+- Madison Motorsports (https://forum.mmsports.org)
+-- Forum: Madison Motorsports (https://forum.mmsports.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Lounge (https://forum.mmsports.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: legitimate political question (Ron Paul) (/showthread.php?tid=6350)
legitimate political question (Ron Paul) - JackoliciousLegs - 08-28-2007
For once, I'm not here to start a fight
Ok, so I watch a youtube video that was made by a ron paul supporter.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGpY2hw7ao8">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGpY2hw7ao8</a><!-- m -->
You don't really need to watch it to answer my question, although it's interesting.
The maker of the video claims that Ron Paul is the only candidate on either side who has pledged to curb spending enough to get rid of the national deficit problem. I think to myself, that's a lofty claim. I know that Ron Paul is a strict fiscal conservative in favor of abolishing taxes (I think I remember him suggesting a universal sales tax instead). So I decide to go learn more about Ron Paul. Then some questions hit me.
1. If you abolish income tax and rely solely on sales taxes, how do you spare low income families from a harsher tax burden because of their say.... 4 children? Wouldn't it make more sense to have a strict sliding scale that doesn't have a cap? It seems to me that that method would be the friendliest to low income americans (the majority of them).
2. Ron Paul is against universal healthcare. That is clear. I read an article this morning likening universal healthcare for children to public education. <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/082707N.shtml">http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/082707N.shtml</a><!-- m --> To me, that seems pretty compelling. Who's going to be able to pay for healthcare under the Ron Paul govt? What's going to happen to the 50 million people who are uninsured now? Will that number grow? I'm walking this through in my head and health insurance from any private company is painfully expensive. So much so that on my salary, I could barely afford it if my company didn't pay for it. How will this plan help low income americans?
I hope I haven't come off as abrasive. I'm actually open to learning something new about economic policy and it's effect on society. I guess... try to convert me to a libertarian??? Maybe...??? haha
- white_2kgt - 08-28-2007
1 - Poor people shouldn't have kids
2 - Poor people don't need health care, they should just die off.
Any more questions hippie?
- JackoliciousLegs - 08-28-2007
I can't tell. Are you serious?
- Ginger - 08-28-2007
Why is it socieity and/or the government's problem to finance people's poor life choices? The same way you could play the "well, it's not always their fault" I could play the "well, it's not always NOT their fault" card.
The most effective form of help for people that need it has always been supplied through private parties (and there is absolutely no shortage of charitable organizations in America) which become involved in the people's lives they are effecting. This is opposed to the governmental method of handing out a check/benefit to anybody that can "prove" need - programs which just generate freeriders. Real assistance lies in reformation of life, not compensation.
It's also unfair to evaluate the price of the health care market as it exists now as if it would be the same in the absense of such a huge player as the relatively free/cheap government care. 50 million people need cheaper healthcare? Maybe 20 million people could actually purchase cheaper care should it exist? Who's to say health insurance organizations wouldn't develop programs to suit the needs of this group? What I mean is that the market would change substantially in the absence of such a large player.
- .RJ - 08-28-2007
asteele2 Wrote:Who's to say health insurance organizations wouldn't develop programs to suit the needs of this group?
They already exist. You can get very basic medical coverage that will cover major injuries/illnesses for a few hundred bucks a year. Its a high deductible, so if you have a cold you're not going to the doctor.
I dont know what the fuss is...
- white_2kgt - 08-28-2007
JackoliciousLegs Wrote:I can't tell. Are you serious?
Part of me yes. Everyone should be taxed at the same rate, regardless of income, tax everyone at 33% including business, mid and poor people, cut out ALL handout programs and send the illegals packing and give me my assault weapons back. Also set a flat tax for all goods, 5-8% whatever, including gas, cigs and weed (yep make it legal dammit). The country would gasp with shock for a few years but in the end those 'poor' people would take the jobs the illegals were doing, the economy would bounce and we'd be in a better position in the world market, after telling China goodbye, we'll make our shit right here from now on thank you very much. However I realize this is to much for some limp dick president to actually do, but that's what I'd do. Oh and bomb the living fuck out of the middle east, and take over the oil rigs. Who the fuck is going to stop us?
- CaptainHenreh - 08-28-2007
Andrew pretty much nailed it, especially regarding healthcare. Healthcare costs are so high right now because they can be. The Big Customers (the Fed & to a lesser degree private insurance conglomerates) pays whatever the medical industry will charge.
It's the same way with College. If the government did not subsidize education, JMU, for example, could not get away with the tuition rates they charge. Their enrollment numbers would drop, and they would have two choices: Make the education worth the price they as by adding value somehow or they would reduce tuition.
Health care would work the same way.
And, let's face it, the "How will poor people feed their x number of kids" doesn't hold a whole lot of water with me. Here's an idea, stop having children. I would happily support government subsidized birth control, but the truth is that if you need birth control you can get it... Welcome to the 21st century, where it's a choice to have children, not a consequence of being poor.
Re: legitimate political question (Ron Paul) - BLINGMW - 08-28-2007
JackoliciousLegs Wrote:1. If you abolish income tax and rely solely on sales taxes, how do you spare low income families from a harsher tax burden because of their say.... 4 children?
I suggest you read up a bit on the FairTax. It does exactly what you're asking. It's not his #1 choice from what little I've read, but he's said he would support it.
And while Chad may have been a little blunt in his first reply, I pretty much agree. While we shouldn't dump them on their faces, we shouldn't be encouraging poor families to flourish. Don't have kids if you can't afford them.
Come to the libertarian side Jack, you might like it. :wink:
- Evan - 08-28-2007
Think about what tax is, you are paying your government for services. Usually (or, ideally) for services that all benefit from.
Person A: now someone who works hard, takes some chances that pay off, and makes a lot of money.
Person B: a person who for a variety of possible reasons, including and possibly primarily due to his own action/inaction does not have much money.
Both of these people are using the same amount of services from the government, in fact the wealthier is probably using far less, as his kids may be in private schools and he is not on any social welfare programs that the lower income person may be.
Now you tell me how it is fair that Person A must pay considerably more for the same services. Not just because he makes more, but because the percentage taken by the government actually goes up as he makes more money, thus punishing Person A for working hard.
The FairTax/Flat Tax/Consuption tax is the only way to make this fair without having some sort of regressive percentage based income tax (which would never happen, gotta take those rich peoples money!)
Having said all that, I dont believe it would ever work. Spending $9 on a gallon of milk will NEVER fly to voters, even if the net result is that they save money.
and for the record, I grew up with my family qualifying for many social welfare programs which my parents elected to not take, so Im not exactly preaching from the country club here.
as for healthcare, we have covered that ad nauseum. There is already free and near free healthcare for low income.
- BLINGMW - 08-28-2007
Evan Wrote:Spending $9 on a gallon of milk will NEVER fly to voters, even if the net result is that they save money.
FWIW, if the FairTax were put into effect, prices would likely go up for a little while, but the price of goods, WITH the FairTax, should come back down close to what they are now. Even if it took a while, and we were paying 23% more than what we're used to, we'd also be keeping our entire paychecks, so it should be a wash.
- Evan - 08-28-2007
BLINGMW Wrote:FWIW, if the FairTax were put into effect, prices would likely go up for a little while, but the price of goods, WITH the FairTax, should come back down close to what they are now.interesting, id like to hear why that would be the case, since a huge percentage of the price of a product would now go to the gubment, the production costs would have to come down significantly somehow if you are going to keep the same prices
Quote:Even if it took a while, and we were paying 23% more than what we're used to, we'd also be keeping our entire paychecks, so it should be a wash.not exactly, you arent trading your tax payment from a check to the IRS to the cash register. A consumption based tax is a regressive tax and affects lower income people much more than higher income (relative to their income of course) This is what jack was getting at.
So without all the rich people of the country getting robbed by the government every year, the majority (middle class) would end up footing most of the bill of the government so your and I tax bill would go up. Lower income would conceptually be affected the greatest, but with social welfare programs (and their expansion that such a tax method would bring) this would be not be the case, and they would continue to be negative contributors.
The consumption tax works a lot better in the larger plan of the libertarians where the government is small, (kinda like that thing called The Constitution said too.....) but in the big governement pseudo-socialsm of our country right now I dont think it can work.
- white_2kgt - 08-28-2007
CaptainHenreh Wrote:Andrew pretty much nailed it, especially regarding healthcare. Healthcare costs are so high right now because they can be. The Big Customers (the Fed & to a lesser degree private insurance conglomerates) pays whatever the medical industry will charge.
I agree. The health care industry needs to get flipped on it's heads and quit charging $75 for a freekin bandaid. The ridiculous charges they give people need to be regulated more closely. It shouldn't cost someone 15 grand to have a broken leg fixed I don't care WHO is paying for it, in the end we all are and that's BS.
- ViPER1313 - 08-28-2007
white_2kgt Wrote:Everyone should be taxed at the same rate, regardless of income, tax everyone at 33% including business, mid and poor people, cut out ALL handout programs and send the illegals packing and give me my assault weapons back.
All this would do is create a steady stream of homeless people and give gun nuts weapons that could kill 100's of people in a short amount of time. Suppose you want to start a small business - should you have to pay the same amount in taxes as an oil company? Good luck rounding up all the "illegals" too - are you going to send their kids back as well? What would their employers think?
white_2kgt Wrote:Also set a flat tax for all goods, 5-8% whatever, including gas, cigs and weed (yep make it legal dammit). The country would gasp with shock for a few years but in the end those 'poor' people would take the jobs the illegals were doing, the economy would bounce and we'd be in a better position in the world market, after telling China goodbye, we'll make our shit right here from now on thank you very much.
Why would you want to tax milk and bread as much as luxury items?
At this point I would also like to address your misunderstanding of the poor. You live in a nice 2-income household and have enough spare money to build race cars, buy huge LCD TVs and support a child. Now, try to imagine your life on a combined salary of $48200 between you and your wife (the nationwide median household income.) Pockets kind of stretched? Also realize that most companies don't offer matching 401k, health insurance, etc. Now imagine your life at $24100 a year as a single mom working 40 hours a week with no health insurance. Not everyone can afford college, not everyone has a baller job, not everyone lives in a 2 income household. It doesn't make them or their children less deserving of good health care - it makes them the average American trying to get by.
And you are right, we will just manufacture everything over here and return to isolationist policies - it worked great in the past. Or maybe it didn't..... really, it didn't.
white_2kgt Wrote:However I realize this is to much for some limp dick president to actually do, but that's what I'd do. Oh and bomb the living fuck out of the middle east, and take over the oil rigs. Who the fuck is going to stop us?
Sweet imperialistic view. It worked great for the British Empire and the Romans... it should work for us too right?
- Apoc - 08-28-2007
CaptainHenreh Wrote:Andrew pretty much nailed it
+1
It's interesting that there's an assumption that we need to spare low income families of an increased tax burden.
Yay Ron Paul!
- CaptainHenreh - 08-28-2007
ViPER1313 Wrote:All this would do is create a steady stream of homeless people and give gun nuts weapons that could kill 100's of people in a short amount of time....
WTF?
Don't talk about things you're ignorant of, Adam.
- Ginger - 08-28-2007
OK, Adam, now respond to my post.
- ViPER1313 - 08-28-2007
CaptainHenreh Wrote:ViPER1313 Wrote:All this would do is create a steady stream of homeless people and give gun nuts weapons that could kill 100's of people in a short amount of time....
WTF?
Don't talk about things you're ignorant of, Adam.
OK, thats exagerated, but raising the lower tax bracket to 33% would take good amounts of cash away from the people who need it the most.
As for the assult weapons ban, I agree with it. I also fully support peoples rights to buy firearms for hunting and self defense. What need is there for people to buy or own assult weapons for hunting and recreational purposes? I just don't see their purpose other than killing large amounts of people in a short period of time (what they were designed to do.)
- CaptainHenreh - 08-28-2007
ViPER1313 Wrote:As for the assult weapons ban, I agree with it. I also fully support peoples rights to buy firearms for hunting and self defense. What need is there for people to buy or own assult weapons for hunting and recreational purposes? I just don't see their purpose other than killing large amounts of people in a short period of time (what they were designed to do.)
Oh lordie, where to start.
#1: I don't really care what you agree or disagree with. The constitution says my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon. (Cuz, see, it says the Right of the People, and I'm a people.) It doesn't say my right to keep and bear arms for hunting shall not be infringed. No sir. So, if I have to choose between you and the Constitution, you'll not be offended if I choose the constitution.
#2: The Assault Weapons Ban was horseshit from it's inception, and did precisely dick to prevent crime. All it did was criminalize weapons based on strictly cosmetic features such as pistol grips and bayonet lugs (not bayonets, mind you, no...places to PUT a bayonet.) Weapons that were just as lethal (even more so, in some cases) were perfectly legal. It was silly and stupid.
#3: A majority (Some studies indicate up to 80%) of gun owners DO NOT HUNT, and therefor own their guns for recreation and self defense. Who are you to say what guns they can and cannot have? As it stands, any machine gun, any select-fire assault rifle, and a number of other weapons are STRICTLY controlled through a thorough federal background check and a hefty tax.
Frankly, there is little practical difference between an "assault weapon" as defined by the AWB and a medium power hunting rifle.
Finally, #4: If an individual wants to go around " killing large amounts of people in a short period of time " they're not going to do it with an "Assault Weapon". Iraqi insurgents aren't killing marines with "Assault Weapons". Timothy McVeigh didn't kill 168 people with an "assault weapon".
Your logic has no teeth, perhaps you should re-evaluate your facts on the matter of Firearms and Gun Control.
Ninja Edit: And before you go ranting on about all that "Well the Second Amendment only applies to the Militia" bullshit, according to the Militia Act of 1792, I am indeed in the Militia, as is every "able bodied male ages 18-45".
- Ginger - 08-28-2007
ViPER1313 Wrote:CaptainHenreh Wrote:ViPER1313 Wrote:All this would do is create a steady stream of homeless people and give gun nuts weapons that could kill 100's of people in a short amount of time....
WTF?
Don't talk about things you're ignorant of, Adam.
OK, thats exagerated, but raising the lower tax bracket to 33% would take good amounts of cash away from the people who need it the most.
As for the assult weapons ban, I agree with it. I also fully support peoples rights to buy firearms for hunting and self defense. What need is there for people to buy or own assult weapons for hunting and recreational purposes? I just don't see their purpose other than killing large amounts of people in a short period of time (what they were designed to do.)
Care to make any other carefully thought out fairy tale assumptions?
- Kaan - 08-28-2007
The second amendment:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
ok other than the word "bear"... i dont see shit that might even refer to hunting! it talks about a militia, security of a free state, and lastely... "shall not be infringed." So, in a world of literal translations... there should be one and only gun law... the second amendment. thats it... thats all you need.
now back to taxes! stop handing out free shit to poor people. it might help motivate them to work harder... or work at all! eventually i'd hope it would trickle down to me and make it so i pay less in taxes.