Mike Gravel will be on ABC tomorrow also

[RonPaulCult]

That pisses me off a lot actually because while I respect Gravel and his anti Iraq war stance I don't like ABC lumping Ron Paul (and who knows who else) together.

Ron Paul is different and Ron Paul has a GREAT chance of winning.

[wizardwatson]

I'm against Gravel because of his support for the federal sales tax bologna. Him and many others have convinced themselves that sales tax is different than an income tax.

I admit there are subtle differences but they are so subtle as to really be irrevelant.

A tax on revenue is a tax on revenue whether it is coming in or going out, and both are required to function in society and thus not avoidable, and thus its a direct tax, and thus must be apportioned according to the constitution.

[rockfree33]

That made me mad also. They are trying to put Ron Paul in the same category as Mike Gravel, when Dr. Paul is on a whole different level.

[Original_Intent]

Didn't Gravel have like $8,000 last quarter after debt? I can't imagine his Q2 numbers even register.

[JaredR26]

I'm against Gravel because of his support for the federal sales tax bologna. Him and many others have convinced themselves that sales tax is different than an income tax.

I admit there are subtle differences but they are so subtle as to really be irrevelant.

A tax on revenue is a tax on revenue whether it is coming in or going out, and both are required to function in society and thus not avoidable, and thus its a direct tax, and thus must be apportioned according to the constitution.

There are a lot of differences. You can't just remove ALL of the governments' funding, some of those programs ARE necessary. Supporting smaller government doesn't mean proposing we have a tiny government.

An income tax requires that data be collected on all people in the US, and tracked. Our income tax is much worse, as it has thousands of lines of tax code, loopholes, and special cases, which not only makes it complicated and expensive, but unfair. This process consumes several billion dollars a year in both the private sector(tax companies, think H&R Block or Liberty) and in the IRS, and this money goes nowhere. Even worse, illegal immigrants pay no income tax, whereas with a sales tax not only illegal immigrants are taxed but tourists as well.

A sales tax on the other hand, requires data be collected on businesses(which we already do) and not people. It is also completely transparent- Businesses can't be making decisions about how much to tax their customers. It is also extremely efficient, requiring a smaller number of collections, and only requiring information on business sales, 95% of which is already public information.

These are NOT subtle differences. The government, like it or not, does need to be funded in some way. It just doesn't need to be anywhere near as bloated or massive as it is now.

[OURPLAN]

I'm so excited to see Rp this morning..WKRN 2-- Sun, Jul 8
9:00 AM This Week With George Stephanopoulos New
Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.); Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas); former Alaska senator Mike Gravel (D). GO RON PAUL!

[james1906]

i'm glad gravel is getting some exposure as well. he's been ignored in the media, and i'm glad he's there at the debates to tear into the other candidates.

[kylejack]

Settle down. Coverage of ignored candidates is nearly always a good idea.

[hells_unicorn]

I like Mike Gravel a lot, even though I strongly dislike his Carbon Tax and I would argue that in addition to ending the Income Tax, rather than simply replacing it with a Sales Tax, that we start making some real cuts to get the unnecessary fat out of government, something which he doesn't talk about.

Having said that, Gravel is an asset to us in many ways, particularly after the nomination if we are successful. Gravel will have made every front-runner in the Democratic debates look so horrible to the political left that come general election day many of them will either stay home or actually be swayed into voting for Ron Paul, since he and Gravel do have many similar views.

[james1906]

gravel's a one-man smirk eradication task force!

[RonPaulCult]

Settle down. Coverage of ignored candidates is nearly always a good idea.

Ok I agree with you I just don't like it when they give them all coverage at once as if to say "you aren't big enough to be examined alone - here briefly are all of the losers with no chance of winning".

[kylejack]

Ok I agree with you I just don't like it when they give them all coverage at once as if to say "you aren't big enough to be examined alone - here briefly are all of the losers with no chance of winning".

Okay, but that's just silly. We're getting 15 minutes on broadcast television that we have not penetrated at all yet. We're getting 2.66 million viewers, which is more viewers than any of the debates.

There is not a downside.

[RonPaulCult]

Okay, but that's just silly. We're getting 15 minutes on broadcast television that we have not penetrated at all yet. We're getting 2.66 million viewers, which is more viewers than any of the debates.

There is not a downside.

I like your glass is half full attitude - I'll shutup and just enjoy it.

[Thor]

Look at is as one big name candidate (Paul) and one little name candidate.

Seriously, who has he had on on the previous weeks, who was matched with who? Who was solo? And remember the numbers were announced during the taping.

[Thor]

Look at is as one big name candidate (Paul) and one little name candidate.

Seriously, who has he had on on the previous weeks, who was matched with who? Who was solo? And remember the numbers were announced during the taping.

Sunday, May 6, 2007
This Week (ABC): Host George Stephanopoulos chats with Presidential candidates John Edwards and Tom Tancredo.

Sunday, April 22, 2007
This Week (ABC): Host George Stephanopoulos is a stop on George “Slam Dunk” Tenet’s book tour, and he talks to Secretary Rice; then he turns to Sam Brownback and Russ Feingold.

[dmitchell]

I like Gravel. A lot. I would vote for him before any of the other Democrats, and before most of the Republicans too.

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

Paul & Gravel will split the second 15 minutes no diggety:

15 min Conyers
15min Paul & Gravel
20min CokieWill panel
10min Jay Leno, dead people, random celebrity do-gooder

[james1906]

gravel can't hold the marquee on his own. enjoy him as the opening act, and then get ready for the headliner.

[Electrostatic]

maybe gravel will just stare at him uncomfortably for a while and then throw a rock at something... :p

I do like him though, don't get me wrong...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rZdAB4V_j8

[wizardwatson]

There are a lot of differences. You can't just remove ALL of the governments' funding, some of those programs ARE necessary. Supporting smaller government doesn't mean proposing we have a tiny government.

An income tax requires that data be collected on all people in the US, and tracked. Our income tax is much worse, as it has thousands of lines of tax code, loopholes, and special cases, which not only makes it complicated and expensive, but unfair. This process consumes several billion dollars a year in both the private sector(tax companies, think H&R Block or Liberty) and in the IRS, and this money goes nowhere. Even worse, illegal immigrants pay no income tax, whereas with a sales tax not only illegal immigrants are taxed but tourists as well.

A sales tax on the other hand, requires data be collected on businesses(which we already do) and not people. It is also completely transparent- Businesses can't be making decisions about how much to tax their customers. It is also extremely efficient, requiring a smaller number of collections, and only requiring information on business sales, 95% of which is already public information.

These are NOT subtle differences. The government, like it or not, does need to be funded in some way. It just doesn't need to be anywhere near as bloated or massive as it is now.

Well I'm a Georgist. I think the government can be entirely funded by a tax on the unimproved value of land. The rental value on the portion of a property that is the actual land (not the buildings or other improvements) is the only portion which has value solely created by the community, and is the most logical choice for a government tax. Read Henry George's Progress and Poverty. It is freely available online.

[kylejack]

Well I'm a Georgist. I think the government can be entirely funded by a tax on the unimproved value of land. The rental value on the portion of a property that is the actual land (not the buildings or other improvements) is the only portion which has value solely created by the community, and is the most logical choice for a government tax. Read Henry George's Progress and Poverty. It is freely available online.

Augh, not a geo-libertarian! I argued with you guys extensively on the FSP forums, heh.

[wizardwatson]

I'd be happy to debate it in the General Politics section if you're interested. I've felt for some time now that Henry George was right on the money. I have yet to see a well thought out counter argument to his ideas. Mostly people just think there is too much red tape to cut through to implement it.

[beermotor]

There are a lot of differences. You can't just remove ALL of the governments' funding, some of those programs ARE necessary. Supporting smaller government doesn't mean proposing we have a tiny government.

An income tax requires that data be collected on all people in the US, and tracked. Our income tax is much worse, as it has thousands of lines of tax code, loopholes, and special cases, which not only makes it complicated and expensive, but unfair. This process consumes several billion dollars a year in both the private sector(tax companies, think H&R Block or Liberty) and in the IRS, and this money goes nowhere. Even worse, illegal immigrants pay no income tax, whereas with a sales tax not only illegal immigrants are taxed but tourists as well.

A sales tax on the other hand, requires data be collected on businesses(which we already do) and not people. It is also completely transparent- Businesses can't be making decisions about how much to tax their customers. It is also extremely efficient, requiring a smaller number of collections, and only requiring information on business sales, 95% of which is already public information.

These are NOT subtle differences. The government, like it or not, does need to be funded in some way. It just doesn't need to be anywhere near as bloated or massive as it is now.



Doesn't a consumption tax fuck the poor (who may not even be paying much in the way of income tax, if any at all) in a big, big way?

I think this FairTax idea is a bad one, especially considering it's pitched a zero-sum transfer. Now, if they dumped income tax and went to a national sales tax of say, 5%, I could deal with that. But I've only ever heard Boortz talk about 25% or some crap. WE TODD DID.

[beermotor]

I'd be happy to debate it in the General Politics section if you're interested. I've felt for some time now that Henry George was right on the money. I have yet to see a well thought out counter argument to his ideas. Mostly people just think there is too much red tape to cut through to implement it.


Ron Paul spoke about funding the military with a tarrif only. Personally, I think that sounds like a fantastic idea, as it would also incentivize local production again.

[Scribbler de Stebbing]

Doesn't a consumption tax fuck the poor (who may not even be paying much in the way of income tax, if any at all) in a big, big way?

Not if you exempt food. The rich spend more than the poor and would still pay more.

[Scribbler de Stebbing]

Damn! I got on this thread to ask if This Week had aired in any market yet, and got sucked into the debate. As Wizard says, let's take it to General Politics.

I've got 20 minutes until This Week comes on here. Has anyone seen it yet?

[JaredR26]

I removed this post and created a new thread in the general politics area. Please continue this discussion in the other topic, as the method which the government collects taxes is a very important issue.

Here's the link:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=6099

[RonPaulCult]

I know I said I'd shutup but did you guys hear how they grouped Gravel and Dr. Paul together as "longshots" in the intro????

[Nathan Hale]

Settle down. Coverage of ignored candidates is nearly always a good idea.

It's not the coverage, it's the lumping. Having Paul and Gravel on the same day is like saying "ok, here's our pity interview with the two losers". Paul raised $2.5 million. Gravel, on the other hand, is a sideshow. Paul's campaign is on an upward trajectory. Gravel's campaign has no trajectory. They're not kindred spirits by a long shot, and the media should stop lumping them together.

[RonPaulCult]

It's not the coverage, it's the lumping. Having Paul and Gravel on the same day is like saying "ok, here's our pity interview with the two losers". Paul raised $2.5 million. Gravel, on the other hand, is a sideshow. Paul's campaign is on an upward trajectory. Gravel's campaign has no trajectory. They're not kindred spirits by a long shot, and the media should stop lumping them together.

Well said!!!!!

[Bradley in DC]

I know I said I'd shutup but did you guys hear how they grouped Gravel and Dr. Paul together as "longshots" in the intro????

I kinda liked them together--when, not if, Gravel drops out, his supporters will now be more likely to be familiar with Dr. Paul. And we'll win more converts. I'm guessing some will tune in to see Gravel and be impressed with the real thing BEFORE Gravel drops out!

[Suzu]

I'd like to see the Gravel interview. Does anyone have a link?

[beermotor]

I enjoyed hearing Gravel talk. He is really holding the Dems feet to the fire. He is wise, he can see that Obama, if he fixes his political problems (read: WAR/MILITARY) will easily crush Billary, and rightly so - he pointed out all her flaws. The rest of them he dismisses with a waive of his hand, which I found a little puzzling - why not talk about Kucinich being anti-war? I don't now much about him, so maybe it's good that he's not. Anyway, as a person who feels that war is the single most important moral issue of our times, I find a lot to agree with Gravel about. I'm sure economically he's way out in left field, but that's all right - not everybody can be Ron Paul (but I'm sure a lot of us will be in the future!).

[BuddyRey]

You guys already know how I feel about Mike Gravel. I love him to death! If Ron Paul wasn't in this thing, I'd probably be standing outside right now passing out Mike Gravel buttons and bumper stickers.

I'm beginning to agree with Alex Jones that left and right are really illusions meant to divide us. Well-intentioned, freedom-loving people from both sides of the economic debate will inevitably get together when they see how much they actually have in common, and this scares the partisan controllers to death.