• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rand Paul drops out.

tres borrachos said:
No, sorry. You know i have mad personal love for the Bern but I don't like his ideas. I'm a Rubio girl, which is kind of like an Obama girl, but with smaller breasts and an extra decade or two.
Click to expand...

I would also opine the chances of your butt being considerably smaller would be most evident.:lamo
 
disneydude said:
Which candidate do YOU think Pauls supporters will go to now then?
Click to expand...


Speaking just for myself, My allegiance now shifts to Cruz. I have some misgivings, but the rest of the PUBS leave me cold and I don't do windows roofs, nor DIMS.
 
As a long time supporter of Ron Paul, it was a natural transition for me to favor Rand in his bid for the Senate. With that said, the Neo-Con nutcases have always hated Ron Paul simply because he favors just war and never a war without the proper declaration of such, and never favored the spreading of democracy at the point of a gun and using America's young men and women to fight for it.

That has carried over into the disdain for Rand Paul.
 
jonny5 said:
By electing based on majority. This ensures that the majority always wins and minority always loses. That the individual always loses unless they are in the majority.
Click to expand...

If all we had was a President, perhaps that would be quite meaningful, but the President isn't a King is he/she? It is simply silly to claim a winner or loser voter when many who vote FOR the winner soon fall out of love for the President they 'helped' get elected.

Now the majority isn't monolithic, the recent elections show no party can win outright without appealing to a group self described as 'independent'. Those folks demand a far more inclusive platform than the hard core partisans of the primaries. (the classic case was Willard admitting the need to swerve away from the radical right in order to win the election. His 47% was flawed, the real numbers are 25% or so in his party, 25% or so firmly against and a whole bunch of people in the middle.) the 51% needed to win means more than simple numbers- it means making a very pronounced step away from the radical wing of the party and into a far more broad based world view.

Now addressing the poster who claims he will NEVER vote in his own country... I asked him who wasn't running that should be... a difficult question for while he faults the process he would never participate in it... :doh
 
Sorry to see him go.

He is a pale comparison to his father...but I think he was the best of the bunch.

The neocons will love it because now there is virtually no voice for foreign policy sanity left.
 
notquiteright said:
If all we had was a President, perhaps that would be quite meaningful, but the President isn't a King is he/she? It is simply silly to claim a winner or loser voter when many who vote FOR the winner soon fall out of love for the President they 'helped' get elected.

Now the majority isn't monolithic, the recent elections show no party can win outright without appealing to a group self described as 'independent'. Those folks demand a far more inclusive platform than the hard core partisans of the primaries. (the classic case was Willard admitting the need to swerve away from the radical right in order to win the election. His 47% was flawed, the real numbers are 25% or so in his party, 25% or so firmly against and a whole bunch of people in the middle.) the 51% needed to win means more than simple numbers- it means making a very pronounced step away from the radical wing of the party and into a far more broad based world view.

Now addressing the poster who claims he will NEVER vote in his own country... I asked him who wasn't running that should be... a difficult question for while he faults the process he would never participate in it... :doh
Click to expand...

The President is effectively a king. He does what he wants with no real conseuqences (and I dont mean just obama). Congress is run by 535 people who have been there an average of 40 years at a time. Courts are run by 9 people who have been there till they die or decide to leave. They all run a massive bureaucracy of lifetime employees. And this is before we get to the state and local govts.

And then, you have the people, who haven't deviated from Republican vs Democrat for 161 years.

The majority IS monolithic. So, really, there is no point in the minority even participating. They will never win.
 
jonny5 said:
The President is effectively a king. He does what he wants with no real conseuqences (and I dont mean just obama). Congress is run by 535 people who have been there an average of 40 years at a time. Courts are run by 9 people who have been there till they die or decide to leave. They all run a massive bureaucracy of lifetime employees. And this is before we get to the state and local govts. And then, you have the people, who haven't deviated from Republican vs Democrat for 161 years. The majority IS monolithic. So, really, there is no point in the minority even participating. They will never win.
Click to expand...

Who is this minority? Libertarians are nothing if not vague.

Right now the PUB can only wish they were a monolith- they wouldn't be having this clown car moment in the primary.

I realize discussing the nuances of the government with a libertarian is a rather fruitless exercise, but most congress critters do have to answer to those who voted them in- hence a stubborn 40 in the House who refuse to talk to Dems for fear their voters will throw them out for fraternizing with the enemy.

I'll bet you a shiny nickle NO president has even been able to do what he wants... look at how much legislation Obama had blocked. Clinton sure would argue. I think what you mean is Presidents don't take a hit for what they do you don't like.

But it refreshing to read how independent our politicians are after reams of others declaring how poll driven politicians are... :peace
 
notquiteright said:
Who is this minority? Libertarians are nothing if not vague.

Right now the PUB can only wish they were a monolith- they wouldn't be having this clown car moment in the primary.

I realize discussing the nuances of the government with a libertarian is a rather fruitless exercise, but most congress critters do have to answer to those who voted them in- hence a stubborn 40 in the House who refuse to talk to Dems for fear their voters will throw them out for fraternizing with the enemy.

I'll bet you a shiny nickle NO president has even been able to do what he wants... look at how much legislation Obama had blocked. Clinton sure would argue. I think what you mean is Presidents don't take a hit for what they do you don't like.

But it refreshing to read how independent our politicians are after reams of others declaring how poll driven politicians are... :peace
Click to expand...

If your just going to be insulting, there is no need to continue. I answered your question. You obviously just want to rant.
 
jonny5 said:
Its by definition, flat, not regressive. Everyone pays the same rate. It DOES tax investment income as regular income, and those taxes arent much, 36 billion a year in a 3 trillion dollar tax collection, more than replaced by the elimination of almost all deductions. And businesses would be HELPED by saving billions on tax preperation. Furthermore, it doesnt cut into their profits any more than the current system does. All taxes are passed down to consumers. Need I continue?

Seems like you need to go read the plan as you dont know any of its details.
Click to expand...

How is a flat tax (in essence....not by strict definition) NOT regressive? Those with lower incomes are less able to afford the tax and have less disposable income after the tax has been paid. A flat tax will necessarily hit those with lower incomes harder. Who will be more adversely affected.....an individual with a meager $50,000 annual salary forced to pay $5000 in income tax or an individual earning $500,000 who pays $50,000?
 
FluffyNinja said:
How is a flat tax (in essence....not by strict definition) NOT regressive? Those with lower incomes are less able to afford the tax and have less disposable income after the tax has been paid. A flat tax will necessarily hit those with lower incomes harder. Who will be more adversely affected.....an individual with a meager $50,000 annual salary forced to pay $5000 in income tax or an individual earning $500,000 who pays $50,000?
Click to expand...

Thats not what regressive tax means. It means the tax rate on the thing being taxed does not change as the value of the thing being taxed changes. If you want to redefine it though, its extremely progressive. A rich person pays exponentially more tax than a poor person. 10% tax on a 10,000 income is $1000. 10% tax on a billion dollar income is 100 million. Thats 100,000 times more tax paid.

And do they get 100,000 time more benefit? Given 75% of all spending goes to social programs, they get less benefit for more tax.
 
jonny5 said:
Its by definition, flat, not regressive. Everyone pays the same rate. It DOES tax investment income as regular income, and those taxes arent much, 36 billion a year in a 3 trillion dollar tax collection, more than replaced by the elimination of almost all deductions. And businesses would be HELPED by saving billions on tax preperation. Furthermore, it doesnt cut into their profits any more than the current system does. All taxes are passed down to consumers. Need I continue?

Seems like you need to go read the plan as you dont know any of its details.
Click to expand...

Yes, you do need to continue... with your education. You are completely off base on the notion that businesses simply pass taxes along. This is one of the most often stated myths on this board, levied by people that never took a micro-economics class or didn't understand it....and oddly, never seem to want to understand it, but would rather just live in their bubble of myth.

So you know, the ability of a company to pass ANY cost along to the consumer depends on a number of factors that work into a concept known as price elasicity. Costs increases usually translate into some price increases and some lost profits. The ability of a business to pass on any tax is defined by a concept known as the Incident of Tax.

Tax Incidence Definition | Investopedia

If a business could simply pass along taxes and costs, we would never have unprofitable businesses....

As to the regressiveness of a flat tax..... moving to a flat tax that taxed first dollar of income from a progressive tax that taxed discretionary income would be "regressive by definition" as you would suddenly make exempt income taxable, disproportionately burdening lower to middle income tax payers.

In other words, the flat tax it self might not be regressive, but a change to the flat tax would be a regressive event (depending on what you defined as taxable income)

Flat Tax Is Class Warfare - US News
https://www.researchgate.net/public...t_Tax-Shifting_the_Burden_to_the_Middle_Class
Flat Tax Shifts Burden to the Middle Class - US News
 
Last edited:
jonny5 said:
Thats not what regressive tax means. It means the tax rate on the thing being taxed does not change as the value of the thing being taxed changes. If you want to redefine it though, its extremely progressive. A rich person pays exponentially more tax than a poor person. 10% tax on a 10,000 income is $1000. 10% tax on a billion dollar income is 100 million. Thats 100,000 times more tax paid.

And do they get 100,000 time more benefit? Given 75% of all spending goes to social programs, they get less benefit for more tax.
Click to expand...
You're barking up the wrong tree brother. Thanks for the economics "lesson" but I know what a regressive INCOME tax is.

I have read Cruz's tax plan......as nebulous and incomplete as it is. Based on what he's put on his website....this tax would indeed be regressive as it would place a heavier revenue burden on lower wage-earners and small businesses. It also provides deductions for capital investment...its the only deduction he actually specifies on his website. As Marco Rubio so astutely pointed out....the Cruz tax plan is also essentially a VAT tax (value added tax) in disguise as industry is taxed at EVERY possible level of production. Even the "little guy" and the "middle guy" carry the same tax burden as those at the top of the food chain who profit most from production and can most afford the "flat tax" without cutting too deeply into their profits.

I will also add, as the poster above me pointed out.....the inclination is that any business, at any level in the production chain will pass cost increases (additional tax) on to the consumer. If the business is able to sustain that cost increase....it does not necessarily mean the consumer can. This scenario could prove beneficial to the business but harmful to consumers...who are also sharing the tax burden under the plan and will obviously have less disposable income. I fear inflation.

Also as many nations who were formerly part of the USSR and passed flat taxes are now finding out....a flat tax during an economic recession can be quite devastating. So yes......Cruz's "flat tax" plan worries me a little. Things that look "too simple" on paper....quite often ARE too simple to work efficiently.
 
Last edited:
poweRob said:
I think the more that drop out the harder it will be on Trump. I don't see Trump absorbing much of anyone else's followers.
Click to expand...


I'd think he'd have a shot at some of Carson's support (mainly the anti-establishment folk), maybe a few from a moderate candidate (that's pretty iffy though), but yeah that is about it.
 
People can babble along all they want about the alleged academic merits of flates taxes and VATs all they want, the fact is none of the 'Fair Tax' Bills actually proposed were 'fair', at least to those who actually read them and saw all the usual handwaves and exemptions that were tacked on at the end of these Bills and found they were complete scams. But hey, they did have the word 'Fair' in their titles n stuff ...
 
I'm for a flat tax with deductions where the poorest, approximately 15%, won't pay a tax and the poorer wouldn't pay the full flat tax.
 
upsideguy said:
Yes, you do need to continue... with your education. You are completely off base on the notion that businesses simply pass taxes along. This is one of the most often stated myths on this board, levied by people that never took a micro-economics class or didn't understand it....and oddly, never seem to want to understand it, but would rather just live in their bubble of myth.
ws[/url]
Click to expand...

You should take a civility class.
 
FluffyNinja said:
You're barking up the wrong tree brother. Thanks for the economics "lesson" but I know what a regressive INCOME tax is.

I have read Cruz's tax plan......as nebulous and incomplete as it is. Based on what he's put on his website....this tax would indeed be regressive as it would place a heavier revenue burden on lower wage-earners and small businesses. It also provides deductions for capital investment...its the only deduction he actually specifies on his website. As Marco Rubio so astutely pointed out....the Cruz tax plan is also essentially a VAT tax (value added tax) in disguise as industry is taxed at EVERY possible level of production. Even the "little guy" and the "middle guy" carry the same tax burden as those at the top of the food chain who profit most from production and can most afford the "flat tax" without cutting too deeply into their profits.

I will also add, as the poster above me pointed out.....the inclination is that any business, at any level in the production chain will pass cost increases (additional tax) on to the consumer. If the business is able to sustain that cost increase....it does not necessarily mean the consumer can. This scenario could prove beneficial to the business but harmful to consumers...who are also sharing the tax burden under the plan and will obviously have less disposable income. I fear inflation.

Also as many nations who were formerly part of the USSR and passed flat taxes are now finding out....a flat tax during an economic recession can be quite devastating. So yes......Cruz's "flat tax" plan worries me a little. Things that look "too simple" on paper....quite often ARE too simple to work efficiently.
Click to expand...

Im not your brother, pal. By definition Ted Cruzs tax is flat. BURDEN is a subjective term, not a factual one.
 
jonny5 said:
You should take a civility class.
Click to expand...

Maybe we can get a volume discount if we enroll together. Over coffee in the student union, I will tell you what I learned in civility and you can tell me what you learned about economics... ;)
 
Last edited:
jonny5 said:
Im not your brother, pal. By definition Ted Cruzs tax is flat. BURDEN is a subjective term, not a factual one.
Click to expand...

Cruz's tax is a Value Added Tax as well and as another poster pointed out, it doesn't really matter what it is by definition. What matters is what will occur upon its implementation.....anyone who passed Econ 101 with a grade of C or higher knows that changing from what we have now to Cruz's plan would absolutely create a regressive income tax event as EVERY dollar for middle income wage earners would be taxed.....including those dollars which are now in the discretionary funds or "disposable income" category. Small businesses, middle and low income wage earners will have less spending power....period. You can argue otherwise all you'd like, talk about all the "definitions" you'd like, but you cant change that fact.
 
FluffyNinja said:
Cruz's tax is a Value Added Tax as well and as another poster pointed out, it doesn't really matter what it is by definition. What matters is what will occur upon its implementation.....anyone who passed Econ 101 with a grade of C or higher knows that changing from what we have now to Cruz's plan would absolutely create a regressive income tax event as EVERY dollar for middle income wage earners would be taxed.....including those dollars which are now in the discretionary funds or "disposable income" category. Small businesses, middle and low income wage earners will have less spending power....period. You can argue otherwise all you'd like, talk about all the "definitions" you'd like, but you cant change that fact.
Click to expand...

More ad hominems. You and upsideguy should form a club.
 
jonny5 said:
More ad hominems. You and upsideguy should form a club.
Click to expand...

Ad hominem? Someone appears to be a bit defensive and appears to be taking this discussion a bit personally. Where did I attack you personally and not your claims directly?
 
Paul was my guy and I'm sad to see him duck out, but he ran a rather poor and disjointed campaign. Now that he's gone, I'm taking a long look at Cruz. He's not an ideal guy, but he's a genuine fiscal conservative who believes in cutting spending which is issue number one for me. Especially like that he's equally willing to take on corporate welfare as he is to take entitlements. On foreign policy, which is my second most important issue, he's taken a hard line towards ISIS, but he's also a guy who recognizes the folly of nation building and intervening in civil wars such as Syria and Lybia. He's definitely not a neo-con and strikes me as more of a realist, which I consider myself to be.

I don't like his support for drug prohibition, but he also believes the states have a right to set their own policies, even if he disagrees with them. I like him on guns. I agree with him on the NSA meta data issue. I don't care for his strong opposition to gay marriage. I don't care for his hardline immigration stance. I'm one of the few pro-life libertarians, so his stance there is in line with my beliefs.

Overall, I find myself agreeing with Cruz more than I disagree and more importantly the issues that I really find to be important spending and foreign policy are places were we line up. I can put up with the areas were we disagree if he can deliver on those two areas. And finally, he seems to be someone who will actually fight for these positions. Its not just mere lip service. The fact that the Republican establishment, which has only given us lip service on fiscal conservatism, has gone to such lengths to oppose him
just makes me like him more.
 
Psychoclown said:
Paul was my guy and I'm sad to see him duck out, but he ran a rather poor and disjointed campaign. Now that he's gone, I'm taking a long look at Cruz. He's not an ideal guy, but he's a genuine fiscal conservative who believes in cutting spending which is issue number one for me. Especially like that he's equally willing to take on corporate welfare as he is to take entitlements. On foreign policy, which is my second most important issue, he's taken a hard line towards ISIS, but he's also a guy who recognizes the folly of nation building and intervening in civil wars such as Syria and Lybia. He's definitely not a neo-con and strikes me as more of a realist, which I consider myself to be.

I don't like his support for drug prohibition, but he also believes the states have a right to set their own policies, even if he disagrees with them. I like him on guns. I agree with him on the NSA meta data issue. I don't care for his strong opposition to gay marriage. I don't care for his hardline immigration stance. I'm one of the few pro-life libertarians, so his stance there is in line with my beliefs.

Overall, I find myself agreeing with Cruz more than I disagree and more importantly the issues that I really find to be important spending and foreign policy are places were we line up. I can put up with the areas were we disagree if he can deliver on those two areas. And finally, he seems to be someone who will actually fight for these positions. Its not just mere lip service. The fact that the Republican establishment, which has only given us lip service on fiscal conservatism, has gone to such lengths to oppose him
just makes me like him more.
Click to expand...

Very interesting. I like seeing the thoughts of a former Paul supporter and your reasons for who you are now backing. I think Cruz is going to have a better than expected showing here today. We don't have a lot of Evangelicals in NH but we have a lot of people who think exactly as you do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom