Correcting the Record on Newt

It was a huge mistake. I'll agree with that.

Blackbird, you just go roght ahead and pretend that video don't exist.

 

Of course, this is nothing but a lie and propaganda. Paul has been 100 percent consistent, and has not compromised any of his principles to get "every dime for his district." I have lived in his district for 16 years. Even his enemies and opponents cannot dig up dirt on him. That is because he has integrity.

When he used to be an OBGYN here in Lake Jackson (the only one for many years), he used to refuse to accept government money for services; no medicaid, medicare, etc. However, he would not turn the patients away. He treated them, just like his paying clients, yet would not take tax payer money.

That is consistency and integrity, FAR beyond anything I have seen from other politicians (though I do believe their are in fact, a few other men of integrity running for office...just not for president).

 

I guess it doesn't really matter. Paul will never be elected president, and you know it. Say what you want, support him to the hilt; he will never even get nominated and you know this as well. Good thing too, his policies would destroy the country!

 

Which ones ? Could you be specific ?

 

Perhaps if his policies could have been implemented many decades ago, it would have been a good thing. I feel that his policies are too radical to work in today's America. I especially don't like his policy about abolishing the IRS, and replacing it with a flat tax. This would be very hared on the poorest in our society. I do agree with him on many things, however, like increased tariffs. I also think he wants to lower the corporate tax rate; I think it should be raised.

Also, in 2007, he requested nearly $400 million dollars in earmarks in bills he voted against. If seems like he is against earmarks publically, yet he knows they will pass, so he takes all he can get. This is hypocrisy!

 

How so? .........

 

Please stop lying. I "know" no such thing. Paul is doing great in the polls, and could very well get the nomination.

His policies would SAVE this country, and return personal liberty to the populace.

 

To add a national sales tax will destroy the poor.

 

You are only lying to yourself if you think Paul has any chance. I think you know this, but are too proud to admit it. Paul will not even be on the ticket. His candidacy is a joke, like Cain's was.

Now, this may qualify as a lie. The poorest will be destroyed by any national sales tax.

 

No, not really, unless Clinton was a Catholic choir boy... :smilewinkgrin:

Newt had/has his issues but none rise to the level of lying about sexual activity that happened while seated in the position of presidential power in the very oval office.

 

Thought that Michael Barone had an interesting article on Newt Gingrich today.

"Self-Taught Newt Gingrich Has Learned To Persevere"

http://news.investors.com/Article/5...grich-perseveres-in-pursuit-of-presidency.htm

 

Well, 1.3 billion Christians disagree with you.
WM

 

No, 1.3 million Catholics disagree with me, big difference.

 

How ? This is an extremely arbitrary argument. We can't reform welfarebecause it will hurt "the poor". We have to surrender our health care because of "the poor". Meanwhile, the poor grow in numbers.

I call hogwash on this. Prove it.

Second, the earmark thing has been addressed for you several times. Go ahead and use misinformation if you must.

 

Actually one of the better criticisms against the National Cinsumption tax is that it will, proportionately, harm low income and poor families more than rich. There are a number of reasons (and studies) that support this. Here's a sample:

1. The poor will spend a higher percentage of their income on the tax. Fact is though the wealthy will pay more total, it will only be a minor percentage of income. Comparatively the poor, while paying less totally, will pay a much higher percentage of income towards the tax. In basic economics this is a bad situation.

Say a wealthy family that makes $2,000,000 a year and end up paying, oh I don't know, $5,000 in consumption taxes for the year. Well that's a .25% hit on their income. Then compare them to a family making $25,000 a year (because there are a lot of these) who will pay, say $750 per year in consumption taxes. Well that is 3% of their income. That makes the impoverished family pay extraordinarily more for their burden. That's a big difference, especially when you're poor...cash flow matters.

2. Lots of wealthy families have the means to defer major purchases for outside the US while on trips (like driving to Canada.) (This isn't a very good argument but it is one nevertheless) They end up circumventing the system because they have access via their normal vacations. Poor families don't have that access.

3. The cost of being poor is increased, per capita, over being rich. Honestly this is true. Because they lack basic access to higher purchasing power and lack sufficient funds to accumulate items in larger, discounted, quantities they end up paying more for the items they buy. Thus they are more reliant on a purchase every day.

There are plenty of organizations that have said this and done studies. Not just "liberal thinktanks" either. Conservative places too.

That is why I'm in favor of a blended flat tax and consumption tax. (Only I'd stipulate that anyone making under the poverty line doesn't pay their flat tax) Remove the tax for the bottom 8% of households in the US and you still make your budget, particularly because there are only deductions for college, non-profit, and mortgage interest. Eliminate the rest, remove the loopholes, everyone in the US, the other 92%, pay the same, flat rate.

The consumption tax would be miniscule but help in ensuring everyone is being tax at the federal level. (Everyone already is but whatever.)

Check out this link for more info from a conservative position:
http://econoethics.com/?p=38

 

And I don't think a better argument can be made than this....


'
...As a congressman, Ron Paul has consistently endorsed legislation to let Americans claim more tax credits and deductions, including on educational costs, alternative energy vehicles, and health care. He also believes it is immoral to tax senior citizens twice by requiring them to include Social Security benefits in their gross income at tax time. A first step to eliminating that requirement would be to repeal the 1993 increase in taxes on Social Security benefits. Then we must abolish that tax entirely.
While a Flat Tax or a Fair Tax would each be a better alternative to the income tax system, Congressman Paul believes we would have to guarantee the 16th Amendment is repealed to avoid having both the income tax and one of these systems as an additional tax.
But there is a better way. Restraining federal spending by enforcing the Constitution’s strict limits on the federal government’s power would help result in a 0% income tax rate for Americans.
The answer to spending and debt is to return to a constitutionally limited government that protects liberty – not one that keeps robbing Peter to pay Paul...

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/taxes/

 

And came to different conclusions from almost everyone else.

If the Bush admin had wanted war with Iran, or even air attacks, they would have done it, and could have justified it. Didn't happen.

There is no evidence that Bush was trying to implement the Amero. It didn't happen. Maybe you're saying that candidates should be forgiven for irresponsible comments in the past if you agree with them in the main?...

Alex appeals to the adolescent in all of us: mistrust of all authority and the fun of conspiricy theories. I can see why he is so popular.