skyorbit
07-08-2007, 01:47 AM
Hi. For those of you who don't know me --- I haven't posted much on this forum, I'm an avid Ron Paul supporter in South Dakota.
My biggest issue is that I'd like to donate more then I have, but I can't afford it.
Why can't I afford it? Because if I donated the Maximum ammount $2,300 and Paul doesn't win, I'll have the IRS knocking on my door at the end of 2009.
If I knew for a fact that Paul would win the Republican Primery. It'd be real easy for me to donate $2,300. But I don't know that, so I have to hedge my bets so to speak, and keep enough money to pay-off the federal maffia when they come knocking.
Seriously, if the IRS and Income tax were abolished completely and replaced with nothing, I'd make back my $2,300 with-in a year or two.
I think there's probably numerous people in the same boat on this forum. As it is, I've only been able to put up $125 for Paul and purchase a few shirts and bumper stickers.
So the question becomes. What kind of money does Paul need to raise to be reasonably assured that he could win the Republican Nomination?
Well, with the recent Cash on Hand figures from the quarter 2 I've decided he really doesn't need that much.
Ron Paul has only spent about $185 thousand dollars, and he's at 3% in the "scientific polls"
Romney's spent about $32 million for the privilege of having the support of eight percent of Republicans.
Does this mean that if Paul had spent twice as much money he might be at 6%? Or if Paul had spent 3 times as much he might be at least on par with Romney?
Judging from the fact that from people actually donating to the campain Paul actually has more cash in hand now then not only McCain, but also Romney (because w/o a $9 million loan to himself he'd be under Paul's cash on hand stat's too.)
The fact is a dollar spent by Ron Paul is worth a whole lot more then a dollar spent by Romney.
Paul needs to go up in the "scientific" polls by about 10 times to be on par with Gulliani. I think realisticly Paul probably only needs about $10 million dollars to get to Gulliani's statis in the polls, considering that he's already at 3% spending under $1 million. I think it's reasonable he could be at 30% if he had $10 million (possibly more. I really believe that once people hear Ron's message they're hooked.)
So, here's my question. If, I could be reasonablly sure that Paul could raise over $10,000,000 in the next quarter, I would do my best to donate the rest up to the maxium to help him get there.
Are their $10,000,000 / $2,300 = 4350 people who support Ron Paul, but are in the same boat I'm in? That they could afford to donate the Maximum ammount if they could be reasonablly assured that the Income tax would be abolished, but can't currently because we have to same money to pay them off?
Tracy
P.S. In fact we'd probably make our $2,300 back faster then that, because of not overspending means we won't be loosing 10% of our purchasing power every year, and releasing the regulations on business, (Repealing Sarbanes Oxly) and not usingthe Patriot Act regulations, etc.) we'd have a much more healthy economy on top of that.
My biggest issue is that I'd like to donate more then I have, but I can't afford it.
Why can't I afford it? Because if I donated the Maximum ammount $2,300 and Paul doesn't win, I'll have the IRS knocking on my door at the end of 2009.
If I knew for a fact that Paul would win the Republican Primery. It'd be real easy for me to donate $2,300. But I don't know that, so I have to hedge my bets so to speak, and keep enough money to pay-off the federal maffia when they come knocking.
Seriously, if the IRS and Income tax were abolished completely and replaced with nothing, I'd make back my $2,300 with-in a year or two.
I think there's probably numerous people in the same boat on this forum. As it is, I've only been able to put up $125 for Paul and purchase a few shirts and bumper stickers.
So the question becomes. What kind of money does Paul need to raise to be reasonably assured that he could win the Republican Nomination?
Well, with the recent Cash on Hand figures from the quarter 2 I've decided he really doesn't need that much.
Ron Paul has only spent about $185 thousand dollars, and he's at 3% in the "scientific polls"
Romney's spent about $32 million for the privilege of having the support of eight percent of Republicans.
Does this mean that if Paul had spent twice as much money he might be at 6%? Or if Paul had spent 3 times as much he might be at least on par with Romney?
Judging from the fact that from people actually donating to the campain Paul actually has more cash in hand now then not only McCain, but also Romney (because w/o a $9 million loan to himself he'd be under Paul's cash on hand stat's too.)
The fact is a dollar spent by Ron Paul is worth a whole lot more then a dollar spent by Romney.
Paul needs to go up in the "scientific" polls by about 10 times to be on par with Gulliani. I think realisticly Paul probably only needs about $10 million dollars to get to Gulliani's statis in the polls, considering that he's already at 3% spending under $1 million. I think it's reasonable he could be at 30% if he had $10 million (possibly more. I really believe that once people hear Ron's message they're hooked.)
So, here's my question. If, I could be reasonablly sure that Paul could raise over $10,000,000 in the next quarter, I would do my best to donate the rest up to the maxium to help him get there.
Are their $10,000,000 / $2,300 = 4350 people who support Ron Paul, but are in the same boat I'm in? That they could afford to donate the Maximum ammount if they could be reasonablly assured that the Income tax would be abolished, but can't currently because we have to same money to pay them off?
Tracy
P.S. In fact we'd probably make our $2,300 back faster then that, because of not overspending means we won't be loosing 10% of our purchasing power every year, and releasing the regulations on business, (Repealing Sarbanes Oxly) and not usingthe Patriot Act regulations, etc.) we'd have a much more healthy economy on top of that.