The Paul File

eyeswideshut said:
So, how did that work out ?
Click to expand...

Much better then if FEMA wasn't there and only the state assets were applied.

Apparently a lot of people think that FEMA commands a lot of manpower, but they don't and they also can't prevent Levies from washing out and they can't make people evacuate before the storm etc etc.
 
adoucette said:
My list wasn't exhaustive.

Simple question, do you think what these agencies do is not needed?

Because if it is needed, moving things where you want consistent standards, like Homeland Security to the States hardly makes sense.

Similarly, FEMA coordinates the Federal response to emergencies. Are you saying the Fed will have no role in Katrina size events?

I'm also curious as to how he proposes to do away with the IRS
Click to expand...
I am 100% against the Department of Homeland Security. It sounds like something right out of 1984. I wonder how many Americans would have supported it if it were called The Ministry of Love (Newspeak: Miniluv). AFAIAC we do NOT need more security to deal with some special class of criminals (which is what Terrorists are). We can deal with them with the police forces we presently employ perfectly fine.

I'm much more concerned with inner city violence than I am with another goat f*cker in Pakistan praying to their imagination. AND the only way to deal with the inner city is to change the culture. That happens though meaningful work.


As for FEMA - IMO it was (and is) a bureaucratic disaster. What New Orleans taught me, was how horrible things are in the inner city. That as soon as a person was down, a sizable percentage of the inner city (whites, latinos, black, whomever) were more than willing to give them a kick to the guts and take what they had - or stand by and watch it happen. The welfare that props up the inner city needs to be replaced with meaningful work.

Also, natural disaster's hit all countries - yet it seems that with local ordination many multiples of international agencies (many charity based) are able to quickly and effectively deal with these problems. Sure, Communist China is more than able to mobile their army (which are in the cities) and deal with crises very efficiently. If we wanted the MOST efficient response then we'd have our army bases staggered throughout the nation (in particular in large cities) ready and willing to deal with all threats. So, we're not really interested in the MOST efficient, but, something reasonably efficient.
 
RE: IRS

Ron Paul supports the elimination of the income tax and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). He asserts that Congress had no power to impose a direct income tax and has called for the repeal of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified on February 3, 1913.

An income tax is the most degrading and totalitarian of all possible taxes. Its implementation wrongly suggests that the government owns the lives and labor of the citizens it is supposed to represent. Tellingly, “a heavy progressive or graduated income tax” is Plank #2 of the Communist Manifesto, which was written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and first published in 1848.

To provide funding for the federal government, Ron Paul supports excise taxes, non-protectionist tariffs, massive cuts in spending.
--



The American Public wants monetary reform. They see a STRONG or VERY STRONG conflict between them (the 99.9%) and the über rich (0.1%). I personally think it's a social problem that evolved out of the Federal Reserve system which is destroying the culture of America from save and invest to borrow and spend. Obama, Mitt, etc... they're not interested in changing the system that's help to make them rich. Paul is though.

2167-2.png



How someone like Paul even made it as far as he has is an amazement in and of itself. It's a testament that there actually IS an American culture of self reliance and hard work still left.... at least I hope so.

I support Ending The Federal Reserve's monopoly on our money.
 
Last edited:
Federal Reserve System

The Federal Reserve System has both private and public components, and was designed to serve the interests of both the general public and private bankers. The result is a structure that is considered unique among central banks. It is also unusual in that an entity outside of the central bank, namely the United States Department of the Treasury, creates the currency used.

Public:
The members of the Board of Governors, including its chairman and vice-chairman, are chosen by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

Private:
According to the Board of Governors, the Federal Reserve is independent within government in that "its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government." Its authority is derived from statutes enacted by the U.S. Congress and the System is subject to congressional oversight.
 
Why can't I got to the Fed Discount window and get an 0% interest loan? Isn't the problem consumer spending, give me a 0% loan and I'll go get a house ;)

(NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO... Only banks can do that!!!!)
 
Michael said:
I am 100% against the Department of Homeland Security. It sounds like something right out of 1984. I wonder how many Americans would have supported it if it were called The Ministry of Love (Newspeak: Miniluv). AFAIAC we do NOT need more security to deal with some special class of criminals (which is what Terrorists are). We can deal with them with the police forces we presently employ perfectly fine.
Click to expand...

Well then you are going to have to hire a LOT of policemen to do the airport security.
The reason we have the TSA is because it is a specialized type of security that doesn't require the same training police go through.
Same for Border Patrol agents, again specialized training which police are not suited for.

I'm much more concerned with inner city violence than I am with another goat f*cker in Pakistan praying to their imagination. AND the only way to deal with the inner city is to change the culture. That happens though meaningful work.
Click to expand...

So, I fly and I'm more concerned about some guy blowing the plane up.
It's not just about what you are concerned about you know.


As for FEMA - IMO it was (and is) a bureaucratic disaster. What New Orleans taught me, was how horrible things are in the inner city. That as soon as a person was down, a sizable percentage of the inner city (whites, latinos, black, whomever) were more than willing to give them a kick to the guts and take what they had - or stand by and watch it happen. The welfare that props up the inner city needs to be replaced with meaningful work.
Click to expand...

And that has NOTHING to do with FEMA, which is all of 2,500 people who COORDINATE the Federal Response and provide small teams of very specialized but highly trained people to help in disasters.

Also, natural disaster's hit all countries - yet it seems that with local ordination many multiples of international agencies (many charity based) are able to quickly and effectively deal with these problems. Sure, Communist China is more than able to mobile their army (which are in the cities) and deal with crises very efficiently. If we wanted the MOST efficient response then we'd have our army bases staggered throughout the nation (in particular in large cities) ready and willing to deal with all threats. So, we're not really interested in the MOST efficient, but, something reasonably efficient.
Click to expand...

Again, FEMA is the Federal coordinating agency, most of the actual disaster relief comes from the Natl Guard, the Coast Guard, the Red Cross and State police, fire and other first responders.
 
Michael said:
RE: IRS

Ron Paul supports the elimination of the income tax and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). He asserts that Congress had no power to impose a direct income tax and has called for the repeal of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified on February 3, 1913.
Click to expand...

Well if that's true then he's simply doesn't understand the Constitution Amendment process.

An income tax is the most degrading and totalitarian of all possible taxes. Its implementation wrongly suggests that the government owns the lives and labor of the citizens it is supposed to represent. Tellingly, “a heavy progressive or graduated income tax” is Plank #2 of the Communist Manifesto, which was written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and first published in 1848.

To provide funding for the federal government, Ron Paul supports excise taxes, non-protectionist tariffs, massive cuts in spending.
--
Click to expand...

What SPECIFICALLY are these tariffs and excise taxes to replace how much income tax and how much spending is he going to make?
 
adoucette said:
Well if that's true then he's simply doesn't understand the Constitution Amendment process.
Click to expand...
You think Paul doesn't understand the Constitutional Amendment process? He's for legally repealing the 16th amendment.

From the above link:
On November 20, 2008 Ron Paul said in a New York Times / Freakonomics interview:

“I want to abolish the income tax, but I don’t want to replace it with anything. About 45 percent of all federal revenue comes from the personal income tax. That means that about 55 percent — over half of all revenue — comes from other sources, like excise taxes, fees, and corporate taxes.

We could eliminate the income tax, replace it with nothing, and still fund the same level of big government we had in the late 1990s. We don’t need to “replace” the income tax at all. I see a consumption tax as being a little better than the personal income tax, and I would vote for the Fair-Tax if it came up in the House of Representatives, but it is not my goal. We can do better.”
Click to expand...


YouTube: Ruling Elite, like all elite, are completely out of touch with reality:

Documents Show How Fed Missed Housing Bust


I don't know if it's a good analogy but I sometimes feel like life is like a game of Monopoly. At some point, even though everyone is playing by the same rules, it becomes obvious you're going to win or loose. Imagine starting out near the end of the game. That's what it must be like for young graduates in 2008. Only, instead of letting the reset happen, the Federal Reserve used it's power to keep the game going - for the benefit of well connected Banksters gambling and doing hookers and blow on Wall Street. Most Americans know they're being screwed. They may not know how or why, but they know it's happening to them. Their life IS shitty, their kids lives will probably be worse than theirs, and all the while imbeciles like Corzine continue to rake in vast fortunes - even to the point of stealing money out of personal account. Can you imagine THAT? You paid money for something, say a pizza, you paid today because you could get a good price. The, tomorrow AFTER you've paid and been given a receipt and organized for a party, you find out some dipshit named Corzine took your money, didn't buy a pizza, but instead went to the casino, bought a hooker and some blow and said: F*ck You. You're left with nothing. Pissed off you go to the police to get justice, they tell you they'll look into it, laugh and walk away. They know if they delay long enough, most people will shut up and take it. Or, maybe they give you 3/4 of a pizza at today's price. Many people, happy they won't loose EVERYTHING will just bend over and take it. That said, some people won't. Imagine you were FORCED to play Monopoly with a cheater who took twice as much from you and gave you half what you were owed. THEN, somehow through luck, you get a break and you're going to win. ONLY, along comes the Banker and bails out the cheating would be looser, sticking you with the bill, and YOU loose.

People are getting pissed off, and Bankers may want to take a look at how History usually resolves things when corrupt money lenders let their greed get the best of them.

Americans love to play Monopoly, what they can't stand is a cheater. Even cheating at a friendly game of cards can get your nose broken.


The appeal of Paul isn't to take away from the rich. It's to make the game fair. Get it? If Paul isn't elected, then I suspect (from my take on History) is people WILL elect a Demagog more than happy to kill the rich and give to the poor (not now, but within a decade). You can see Gingrich is already demonizing Mitt Romney (who I may not like, and I hate what people like him are doing to America). Still Mitt is only giving Americans what they want: Cheap oil cheese flavored-shit on sugar bread.. did I mention it's cheap? THAT may not be what I would like my culture to be like, but, that's not really my place to make the call is it? My point being, it didn't take long for Gingrich to jump at an opportunity to Demagog - just imagine. Once the rich are dealt with, the next option is war. This is what normally happens. I happen to think Americans are pretty receptive towards demagoguery. Party because they think what the idiot box tells them to think.

We'll see. I'm still convinced I'm voting Paul. I mean, didn't we fight a war 200 years ago over this shit??? ;)
 
Last edited:
Michael is part of a growing majority who understand to various degrees and not always fully correctly that the system is rigged against them by a government "of the rich, by their lobbyist, and for their corporations." Some of these angry folks don't even know that the rich are growing richer faster now or that the "Middle Class" is shrinking as wealth is transferred to the already very rich from the "Middle Class", by almost any definition of "Middle Class."

They may have their unemployed adult child living with them and thus understand their child will have a lower standard of living than they had for the first time in US history. Etc. Note that "I'm mad as Hell" is followed by: "And I'm not going to take it any more."

The US is not quite to the second part yet, but when it gets there it will be messy, if not quite bloody. Probably counter productive changes* will occur; perhaps with democracy ended in long lasting Martial Law to control riots with food distribution centers, etc.


"... Pew Research unveiled a frightening report this week. In 2009, less than half of survey respondents said there were "strong" or "very strong" conflicts between the rich and poor. But in the most recent study, the number surged to 66% of the folks surveyed.

It is proof that Americans are getting tired and angry. But it's not just the poor and out of work who are mad. It's investors, too. More and more, we're seeing evidence the game is rigged and the small guy doesn't stand a chance. ..." Quote from: InsideInvestingDaily.com 's Email to me today.

* Perhaps many angry people will vote for Ron Paul as he gives indications of plans to make real "changes" as Obama promised but by and large, has not made.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maybe the realization will happen that wanting to be very rich is greedy, far from a thing to be sought after.
 
Last edited:
786 said:
Why can't I got to the Fed Discount window and get an 0% interest loan? Isn't the problem consumer spending, give me a 0% loan and I'll go get a house ;)

(NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO... Only banks can do that!!!!)
Click to expand...

Probably because the Fed does not give out zero interest rate loans to anyone at the discount window.
 
Michael said:
You think Paul doesn't understand the Constitutional Amendment process? He's for legally repealing the 16th amendment.
Click to expand...

He is out of touch with reality.

The passage of H.R. 2121, in fall 2009, unfolded without drama. It allowed for the sale of a customhouse in Galveston, Tex. The House debate took two minutes, and the vote took eight seconds. The ayes had it.

But something historic was happening. On his 482nd try, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) had authored a bill that would become law. http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...and-tenacity/2011/12/23/gIQA5ioVJP_story.html
Click to expand...

But he does have a die-hard group of supporters that's for sure.

Of course the supporters all call for SWEEPING changes, and the elimination of taxes and agencies etc etc, except they can NEVER explain how the functions/money is going to be made up.

Like RP their answer is usually, "we don't need no stinking EPA" or "Let the States do it" as if that wouldn't require MORE money at the 50 state level than the single Federal Level.

4 years from now, assuming his health holds, we will go through the exact same list of pointless arguments.
 
Last edited:
Michael said:
You think Paul doesn't understand the Constitutional Amendment process? He's for legally repealing the 16th amendment.

From the above link:

On November 20, 2008 Ron Paul said in a New York Times / Freakonomics interview:

“I want to abolish the income tax, but I don’t want to replace it with anything. About 45 percent of all federal revenue comes from the personal income tax. That means that about 55 percent — over half of all revenue — comes from other sources, like excise taxes, fees, and corporate taxes.

We could eliminate the income tax, replace it with nothing, and still fund the same level of big government we had in the late 1990s. We don’t need to “replace” the income tax at all. I see a consumption tax as being a little better than the personal income tax, and I would vote for the Fair-Tax if it came up in the House of Representatives, but it is not my goal. We can do better.”
Click to expand...

That's pretty hilarious Michael.

Let's see what that REALLY means:

Numbers_Figure-1_What-are-fed-govts-sources-of-revenue_3.gif


http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/revenue.cfm

So what that means is that RP didn't mention the 36% that comes from Payroll taxes and you can't use that 36% for anything else but Social Security and Medicare, unless you want to end those social programs.

Well do you Michael?

Now as to excise taxes, they are very regressive and fall disproportionately on the poor.

Hell Cigarettes, Telephone, Alcohol and Transportation taxes make up over 95% of the excise taxes collected by the government, but STILL only make up 3% of our tax revenue.

So are you going to raise tobacco and alcohol excise taxes even more?
Because if you do that substantially, say double them to get another 3%, you won't actually get more money because people will cut back on use.

Are you going to raise the gasoline/diesel tax? I'm sure the poor won't mind paying another 25c per gallon of gas and seeing the cost added to all the things that are made, grown or shipped.

What are you going to put an excise tax on that isn't being taxed now and raises a decent amount of money and doesn't screw the average person Michael?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excise_tax_in_the_United_States#cite_note-15

Same with Tariffs. What are you going to put a tariff on that doesn't have the same impact?

Now, as to that 45% income tax, or ~$1,125 Billion in 2008.

We can see that the top 10% of taxpayers, those with AGI (Gross income after exemptions and deductions) of $113,000 or above paid 70% of the Income tax.

Or look at it this way, the bottom 50%, tops out at those making less than $33,000 after deductions and exemptions (or about $44,000 gross income for a single person taking the standard deduction and contributing to a 401k) paid but 2.7% of the taxes.

http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

And you think you can come up with a MORE progressive system by getting rid of the income tax and getting that money from Excise taxes and Tariffs?

Really?
 
Michael said:
You think Paul doesn't understand the Constitutional Amendment process? He's for legally repealing the 16th amendment.

From the above link:

On November 20, 2008 Ron Paul said in a New York Times / Freakonomics interview:

“I want to abolish the income tax, but I don’t want to replace it with anything. About 45 percent of all federal revenue comes from the personal income tax. That means that about 55 percent — over half of all revenue — comes from other sources, like excise taxes, fees, and corporate taxes.

We could eliminate the income tax, replace it with nothing, and still fund the same level of big government we had in the late 1990s. We don’t need to “replace” the income tax at all. I see a consumption tax as being a little better than the personal income tax, and I would vote for the Fair-Tax if it came up in the House of Representatives, but it is not my goal. We can do better.”
Click to expand...

That's pretty hilarious Michael.

Let's see what that REALLY means:

Numbers_Figure-1_What-are-fed-govts-sources-of-revenue_3.gif


http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/revenue.cfm

So what that means is that RP didn't mention the 36% that comes from Payroll taxes and you can't use that 36% for anything else but Social Security and Medicare, unless you want to end those social programs.

Well do you Michael?

Now as to excise taxes, they are very regressive and fall disproportionately on the poor.

Hell Cigarettes, Telephone, Alcohol and Transportation taxes make up over 95% of the excise taxes collected by the government, but STILL only make up 3% of our tax revenue.

So are you going to raise tobacco and alcohol excise taxes even more?
Because if you do that substantially, say double them to get another 3%, you won't actually get more money because people will cut back on use.

Are you going to raise the gasoline/diesel tax? I'm sure the poor won't mind paying another 25c per gallon of gas and seeing the cost added to all the things that are made, grown or shipped.

What are you going to put an excise tax on that isn't being taxed now and raises a decent amount of money and doesn't screw the average person Michael?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excise_tax_in_the_United_States#cite_note-15

Same with Tariffs. What are you going to put a tariff on that doesn't have the same impact?

Now, as to that 45% income tax, or ~$1,125 Billion in 2008.

We can see that the top 10% of taxpayers, those with AGI (Gross income after exemptions and deductions) of $113,000 or above paid 70% of the Income tax.

Or look at it this way, the bottom 50%, tops out at those making less than $33,000 after deductions and exemptions (or about $44,000 gross income for a single person taking the standard deduction and contributing to a 401k) paid but 2.7% of the taxes.

http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

And you think you can come up with a MORE progressive system by getting rid of the income tax and increasing Excise taxes and Tariffs?

Really?
 
You're not a MEMBER bank.

Member banks are required to purchase Federal Reserve stock in accordance with Regulation I (12 CFR 209) and are expected to follow the general safety and soundness guidelines found in Regulation H (12 CFR 208).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top