'll start flagging junk posters here quick

A fair point. I did provide my opinion on the matter though. They threw their lot in with Cruz, and haven't done much to try to get leeway with Trump. Perhaps they should focus on state level tax systems that clearly need it.

Zippyjuan

03-07-2017, 02:18 PM

I like the consumption tax, but it has one big problem in my opinion. It puts the burden of collection, and threat of jail time on a small minority (retailers). Unless there's a way to decriminalize non payment, I'm still favoring a flat tax since it punishes everyone equally.

Each type of tax has its merits and bad points. Consumption tax hits those at lower income levels harder than those at the higher end since they spend a higher percent of their income purchasing goods.

Let's say we wanted to tax all retail sales to fund the government. Let's also assume we have our current level of spending ($4 trillion proposed for FY 2017). How high of a tax would we need to balance that budget just with a sales tax?

Retail sales in 2015 were about $5 trillion. https://www.emarketer.com/Article/US-Retail-Sales-Near-5-Trillion-2016/1013368 To get $4 trillion in taxes from retail sales, you would need a tax rate of 80%. That nearly doubles the price you currently pay on almost everything. If you imposed an 80% tax, of course sales would drop drastically and you would need an even higher rate. Exempt things like food and you need even more. And that does not include any state sales taxes which would be on top of that.

Europe uses a Value Added Tax which works like a sales tax. Their rate in most countries is 25% (the highest allowed by ECB rules).

Madison320

03-07-2017, 02:35 PM

Each type of tax has its merits and bad points. Consumption tax hits those at lower income levels harder than those at the higher end since they spend a higher percent of their income purchasing goods.

Everything hits the poor harder. It's not an excuse to steal from people.

Let's say we wanted to tax all retail sales to fund the government. Let's also assume we have our current level of spending ($4 trillion proposed for FY 2017). How high of a tax would we need to balance that budget just with a sales tax?

Way too high. We'd have black market in retail.

We need a flat tax with no deductions. Or user fees. Laws need to be applied equally. It's not fair to have different laws for different citizens. If the rate is to high for the poor, lower the rate. If revenue is too low, reduce spending. Enslaving a minority is not the answer.

Zippyjuan

03-07-2017, 02:40 PM

Everything hits the poor harder. It's not an excuse to steal from people.

Way too high. We'd have black market in retail.

We need a flat tax with no deductions. Or user fees. Laws need to be applied equally. It's not fair to have different laws for different citizens. If the rate is to high for the poor, lower the rate. If revenue is too low, reduce spending. Enslaving a minority is not the answer.

Negatives on the flat tax is that it would reduce taxes paid by those at higher incomes and raise the taxes for those at the lower end. Since about half of all income tax filers owe no net Federal taxes probably about 2/3rds of the population would see their taxes owed rise- mostly those struggling to pay for things already. (that is assuming tax dollars collected stay the same). Especially if as you suggest no exemptions or deductions. (allowing these makes it more progressive of a tax though).

TheCount

03-07-2017, 02:43 PM

Way too high. We'd have black market in retail.This is the reason why I would prefer an income tax to a sales tax. From an economic perspective, a sales tax would change consumer behavior - it would promote certain types of spending and discourage others. An income tax would affect all things equally, assuming that it's flat and fair.

We need a flat tax with no deductions.Even a no-deduction version of the income tax current system would be an amazing improvement. You could throw out 99% of the tax code as well as likely 60+% of the time, expense, and administration involved in handling current tax returns. I wonder how much the rates themselves would change if it were strictly as-is, with no deductions.

TheCount

03-07-2017, 02:44 PM

Negatives on the flat tax is that it would reduce taxes paid by those at higher incomes and raise the taxes for those at the lower end. Since about half of all income tax filers owe no net Federal taxes probably about 2/3rds of the population would see their taxes owed rise- mostly those struggling to pay for things already. (that is assuming tax dollars collected stay the same).Madison seems to be saying that if the rate you're taxing is too high for the poor, that means you're spending too much. Lower the burden until all can bear it.

Zippyjuan

03-07-2017, 02:46 PM

Good article comparing progressive taxation, flat taxes, and fair taxes (consumption tax): https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2015/08/07/our-current-tax-v-the-flat-tax-v-the-fair-tax-whats-the-difference/#3bc2740c5561

CaptUSA

03-07-2017, 02:46 PM

I like the consumption tax, but it has one big problem in my opinion. It puts the burden of collection, and threat of jail time on a small minority (retailers). Unless there's a way to decriminalize non payment, I'm still favoring a flat tax since it punishes everyone equally.

There's an even bigger problem with it in my opinion. It's in the transition from an income tax to a consumption tax. If you have already been taxed on your income, you will be taxed again when it becomes a consumption tax. This hurts retired people most. They were taxed their entire working lives on their income. And now, when they have no income, they would be taxed again on every purchase. Even if you could somehow give them some type of tax "line of credit" where they wouldn't have to pay consumption taxes until they hit a certain level, there's no way you could possibly ensure a steady stream of revenue while dong it.

So yeah, you'd pretty much have to start from scratch in order to do it without double taxation. And if you're starting from scratch, you might as well just keep the tax at zero!

phill4paul

03-07-2017, 02:48 PM

Progressive, flat or fair it doesn't alter the fact than any tax other than voluntary is theft.

Zippyjuan

03-07-2017, 02:48 PM

Madison seems to be saying that if the rate you're taxing is too high for the poor, that means you're spending too much. Lower the burden until all can bear it.

Cut the budget in half (including the sacred cows of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and defense spending) and you still need a 40% tax to balance your budget. Leave off those items from the current budget and the best you can do is about $500 billion in cuts- and that assumes you cut EVERYTHING else to zero.

CPUd

03-07-2017, 03:23 PM

I prefer a consumption based tax over an income based tax.
You can choose to not buy stuff, or buy less stuff, you really can't choose to not have income.
It is one of the reasons I moved to a state with no income tax on wages or pensions, but instead uses a higher sales tax.

I would love to see the federal government do the same thing.

That's what it is in TN. There are different rates for type of items, like foods. Sometimes there are tax holidays for certain items related to back-to-school stuff (includes certain electronics like laptops).

Ender

03-07-2017, 03:53 PM

Progressive, flat or fair it doesn't alter the fact than any tax other than voluntary is theft.

Exactly my POV.

Madison320

03-07-2017, 03:56 PM

Negatives on the flat tax is that it would reduce taxes paid by those at higher incomes and raise the taxes for those at the lower end. Since about half of all income tax filers owe no net Federal taxes probably about 2/3rds of the population would see their taxes owed rise- mostly those struggling to pay for things already. (that is assuming tax dollars collected stay the same). Especially if as you suggest no exemptions or deductions. (allowing these makes it more progressive of a tax though).

That's not a negative. That's correcting a wrong. High income earners are immorally overtaxed. The law should be the same for all citizens.

Madison320

03-07-2017, 04:01 PM

Madison seems to be saying that if the rate you're taxing is too high for the poor, that means you're spending too much. Lower the burden until all can bear it.

Exactly.

Madison320

03-07-2017, 04:08 PM

Cut the budget in half (including the sacred cows of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and defense spending) and you still need a 40% tax to balance your budget. Leave off those items from the current budget and the best you can do is about $500 billion in cuts- and that assumes you cut EVERYTHING else to zero.

How do you figure that? We're spending about 4 trillion. Half is 2 trillion. We're collecting about 3 trillion with a top rate of 39% so the average rate would be maybe 20%. So we'd need maybe 10-15% to collect 2 trillion (remember that tax rate/tax revenue is not proportional). If the poor can't afford 10-15% then cut spending some more.

Zippyjuan

03-07-2017, 04:16 PM

How do you figure that? We're spending about 4 trillion. Half is 2 trillion. We're collecting about 3 trillion with a top rate of 39% so the average rate would be maybe 20%. So we'd need maybe 10-15% to collect 2 trillion (remember that tax rate/tax revenue is not proportional). If the poor can't afford 10-15% then cut spending some more.

I assumed a balanced budget with the flat tax paying for all of it (no more corporate taxes, no more tariffs, etc and no deficit). But if you are raising $2 trillion in taxes, you need a rate of 40% for your consumption tax assuming retail sales stay at $5 trillion.

First problem would be cutting the budget in half. How would you achieve that?

You don't mind paying more if it means Bill Gates gets to pay less since it would be more fair.

https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/pres_budg_total_spending_pie.png

Madison320

03-07-2017, 04:25 PM

Progressive, flat or fair it doesn't alter the fact than any tax other than voluntary is theft.

I agree but I'm also not an anarchist. If we could defend ourselves from foreign attacks and support a court system with a voluntary tax then I'm all for it. If somehow you could prove that a nation could not exist with a voluntary tax then I think the next best thing is to figure out a way to put a self perpetuating limit on taxes and spending.

Some ideas would be:

Flat tax with no deductions so that the law would apply equally and all citizens would feel pain in tax increases.

Remove the criminal penalty for non payment. Make it a civil penalty the same as private debt, not a criminal penalty. Why is there only a debtors prison for government debt, not private debt? Not paying private debt is worse than government debt because you AGREED to pay the debt. With taxation the debt was decided against your will by someone else so you haven't broken a valid contract.

Restrict voting to only people that are paying more in taxes than they get in benefits.

Zippyjuan

03-07-2017, 04:30 PM

What would a flat tax rate need to be? First we need to know incomes. Total Adjusted Federal Gross Income in the US for 2016 was $11.25 trillion. http://www.taxjusticeblog.org/archive/2015/09/ben_carsons_10_percent_flat_ta.php#.WL8zVvnyuUk

Let's look at the big number- current $4 trillion spending and no other taxes and a balanced budget. That would require a 35% flat income tax rate paid by everybody to generate that much revenue for the government.

Get spending down to $3 trillion and it falls to 26%. (leave Social Security and Medicare/ Medicaid alone and you have to axe 100% of the rest of the budget including all defense spending).

nikcers

03-07-2017, 04:30 PM

I assumed a balanced budget with the flat tax paying for all of it (no more corporate taxes, no more tariffs, etc and no deficit). But if you are raising $2 trillion in taxes, you need a rate of 40% for your consumption tax assuming retail sales stay at $5 trillion.

First problem would be cutting the budget in half. How would you achieve that?

You don't mind paying more if it means Bill Gates gets to pay less since it would be more fair.

https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/pres_budg_total_spending_pie.png Yeah we don't want a big government zippy, we are going to have to cut most of it to make other things cheaper, we are going to have to get rid of Obamacare to make healthcare cheaper. We have to get rid of Medicare to completely fix healthcare. We don't need these big food programs when we can grow our own food.

Madison320

03-07-2017, 04:30 PM

I assumed a balanced budget with the flat tax paying for all of it (no more corporate taxes, no more tariffs, etc and no deficit). But if you are raising $2 trillion in taxes, you need a rate of 40% for your consumption tax assuming retail sales stay at $5 trillion.
First problem would be cutting the budget in half. How would you achieve that?
You don't mind paying more if it means Bill Gates gets to pay less since it would be more fair.

I was talking about a flat income tax. If I had to pay more, that would be ok because I know in a few years I'll be paying less. Bill Gates would still be paying hundreds of times more than me with a flat tax.

Do you believe in criminal penalties for people that don't pay their taxes?

Zippyjuan

03-07-2017, 04:35 PM

I was talking about a flat income tax. If I had to pay more, that would be ok because I know in a few years I'll be paying less. Bill Gates would still be paying hundreds of times more than me with a flat tax.

Do you believe in criminal penalties for people that don't pay their taxes?

I have added figures for what a flat tax would need to be a couple posts above.

Madison320

03-07-2017, 04:38 PM

I have added figures for what a flat tax would need to be a couple posts above.

But we were talking about cutting the budget in half. The numbers you provided would make my assumption of 10-15% about right to get to 2 trillion in revenue.

Do you believe in criminal penalties for people that don't pay their taxes?

Zippyjuan

03-07-2017, 04:43 PM

But we were talking about cutting the budget in half. The numbers you provided would make my assumption of 10-15% about right to get to 2 trillion in revenue.

Do you believe in criminal penalties for people that don't pay their taxes?

Assuming you could cut Social Security and Medicaid by enough and get re-elected (political suicide so it won't happen), then you can get by with an 18% tax rate for everybody.

Madison320

03-07-2017, 04:51 PM

Assuming you could cut Social Security and Medicaid by enough and get re-elected (political suicide so it won't happen), then you can get by with an 18% tax rate for everybody.

It would be lower than that because as I mentioned the tax rate/tax revenue is not proportional. The Laffer Curve. Like I said 10-15% is a good guess.

Do you believe in criminal penalties for people that don't pay their taxes?

otherone

03-07-2017, 04:56 PM

I agree but I'm also not an anarchist. If we could defend ourselves from foreign attacks and support a court system with a voluntary tax then I'm all for it. If somehow you could prove that a nation could not exist with a voluntary tax then I think the next best thing is to figure out a way to put a self perpetuating limit on taxes and spending.

Some ideas would be:

Flat tax with no deductions so that the law would apply equally and all citizens would feel pain in tax increases.

Remove the criminal penalty for non payment. Make it a civil penalty the same as private debt, not a criminal penalty. Why is there only a debtors prison for government debt, not private debt? Not paying private debt is worse than government debt because you AGREED to pay the debt. With taxation the debt was decided against your will by someone else so you haven't broken a valid contract.

Restrict voting to only people that are paying more in taxes than they get in benefits.

The individual should have ZERO connection with the "federal" government. The fedgov's needs should be be filled by it's constituent states coffers.

Zippyjuan

03-07-2017, 05:04 PM

It would be lower than that because as I mentioned the tax rate/tax revenue is not proportional. The Laffer Curve. Like I said 10-15% is a good guess.

Do you believe in criminal penalties for people that don't pay their taxes?

You are right- the necessary rate to collect that much money would likely be different. It would be higher. If, instead of most tax payers paying zero they were now asked to pay 17% they have less money to spend on stuff. That means employers are selling less and need less help- cutting staff. That shrinks the people with jobs and paying taxes so the rate would need to be raised to make up the difference. Probably closer to 20% to balance the budget at half of current spending levels. Assuming you even had a chance at cutting government spending by 50%.

Madison320

03-07-2017, 05:15 PM

The individual should have ZERO connection with the "federal" government. The fedgov's needs should be be filled by it's constituent states coffers.

That's a good point. I just recently started understanding that concept. That's the idea of apportionment right? The way I understand it if the Feds want money they have to ask each state and then the state collects it as they see fit. And then the 16th amendment overrode that.

If I had the option of implementing only one law it would be some sort of law denying voting privileges to people that are net receivers of public welfare. To me that's where the whole system goes terribly wrong. I believe the best thing about that idea is that it would be self perpetuating since politician's number one priority is getting re-elected.

otherone

03-07-2017, 05:22 PM

That's a good point. I just recently started understanding that concept. That's the idea of apportionment right? The way I understand it if the Feds want money they have to ask each state and then the state collects it as they see fit. And then the 16th amendment overrode that.

If I had the option of implementing only one law it would be some sort of law denying voting privileges to people that are net receivers of public welfare. To me that's where the whole system goes terribly wrong. I believe the best thing about that idea is that it would be self perpetuating since politician's number one priority is getting re-elected.

The states would have to agree with it first, knowing the impact it would have on their constituency and reps political careers. Residents would then be free to vote with their feet. Never happen, though. Banks love Deficit spending, not fiscal responsibility. IRT voting, individuals voting in anything "federal" is a joke with a lousy punchline.

Madison320

03-07-2017, 05:28 PM

You are right- the necessary rate to collect that much money would likely be different. It would be higher. If, instead of most tax payers paying zero they were now asked to pay 17% they have less money to spend on stuff. That means employers are selling less and need less help- cutting staff. That shrinks the people with jobs and paying taxes so the rate would need to be raised to make up the difference. Probably closer to 20% to balance the budget at half of current spending levels. Assuming you even had a chance at cutting government spending by 50%.

But it goes both ways. If we went to a flat tax the rich would have more incentive to work harder and expand their business. Anyway it's irrelevant. The point is we need a moral law that is a the same for all citizens.

Do you believe in criminal penalties for people that don't pay their taxes? (For the 5th time)

Madison320

03-07-2017, 05:31 PM

The states would have to agree with it first, knowing the impact it would have on their constituency and reps political careers. Residents would then be free to vote with their feet. Never happen, though. Banks love Deficit spending, not fiscal responsibility. IRT voting, individuals voting in anything "federal" is a joke with a lousy punchline.

And they're not going to change anything until we go broke and the dollar collapses. It's the path of least resistance.

otherone

03-07-2017, 05:41 PM

And they're not going to change anything until we go broke and the dollar collapses. It's the path of least resistance.

IDK.
As long as the US is the international muscle for the banking cartels, that will never happen.

LibertyRevolution

03-08-2017, 01:55 AM

That's what it is in TN. There are different rates for type of items, like foods. Sometimes there are tax holidays for certain items related to back-to-school stuff (includes certain electronics like laptops).

Yes, I moved to TN.

Dr.No.

03-08-2017, 04:04 AM

Most plans are just crap trying to replace the current level of taxation . They do not address the root cause . You should not need that level of taxation because you can run the country on less . Cut spending .

Ultimately, the government has to run a deficit. That is how the private sector nets financial savings (and at a balanced budget, the private sectory would be losing 500 some billion to the foreign sector every year).

Rand's math (as always) on the fair tax is terrible. The bottom-half of the country gets hit harder...

A good proposal I saw was to cut spending by about 1 trillion, and taxes by about 2 trillion, leaving a 1.5 trillion dollar deficit. Spending cuts come in the form of giant cuts to discretionary spending (including defense) with only some minor cuts to Medicare and Meidicaid.

In terms of taxes, start by basically eliminating all taxes. Make a progressive flat tax on income from 1% to 15% of income (without deductions) with the caveat that the tax rate is tied to the level of discretionary spending. Government spends less, you keep more; this should discourage government spending, especially when it comes to wars. Payroll tax and corporate income tax are gone. Capital gains tax is gone. Keep the death tax (we should discourage large transfers of wealth between generations, as this discourages innovation and investment). Introduce Pigovian taxes so that certain industries will realize the full costs of the goods they produce. Studies have found that pollution costs the economy 200-400 billion/year (mostly in the form of less productivty due to sickness); extract that from the abusers. I'd honestly be open to a soda tax or a fat tax...consumption of unhealthy food is everyone's right, and this is America, but in mass, this leads to higher levels of sickness, and we all bear the cost in terms of lowered producitivty and a greater strain on healthcare resources. I'd also experiment with a Wall street transaction tax to cut down on HFT, as well as a tax on certain instruments to cut down on CDS.

The natural opposition to these taxes will be that the government (or the people) are "passing judgement". Who are we to say that eating poorly is bad? Who are we to judget Wall Street traders and certain instruments?

I think the result of such an ideology is one where you treat all income as the same, even though it isn't. As it is now, the income tax generally taxes salary-wage-labor. What is wrong with wage-labor? The corporate income tax attacks profits. What is wrong with profits? The capital gains tax targets investments. What is wrong with investments? Even our excise taxes hit trade; what is wrong with trade? We want to encourage those things since they generally benefit society. Other things, objectively, don't. Seeing this leads to a more efficient tax system.

NorthCarolinaLiberty

03-08-2017, 04:31 AM

Ultimately, the government has to run a deficit. That is how the private sector nets financial savings (and at a balanced budget, the private sectory would be losing 500 some billion to the foreign sector every year).

Rand's math (as always) on the fair tax is terrible. The bottom-half of the country gets hit harder...

A good proposal I saw was to cut spending by about 1 trillion, and taxes by about 2 trillion, leaving a 1.5 trillion dollar deficit. Spending cuts come in the form of giant cuts to discretionary spending (including defense) with only some minor cuts to Medicare and Meidicaid.

In terms of taxes, start by basically eliminating all taxes. Make a progressive flat tax on income from 1% to 15% of income (without deductions) with the caveat that the tax rate is tied to the level of discretionary spending. Government spends less, you keep more; this should discourage government spending, especially when it comes to wars. Payroll tax and corporate income tax are gone. Capital gains tax is gone. Keep the death tax (we should discourage large transfers of wealth between generations, as this discourages innovation and investment). Introduce Pigovian taxes so that certain industries will realize the full costs of the goods they produce. Studies have found that pollution costs the economy 200-400 billion/year (mostly in the form of less productivty due to sickness); extract that from the abusers. I'd honestly be open to a soda tax or a fat tax...consumption of unhealthy food is everyone's right, and this is America, but in mass, this leads to higher levels of sickness, and we all bear the cost in terms of lowered producitivty and a greater strain on healthcare resources. I'd also experiment with a Wall street transaction tax to cut down on HFT, as well as a tax on certain instruments to cut down on CDS.

The natural opposition to these taxes will be that the government (or the people) are "passing judgement". Who are we to say that eating poorly is bad? Who are we to judget Wall Street traders and certain instruments?

I think the result of such an ideology is one where you treat all income as the same, even though it isn't. As it is now, the income tax generally taxes salary-wage-labor. What is wrong with wage-labor? The corporate income tax attacks profits. What is wrong with profits? The capital gains tax targets investments. What is wrong with investments? Even our excise taxes hit trade; what is wrong with trade? We want to encourage those things since they generally benefit society. Other things, objectively, don't. Seeing this leads to a more efficient tax system.

Unlike a handful of liberal posters on this forum--at least this guy is honest. He's not trying to be shrewd or play a game. He's not trying to fly under the radar. He doesn't just attack, attack, attack. He's not trying to derail the forum in a sneaky, underhanded way. He actually proposes what he would do. He's not just being contrary so as to troll.

I'll neg disingenuous crap til the cows come home, but I would not even neg something like this. Again, he's up front about it.

Jesse James

03-08-2017, 07:50 AM

gaazn

03-08-2017, 11:32 AM

Corporations and rich people don't want a flat tax. They want as many loopholes as possible.

jllundqu

03-08-2017, 11:34 AM

Ultimately, the government has to run a deficit. That is how the private sector nets financial savings (and at a balanced budget, the private sectory would be losing 500 some billion to the foreign sector every year).

Rand's math (as always) on the fair tax is terrible. The bottom-half of the country gets hit harder...

A good proposal I saw was to cut spending by about 1 trillion, and taxes by about 2 trillion, leaving a 1.5 trillion dollar deficit. Spending cuts come in the form of giant cuts to discretionary spending (including defense) with only some minor cuts to Medicare and Meidicaid.

In terms of taxes, start by basically eliminating all taxes. Make a progressive flat tax on income from 1% to 15% of income (without deductions) with the caveat that the tax rate is tied to the level of discretionary spending. Government spends less, you keep more; this should discourage government spending, especially when it comes to wars. Payroll tax and corporate income tax are gone. Capital gains tax is gone. Keep the death tax (we should discourage large transfers of wealth between generations, as this discourages innovation and investment). Introduce Pigovian taxes so that certain industries will realize the full costs of the goods they produce. Studies have found that pollution costs the economy 200-400 billion/year (mostly in the form of less productivty due to sickness); extract that from the abusers. I'd honestly be open to a soda tax or a fat tax...consumption of unhealthy food is everyone's right, and this is America, but in mass, this leads to higher levels of sickness, and we all bear the cost in terms of lowered producitivty and a greater strain on healthcare resources. I'd also experiment with a Wall street transaction tax to cut down on HFT, as well as a tax on certain instruments to cut down on CDS.

The natural opposition to these taxes will be that the government (or the people) are "passing judgement". Who are we to say that eating poorly is bad? Who are we to judget Wall Street traders and certain instruments?

I think the result of such an ideology is one where you treat all income as the same, even though it isn't. As it is now, the income tax generally taxes salary-wage-labor. What is wrong with wage-labor? The corporate income tax attacks profits. What is wrong with profits? The capital gains tax targets investments. What is wrong with investments? Even our excise taxes hit trade; what is wrong with trade? We want to encourage those things since they generally benefit society. Other things, objectively, don't. Seeing this leads to a more efficient tax system.

Hell no I'll neg rep this to hell.

Death Tax? "We should discourage large transfers of PERSONAL PROPERTY between generations" FIFY. My grandfather owned a farm. Wasn't worth much when he bought it, but it was worth millions when he died... he lost almost everything due to your fucking death tax. People like you need to take a long hard look in the mirror and realize that CONTROL and FORCE are EVIL.... you and your kind are just that. EVIL. It's people like you who seek power to control others and end up ruining fucking everything for people who essentially just want to be left alone with the fruits of their labor.

Ender

03-08-2017, 12:27 PM

Hell no I'll neg rep this to hell.

Death Tax? "We should discourage large transfers of PERSONAL PROPERTY between generations" FIFY. My grandfather owned a farm. Wasn't worth much when he bought it, but it was worth millions when he died... he lost almost everything due to your $#@!ing death tax. People like you need to take a long hard look in the mirror and realize that CONTROL and FORCE are EVIL.... you and your kind are just that. EVIL. It's people like you who seek power to control others and end up ruining $#@!ing everything for people who essentially just want to be left alone with the fruits of their labor.

I don't -neg rep anyone but:

I totally agree with your POV.

Madison320

03-08-2017, 01:07 PM

Corporations and rich people don't want a flat tax. They want as many loopholes as possible.

It depends on whether the total compliance cost is more or less. Everyone wants to pay as low a tax as possible. Don't you?

Zippyjuan

03-08-2017, 01:15 PM

It depends on whether the total compliance cost is more or less. Everyone wants to pay as low a tax as possible. Don't you?

Sure everybody wants to pay as little in taxes as possible but noting that if we go to a flat tax (which you seem to favor), your taxes would go up from where they are now not down.

MallsRGood

03-08-2017, 01:33 PM

If you don't touch Social Security, Medicare/ Medicaid and the Department of Defense, and interest on the debt (all of which are responsible for a combined 3/4 of the US budget and are politically dangerous to suggest cutting), $500 billion is 100% of everything else.

https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/2017_pres_budget_disc_spending_pie_large.png

If I were planning a $500 billion cut, I'd do something like this:

Departments/Agencies to be eliminated in full:
-Agriculture = $133 billion
-Labor = $45 billion
-HUD = $36 billion
-FEMA = $10 billion
-Commerce = $9 billion
-EPA = $8 billion
-TSA (privatize) = 8 billion
-TVA (privatized) = $1 billion
-SBA = $1 billion

Departments to be eliminated in part:
-Education, cut everything but grants to states = $45 billion
-Energy, cut everything but nuclear security = $20 billion
-Transportation, cut everything but grants to states = $16 billion

Individual programs to be eliminated in full:
-Medicaid from HHS = $527 billion
-EITC from Treasury = $84 billion
-SSI from SSA = $61 billion
-TANF from HHS = $17 billion

Other Cuts
-foreign economic aid = $40 billion
-end federal war on drugs = $20 billion
-5% cut federal civilian employee pay = $15 billion

Gross Cuts = $1096 billion

Now, the above cuts mean a gutting of the regulatory state and corporate welfare. They also mean a complete elimination of welfare spending sans Social Security and Medicare, the value of which is $919 billion. But, assuming it's not politically feasible to cut that deeply into popular welfare, here's what we do; cut a $12,000 check to everyone earning less than $30,000/year (50 million people), no strings attached. This would cost $600 billion/year. Though this would represent a significant cut in the real value of welfare benefits for some people, I contend that most people would happily take $12,000 in cash, to be used as they please, in place of assorted benefits and the strings that come with them.

So, $1096 billion - $600 billion = $496 billion in net cuts.

And Bob's your uncle.

Zippyjuan

03-08-2017, 01:49 PM

Thanks for taking the time to do that. Already repped you on another thread or would give you one here.

MallsRGood

03-08-2017, 01:54 PM

Thanks for taking the time to do that.

My pleasure

TheCount

03-08-2017, 02:36 PM

If I were planning a $500 billion cut, I'd do something like this:

Departments/Agencies to be eliminated in full:
-Agriculture = $133 billion
-Labor = $45 billion
-HUD = $36 billion
-FEMA = $10 billion
-Commerce = $9 billion
-EPA = $8 billion
-TSA (privatize) = 8 billion
-TVA (privatized) = $1 billion
-SBA = $1 billion

Departments to be eliminated in part:
-Education, cut everything but grants to states = $45 billion
-Energy, cut everything but nuclear security = $20 billion
-Transportation, cut everything but grants to states = $16 billion

Individual programs to be eliminated in full:
-Medicaid from HHS = $527 billion
-EITC from Treasury = $84 billion
-SSI from SSA = $61 billion
-TANF from HHS = $17 billion

Other Cuts
-foreign economic aid = $40 billion
-end federal war on drugs = $20 billion
-5% cut federal civilian employee pay = $15 billion

Gross Cuts = $1096 billion

Now, the above cuts mean a gutting of the regulatory state and corporate welfare. They also mean a complete elimination of welfare spending sans Social Security and Medicare, the value of which is $919 billion. But, assuming it's not politically feasible to cut that deeply into popular welfare, here's what we do; cut a $12,000 check to everyone earning less than $30,000/year (50 million people), no strings attached. This would cost $600 billion/year. Though this would represent a significant cut in the real value of welfare benefits for some people, I contend that most people would happily take $12,000 in cash, to be used as they please, in place of assorted benefits and the strings that come with them.

So, $1096 billion - $600 billion = $496 billion in net cuts.

And Bob's your uncle.I'll toss some moderate (and still likely unpopular) off-top-of-head defense spending ideas onto the pile. If we reduce our military spending to 2% of GDP, which is the number we've been requesting our allies provide, that would represent a 1/3rd reduction, or ~$200 billion.

Cut the size of our nuclear arsenal to 300 warheads or ~15% of its current (yielding an arsenal similar in size to UK, France, China, etc.). Current nuclear weapons spending is ~$20-25 billion annually. Let's say $5 bill to maintain 300- some costs are fixed, so you won't get 85% reduction. That's $20B saved.

Eliminate the Marine Corps (Sorry Gunny) by rolling its ground forces into into the Army and its sea and air forces into the Navy without increasing the strength of either. That's $24 billion.

Eliminate half the supercarriers, that's $5+ billion in annual operating costs not to mention production, maintenance, refurbishing, aircraft, etc. I'll be generous and leave the number of amphibious assault ships alone, we can start calling them carriers like the rest of the world.

Eliminate the requirement for the DOD to be able to fight two wars simultaneously. $$$ amount saved is beyond my google-"research" skills.

So that's ~$50B I've identified and ~$150B that would come from force reductions and consolidations, not to mention elimination of redundant programs. (I wish CBO would examine simple things such as how much money would be saved if all of the forces utilized the same duty uniform design and/or pattern (http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/29/politics/military-uniform-redesign-aquaflage/). How much money does it cost the US for Army boots to be tan, Marine to be coyote, Air Force to be that greenish whatever, etc, etc, etc?)

MallsRGood

03-08-2017, 03:09 PM

I'll toss some moderate (and still likely unpopular) off-top-of-head defense spending ideas onto the pile. If we reduce our military spending to 2% of GDP, which is the number we've been requesting our allies provide, that would represent a 1/3rd reduction, or ~$200 billion.

Cut the size of our nuclear arsenal to 300 warheads or ~15% of its current (yielding an arsenal similar in size to UK, France, China, etc.). Current nuclear weapons spending is ~$20-25 billion annually. Let's say $5 bill to maintain 300- some costs are fixed, so you won't get 85% reduction. That's $20B saved.

Eliminate the Marine Corps (Sorry Gunny) by rolling its ground forces into into the Army and its sea and air forces into the Navy without increasing the strength of either. That's $24 billion.

Eliminate half the supercarriers, that's $5+ billion in annual operating costs not to mention production, maintenance, refurbishing, aircraft, etc. I'll be generous and leave the number of amphibious assault ships alone, we can start calling them carriers like the rest of the world.

Eliminate the requirement for the DOD to be able to fight two wars simultaneously. $$$ amount saved is beyond my google-"research" skills.

So that's ~$50B I've identified and ~$150B that would come from force reductions and consolidations, not to mention elimination of redundant programs. (I wish CBO would examine simple things such as how much money would be saved if all of the forces utilized the same duty uniform design and/or pattern (http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/29/politics/military-uniform-redesign-aquaflage/). How much money does it cost the US for Army boots to be tan, Marine to be coyote, Air Force to be that greenish whatever, etc, etc, etc?)

Agree re carriers (not cost-effective in a naval war against a peer-level competitor, only good for bombing third world countries).

Agree re the USMC (no longer have a unique function, an amphibious landing against a peer-level competitor is suicidal given modern tech)

The nuclear question is more complex, and above my pay grade: not sure if 300 is enough to assure MAD.

In general, my plan (not politically feasible) for restructuring the military for non-interventionism would be:
-eliminating most of the active ground forces (no need for large standing army for defense, given naval superiority)
-eliminating the carrier altogether and replacing with more cost-effective submarines and destroyers
-eliminating most of the air force (very little is needed to defend North America, most of the current AF is for defending Europe and E. Asia)

The end result would be a defense budget below $200 billion, down from the current $617.

NorthCarolinaLiberty

03-08-2017, 05:19 PM

I'll toss some moderate (and still likely unpopular) off-top-of-head defense spending ideas onto the pile.

I don't think you are moderate at all. At least overall. Liberals want to cut defense, but increase social spending. Conservatives want to cut social spending, but increase defense. Liberty minded people are qualitatively different because they want to cut both.

This is very simplistic, but your posts obviously tell me you are in the first camp. The problem with that is you want to grow government in some areas, while limiting in others. That does not work because you can't grown government in one area, but lessen it in another. You are simply giving it more power. The government that is your friend today is your enemy tomorrow. The Frankenstein you build is the monster that you get.

I would ask if any liberty has rubbed off on you in your three years here, but guessing I won't get an answer.

oyarde

03-08-2017, 05:46 PM

Corporations and rich people don't want a flat tax. They want as many loopholes as possible.

I will take any loop holes I could get to keep more of what was mine and I am not even a corporation.

TheCount

03-08-2017, 05:47 PM

The nuclear question is more complex, and above my pay grade: not sure if 300 is enough to assure MAD.I based it on this suggestion, which was written at a time when some academics hoped that they could get Obama to aggressively reduce the arsenal:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/24/opinion/24schaub.html?_r=0

phill4paul

03-08-2017, 05:48 PM

Eliminate the Marine Corps (Sorry Gunny) by rolling its ground forces into into the Army and its sea and air forces into the Navy without increasing the strength of either. That's $24 billion.

Personally, I would keep the Marines and de-fund the the Army as was the founders intention. The Marines are an component of the U.S. Navy.

ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 12
The Congress shall have Power To ...raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years....

http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/52/army-clause

ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 13
The Congress shall have Power To ...provide and maintain a Navy....

http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/53/navy-clause

TheCount

03-08-2017, 06:03 PM

Personally, I would keep the Marines and de-fund the the Army as was the founders intention. The Marines are an component of the U.S. Navy.That's a good argument.

My plan was built on a different idea: That the current mission of the Marines is something that they have not done since Korea (and the Army joined them in that operation), and will likely never do again. Eliminating an entire branch is appealing, as you have a complete set of bureaucracies and staffs and headquarters and all the attendant claptrap which will be eliminated. Even if you got rid of the entire active duty Army you would still require a headquarters for the reserves and state national guards, so (in my completely out of my ass estimation) you would not achieve the same benefit.

NorthCarolinaLiberty

03-08-2017, 06:09 PM

The marines would not be eliminated. They have the lowest requirements for ASVAB. The have the lowest re-enlistment rate. They have a lot of other crap like that. It's why they have to float on the best looking uniforms and dopey sayings like Once a marine, always a marine.

If the marines are eliminated, then all those people who would have joined would have to be absorbed elsewhere. That's not going to happen. They serve a purpose, mostly for the lower societal echelons wanting to join the military.

phill4paul

03-08-2017, 06:18 PM

That's a good argument.

My plan was built on a different idea: That the current mission of the Marines is something that they have not done since Korea (and the Army joined them in that operation), and will likely never do again. Eliminating an entire branch is appealing, as you have a complete set of bureaucracies and staffs and headquarters and all the attendant claptrap which will be eliminated. Even if you got rid of the entire active duty Army you would still require a headquarters for the reserves and state national guards, so (in my completely out of my ass estimation) you would not achieve the same benefit.

The combined force of the Regular Army, ARNG, and the USAR make up aprox. 1 million troops. I do not see a need for that kind of troop strength unless we wish to continue being the aggressor across the globe. The Marine force of 200k is more than ample. Only 250k U.S. troops were used to topple Iraq.

phill4paul

03-08-2017, 06:20 PM

TheCount

03-08-2017, 06:31 PM

The combined force of the Regular Army, ARNG, and the USAR make up aprox. 1 million troops. I do not see a need for that kind of troop strength unless we wish to continue being the aggressor across the globe.Completely agreed. I remember during the Obama 'drawdown' (back to what the numbers were before the surge) that the DOD announced 'we will no longer be able to fight two wars at once!' The usual suspects picked up the call about how 'weak' we were becoming, and it turned into a Republican talking point.

U.S. Military No Longer Able to Fight Two Wars at Same Time

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/u-s-military-no-longer-able-to-fight-two-wars-at-same-time/

Experts: The US military is no longer able to fight two wars simultaneously

http://www.businessinsider.com/experts-us-military-cant-fight-2-wars-simultaneously-2015-2

http://index.heritage.org/military/2015/chapter/us-power/

In my opinion, this capability to fight two wars is what leads to us actually fighting two wars.

phill4paul

03-08-2017, 06:54 PM

Completely agreed. I remember during the Obama 'drawdown' (back to what the numbers were before the surge) that the DOD announced 'we will no longer be able to fight two wars at once!' The usual suspects picked up the call about how 'weak' we were becoming, and it turned into a Republican talking point.

U.S. Military No Longer Able to Fight Two Wars at Same Time

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/u-s-military-no-longer-able-to-fight-two-wars-at-same-time/

Experts: The US military is no longer able to fight two wars simultaneously

http://www.businessinsider.com/experts-us-military-cant-fight-2-wars-simultaneously-2015-2

http://index.heritage.org/military/2015/chapter/us-power/

In my opinion, this capability to fight two wars is what leads to us actually fighting two wars.

It also provides for protracted wars like the never ending war the U.S. has been waging. Instead of going in to win and come home it allows for troop rotations.

NorthCarolinaLiberty

03-09-2017, 04:57 PM

Thanks for contributing nothing but a baited rebuttal to an adult conversation.

Say what?

Dr.No.

03-10-2017, 02:26 AM

Hell no I'll neg rep this to hell.

Death Tax? "We should discourage large transfers of PERSONAL PROPERTY between generations" FIFY. My grandfather owned a farm. Wasn't worth much when he bought it, but it was worth millions when he died... he lost almost everything due to your $#@!ing death tax. People like you need to take a long hard look in the mirror and realize that CONTROL and FORCE are EVIL.... you and your kind are just that. EVIL. It's people like you who seek power to control others and end up ruining $#@!ing everything for people who essentially just want to be left alone with the fruits of their labor.

Looks like that was a herring that worked. Missing the forest for the trees, there.

The death tax doesn't even kick in until, what, ten million? And in my scenario, the income tax/payroll tax/corporate tax is either eliminated or severely reduced.

Dr.No.

03-10-2017, 02:34 AM

I'll toss some moderate (and still likely unpopular) off-top-of-head defense spending ideas onto the pile. If we reduce our military spending to 2% of GDP, which is the number we've been requesting our allies provide, that would represent a 1/3rd reduction, or ~$200 billion.

Cut the size of our nuclear arsenal to 300 warheads or ~15% of its current (yielding an arsenal similar in size to UK, France, China, etc.). Current nuclear weapons spending is ~$20-25 billion annually. Let's say $5 bill to maintain 300- some costs are fixed, so you won't get 85% reduction. That's $20B saved.

Eliminate the Marine Corps (Sorry Gunny) by rolling its ground forces into into the Army and its sea and air forces into the Navy without increasing the strength of either. That's $24 billion.

Eliminate half the supercarriers, that's $5+ billion in annual operating costs not to mention production, maintenance, refurbishing, aircraft, etc. I'll be generous and leave the number of amphibious assault ships alone, we can start calling them carriers like the rest of the world.

Eliminate the requirement for the DOD to be able to fight two wars simultaneously. $$$ amount saved is beyond my google-"research" skills.

So that's ~$50B I've identified and ~$150B that would come from force reductions and consolidations, not to mention elimination of redundant programs. (I wish CBO would examine simple things such as how much money would be saved if all of the forces utilized the same duty uniform design and/or pattern (http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/29/politics/military-uniform-redesign-aquaflage/). How much money does it cost the US for Army boots to be tan, Marine to be coyote, Air Force to be that greenish whatever, etc, etc, etc?)

Small issue I wanted to point out was how "military spending" has changed over the years. Many things that used to be part of the DOD aren't anymore. Veterans affairs, foreign welfare, DARPA, DOE, are no longer in the DOD umbrella. Plus, there are things like Border Security and Homeland Security. Then there are tangential things like the GI benefits that are included in the DOE and the HUD. Saying we spend 5% of GDP on defense would be a conservative bet.