PDA

View Full Version : Sportsbook.com upgrades Ron Paul's odds.


Taco John
08-09-2007, 03:35 PM
Three months ago, he was listed at 200-1. Recently, they upgraded him to 15-1. As of today, he is now getting 8-1 odds, equal to Mitt Romney.


Here are how they have the major candidates listed:


Hillary 2-1
Rudy 3-1
Obama 7-2
Fred Thompson 4-1
McCain 5-1
Edwards 6-1
Gore 6-1
Romney 8-1
Ron Paul 8-1
Bloomberg 15-1
Brownback 25-1
Richardson 50-1
Huckabee 50-1
Tancredo 100-1
Gravel 100-1


http://205.134.167.60/lines/lines.cgi?device=browser&site=sbcom1&sport=754

Jenson71
08-09-2007, 03:37 PM
Obama behind McCain, Gore, and Edwards is surprising.

Taco John
08-09-2007, 03:44 PM
Obama behind McCain, Gore, and Edwards is surprising.



Actually, I just corrected that... 7:2 is essentially 3.5:1

He's just behind Rudy.

noa
08-09-2007, 03:45 PM
I'm surprised they have McCain rated so highly.
And at this point, I would put 2-1 odds on Rudy getting the nod.

BIG_DADDY
08-09-2007, 03:51 PM
Best odds there are Edwards

Jenson71
08-09-2007, 03:55 PM
Actually, I just corrected that... 7:2 is essentially 3.5:1

He's just behind Rudy.
:doh!: I should have looked a bit more closely.

Cochise
08-09-2007, 03:58 PM
Rudy 2-1
Hillary 3-1
Obama 4-1
Fred Thompson 4-1
Romney 7-1
Edwards 10-1
Ron Paul 12-1
McCain 13-1
Gore 20-1
Bloomberg 20-1
All others - 50+ -1

banyon
08-09-2007, 04:18 PM
Rudy 2-1
Hillary 3-1
Obama 4-1
Fred Thompson 4-1
Romney 7-1
Edwards 10-1
Ron Paul 12-1
McCain 13-1
Gore 20-1
Bloomberg 20-1
All others - 50+ -1

Wow, ahead of McCain. Looks like the wheels on the "Straight Talk Express" have rusted and fallen off.

Cochise
08-09-2007, 04:26 PM
Wow, ahead of McCain. Looks like the wheels on the "Straight Talk Express" have rusted and fallen off.

He was dead in the water when he signed on for that immigration bill.

He would have won in 2000 if he could have beaten Bush, now he couldn't get elected dogcatcher in a Republican town.

Taco John
08-09-2007, 04:27 PM
I'd bet McCain would make a terrible dog catcher.

Chief Henry
08-09-2007, 05:16 PM
Where's Duncan Hunter of California ?

banyon
08-09-2007, 09:14 PM
Whoa :eek: I didn't know it was this bad:

McCain drops below Obama among Iowa Republicans
Posted August 9th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/12484.html

Less than a month ago, with his campaign in free-fall, John McCainís presidential campaign circulated talking points to supporters, explaining the skeleton of the senatorís comeback plan. In a nutshell, the strategy was premised on McCain excelling in three early-voting states: Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.

Success in these three states would get McCain back on track, and victory would beget more victory. The plan looks a little shaky in light of the senatorís wholesale collapse in Iowa.

[A] new University of Iowa poll finds that McCain is at all of three percent in that state. Incredibly, this onetime presumed frontrunner is behind even Sam Brownback and Tom Tancredo, who each have four percent.

Meanwhile, Mitt Romney leads the field with 27%, followed by Rudy Giuliani at 11%. And in third place is Fred Thompson ó who only just recently announced that he would be making his first visit to the state.

Taking a closer look at the numbers, one other important tidbit jumped out at me. Respondents to the University of Iowa poll were asked an open-ended question: name the candidate they support for president in the 2008 election. They could name any candidate from either party, and were not offered choices.

Among Republicans who said they were caucus goers, itís Romney 27% (up from 17% in March), Giuliani 11% (down from 20%), Thompson 6.5% (up from 1.5%), Brownback 4.2%, Tancredo 4.2%, and McCain 3.2% (down from 21%).

But the poll also gauged support among registered Iowa Republicans, whether theyíre planning to participate in the caucuses or not. And thatís where it gets ugly.


The changes among Republican voters since March are dramatic. Romney is now the preferred candidate at 21.8 percent ó double his March support.

Giulianiís support, 10 percent, decreased by almost 8.5 percent. McCainís support has collapsed in Iowa. His support among registered Republicans dropped from 14.4 percent in March to 1.8 percent in July-August. UI political scientists note that McCain has been passed in popularity not only by former Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn., who earned 5.2 percent support, but also by a Democratic challenger, Obama, who is supported by 6.7 percent of Republicans. No other candidate received more than 3 percent support. (emphasis added)

Think about that for a moment. Among Iowa Republicans, McCain has fallen behind Obama? And Iowa is the key to McCainís comeback plan?

wazu
08-09-2007, 09:45 PM
I am skeptical about this. Vegas usually wants half the money on one side of a bet, and half the money on the other. Ron Paul supporters are pretty passionate, and I wouldn't be surprised if there are a lot of "homer" bets running up the money on the "Ron Paul wins" side.

wazu
08-09-2007, 09:47 PM
Here's an idea. Let's all bet AGAINST Ron Paul. After all, if he actually wins he'll put an end to income taxes, so we'll all get rich either way.

banyon
08-09-2007, 10:03 PM
Could someone explain this "abolish the IRS" idea?

Paul's Website says that he wants lower taxes (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/debt-and-taxes/), but I don't see anything about no taxes.

Is he a Fair Tax guy?

How are we supposed to fund for even our defense if we have neither?
He appears to be for border control, but if we aren't paying taxes will it be all volunteers and barbwire?

Are there any other successful civilizations in history which had no mechanism to collect money centrally that were able to prosper?

Wouldn't it be a better idea to try this on a state or two (using the "testing marketplace of Federalism" to see how these policies might affect things?

Seriously, I respect Dr. Paul for his faithfulness to his ideals, and I share some of them. I don't see him winning my vote (Although I'd prefer him to HRC), but I'm always for the free exchamge of ideas. If this has been explained in this forum before, I'm sorry but I guess I must've missed it.

wazu
08-09-2007, 10:10 PM
Could someone explain this "abolish the IRS" idea?

Paul's Website says that he wants lower taxes (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/debt-and-taxes/), but I don't see anything about no taxes.

Is he a Fair Tax guy?

How are we supposed to fund for even our defense if we have neither?
He appears to be for border control, but if we aren't paying taxes will it be all volunteers and barbwire?

Are there any other successful civilizations in history which had no mechanism to collect money centrally that were able to prosper?

Wouldn't it be a better idea to try this on a state or two (using the "testing marketplace of Federalism" to see how these policies might affect things?

Seriously, I respect Dr. Paul for his faithfulness to his ideals, and I share some of them. I don't see him winning my vote (Although I'd prefer him to HRC), but I'm always for the free exchamge of ideas. If this has been explained in this forum before, I'm sorry but I guess I must've missed it.


Here's how I understand it:

1. Roll spending back to what it was in 2000. The gap between then and now in spending is equal to what the government brings in via personal income tax today.

2. Eliminate all personal income tax.

Taco John
08-09-2007, 10:13 PM
Ron Paul says that he'd vote in favor of the Fair Tax, despite some reservations he has about it. He's against income tax. because he says it's counter to the concept of liberty. He says that when the government takes money that we've earned based on our labor, that isn't freedom. That's a form of slavery. We don't inherently owe the government the fruits of our labor.

Ron Paul is in favor of a consumption tax, but he is doing everything he can to move us away from an income tax. The other key thing is that Ron Paul wants to reduce government spending so that the government doesn't have to collect as much.

Here's an interview with him in which he discusses his economic ideas in some depth:
Ron Paul Economics 101 (http://ronpaulaudio.com/rpaudio/RonPaulMikeMaloneyGoldSilver.com060707.mp3)

banyon
08-09-2007, 10:19 PM
Here's how I understand it:

1. Roll spending back to what it was in 1999. The gap between then and now in spending is equal to what the government brings in via personal income tax today.

2. Eliminate all personal income tax.

So there would still be a centralized agency to collect then?

All of these taxes would still be in play, then?: Corporate/Excise/Cap Gains/Social Security and Medicare Taxes/sales taxes/State & City Income taxes/ Property Taxes/ Telecommunications Taxes/...etc?

Just like when W cut the taxes in 01' & 03', why wouldn't the vast majority of the benefit of these cuts go to those who pay the most (the very wealthy)?

BucEyedPea
08-09-2007, 10:20 PM
Ron Paul's stand is that we can't reduce taxes without reducing govt.
He is however, a gradualist.

I was told by the ED of the Fair Tax, who I am personally acquainted with on June 22 that Paul would sign the Fair Tax because I asked him. That won't be on Paul's site and nor any other candidate who supports it (Edwards is one) will.

Ultimately, Paul would like to not have an IRS or an income tax system to fund govt. So he is for reducing govt in order to do this and then would use other ways to raise revenue.

Also, since this has come up some progressives say he will take away granny's ss in a heartbeat. Not so. Ultimately, Paul would do away with a ss but he also feels those who paid into have a right to their money and it's a contract with the govt. He is FOR allowing young people to opt out of ss and take that money to put toward their own security as a way of phasing it out. He is also one of the only politicians who has voted to not raid the ss box. So he has protected ss more than the others in actual practice.

He probably is not your guy,though banyon. He's for a lot less govt than you'd want including regulation of business. However, he would not favor and give perks to them or allow them to use the govt for unearned advantages either or pass laws that let them bar entry into markets to cut down thier competition.

banyon
08-09-2007, 10:24 PM
Ron Paul says that he'd vote in favor of the Fair Tax, despite some reservations he has about it. He's against income tax. because he says it's counter to the concept of liberty. He says that when the government takes money that we've earned based on our labor, that isn't freedom. That's a form of slavery. We don't inherently owe the government the fruits of our labor.

Ron Paul is in favor of a consumption tax, but he is doing everything he can to move us away from an income tax. The other key thing is that Ron Paul wants to reduce government spending so that the government doesn't have to collect as much.

Here's an interview with him in which he discusses his economic ideas in some depth:
Ron Paul Economics 101 (http://ronpaulaudio.com/rpaudio/RonPaulMikeMaloneyGoldSilver.com060707.mp3)

That audio is pretty long TJ. I'll listen to it this weekend.

BucEyedPea
08-09-2007, 10:25 PM
sales taxes/State & City Income taxes/ Property Taxes/ Telecommunications Taxes/...etc?
I don't know about the telecommunications tax but I don't see what any of the others above have to do with the Federal Govt. I'd say Paul wouldn't touch those as their state or city issues.

You're not his public banyon.
I don't want you to vote for him.
Don't please don't.

But he is really the only candidate that will end this madness called the WoT and Iraq and there will be no war with Iran. ( unless they blatently start one).

wazu
08-09-2007, 10:26 PM
Just like when W cut the taxes in 01' & 03', why wouldn't the vast majority of the benefit of these cuts go to those who pay the most (the very wealthy)?

Of course. If you drop the income tax to zero for everybody, logically those who pay the most will benefit the most financially.

However, I would say that middle class win the most. I don't know about you, but just about everything in my paycheck is consumed by bills. That check hits the bank and it's gone in a flash. A 25% or so pay raise would improve my quality of life greatly, cause I need the money. I'm not going to whine and cry cause some richer guy is experiencing the same kind of financial freedom that I am. I'll be glad we both live in a country where we have a right to keep the money we earn.

banyon
08-09-2007, 10:27 PM
Ron Paul's stand is that we can't reduce taxes without reducing govt.
He is however, a gradualist.

I was told by the ED of the Fair Tax, who I am personally acquainted with on June 22 that Paul would sign the Fair Tax because I asked him. That won't be on Paul's site and nor any other candidate who supports it (Edwards is one) will.

Ultimately, Paul would like to not have an IRS or an income tax system to fund govt. So he is for reducing govt in order to do this and then would use other ways to raise revenue.

Also, since this has come up some progressives say he will take away granny's ss in a heartbeat. Not so. Ultimately, Paul would do away with a ss but he also feels those who paid into have a right to their money and it's a contract with the govt. He is FOR allowing young people to opt out of ss and take that money to put toward their own security as a way of phasing it out. He is also one of the only politicians who has voted to not raid the ss box. So he has protected ss more than the others in actual practice.

He probably is not your guy,though banyon. He's for a lot less govt than you'd want including regulation of business. However, he would not favor and give perks to them or allow them to use the govt for unearned advantages either or pass laws that let them bar entry into markets to cut down thier competition.

You and I have gone around and around on these issues, so I tried to pose a couple of new questions for you. I think you addressed all of them save this one:

Wouldn't it be a better idea to try this on a state or two (using the "testing marketplace of Federalism" to see how these policies might affect things?

I'd be curious to hear your response. Also I guess when I see Dr. Paul's Billboards say "Abolish the IRS" that seems to imply something of a different kind than "Replace the IRS/Reform the IRS" which sounds like his actual current policy preference.

BucEyedPea
08-09-2007, 10:35 PM
You and I have gone around and around on these issues, so I tried to pose a couple of new questions for you. I think you addressed all of them save this one:
I'd be curious to hear your response. Also I guess when I see Dr. Paul's Billboards say "Abolish the IRS" that seems to imply something of a different kind than "Replace the IRS/Reform the IRS" which sounds like his actual current policy preference.
Well he isn't for "reforming" the IRS. He's for abolishing it.
It's a suppressive anti-liberty agency for a free country.

I know we've gone round on those issues. I was just splainin' where he was on them. You can see why I like him. I don't feel he'll get everything with the other branches of govt.

Originally Posted by banyon
Wouldn't it be a better idea to try this on a state or two (using the "testing marketplace of Federalism" to see how these policies might affect things?
Try what on a state or two? The Fair Tax? What?

I don't know if some of the things mentioned would indicate things on a limited amount of states. Some of it is generational. FP, the Prez, main area would not make any sense.

The issue with Paul is the flagrant falling away from Constitutional spending and issues. I can see, how a progressive, would view it from more a "what would happen" viewpoint but his viewpoint isn't based on that idea.

banyon
08-09-2007, 10:36 PM
Of course. If you drop the income tax to zero for everybody, logically those who pay the most will benefit the most financially.

However, I would say that middle class win the most. I don't know about you, but just about everything in my paycheck is consumed by bills. That check hits the bank and it's gone in a flash. A 25% or so pay raise would improve my quality of life greatly, cause I need the money. I'm not going to whine and cry cause some richer guy is experiencing the same kind of financial freedom that I am. I'll be glad we both live in a country where we have a right to keep the money we earn.

I think that trusting the large MNC's which control most of the products in our economy these days not to exploit this sales tax and do a costs-plus type accounting and pass on extra costs is a mistake.

When Bush passed his tax cuts, Unemployment went from 4.2% in 2001 to 6.3% in June 2003, dropping to its current rate of 4.5%. I always hear that freeing up more capital for investors results in more and better jobs for Americans. I don't believe that for a second anymore. The corporations and wealthy these days will just take their extra $ and invest it overseas where they can reap even greater profits because of the cheap labor. There might be some kind of minor 2-3 year bump in service/retail sectors because people will have more $ to spend in consumption arenas. It might also temporarily help with the "Subprime" Mortgage bubble since people would have more $ to pay for their mortgage notes.

And I know that many are eager to cut government spending, but many of those services are for the poorest among us (who pay no taxes anyway and already receive the EITC). I think many states would just pass corresponding increases in state income taxes to restore the services which the Feds bailed out on.

P.S. Does this help us pay off the debt at all? What happens when the Chinese come to collect (which they have recently threatened).

As long as our trade policy and immigration policies are f***ed, I don't think this reform will net the average middle class family much at all.

banyon
08-09-2007, 10:41 PM
Well he isn't for "reforming" the IRS. He's for abolishing it.
It's a suppressive anti-liberty agency for a free country.

I know we've gone round on those issues. I was just splainin' where he was on them. You can see why I like him. I don't feel he'll get everything with the other branches of govt.

I would say that replacing one tax with another and calling it an "abolishment" or a "reform/replacement" is a distinction without a difference. I also think the word "abolish" implies that he will replace it with nothing. (Didn't I hear him say that someplace?)


Try what on a state or two? The Fair Tax? What?

Both, either the Fair tax or what Adam said? Why shouldn't we test such a radical reform to see if there are any unintended consequences first since we can?

The issue with Paul is the flagrant falling away from Constitutional spending and issues. I can see, how a progressive, would view it from more a "what would happen" viewpoint but his viewpoint isn't based on that idea.

I would think that a nation that ignores the consequences of its actions does so at its own peril (see the current President for an example).

Cochise
08-09-2007, 10:43 PM
But he is really the only candidate that will end this madness called the WoT and Iraq and there will be no war with Iran. ( unless they blatently start one).

The chances of us conflicting with Iran might go down in the short term, but I think they would go up in the long term. I don't think you can say that they wouldn't be more bold with a white house that was more adverse to use force.

With the leadership's attitudes toward Israel being what they are, and then certainly being nuclear capable, the keg would blow sooner or later. Maybe we'd choose it ignore it, I guess.

BucEyedPea
08-09-2007, 10:43 PM
And I know that many are eager to cut government spending, but many of those services are for the poorest among us (who pay no taxes anyway and already receive the EITC). I think many states would just pass corresponding increases in state income taxes to restore the services which the Feds bailed out on.
Once again, he's a gradualist. If it makes you feel better, his viewpoint is that inflation is a hidden tax which hurts poor people.

P.S. Does this help us pay off the debt at all? What happens when the Chinese come to collect (which they have recently threatened).
I would think reducing govt would help with that. I don't know if he has specifically addressed that.

As long as our trade policy and immigration policies are f***ed, I don't think this reform will net the average middle class family much at all.
Well you would like him on these issues. He was on Lou Dobbs discussing this. Paul is not a protectionist, but he is for abolishing Nafta. He's also against borderless immigration for cheap labor. He is the best candidate on illegal immigration...and of course that plays into Nafta which he's against.

BucEyedPea
08-09-2007, 10:50 PM
I would say that replacing one tax with another and calling it an "abolishment" or a "reform/replacement" is a distinction without a difference. I also think the word "abolish" implies that he will replace it with nothing. (Didn't I hear him say that someplace?)
That line is on some of his materials. Your observation is correct. That's where he'd like to ultimately go. That libertarian right there. He just knows it can't happen overnight as it took decades to get where we are.

Both, either the Fair tax or what Adam said? Why shouldn't we test such a radical reform to see if there are any unintended consequences first since we can?
How could you do this though? It don't think you could do that on a few states because it's a national tax. You could try it for a few years perhaps.There have been unintended conequences from a progressive income tax too but I don't think that would be yourpov on it. Paul's message is liberty not engineering the country for equality. You're not his public, banyon. You and Paul are polar opposites.

banyon
08-09-2007, 10:56 PM
That line is on some of his materials. Your observation is correct. That's where he'd like to ultimately go. That libertarian right there. He just knows it can't happen overnight as it took decades to get where we are.


How could you do this though? It don't think you could do that on a few states because it's a national tax. You could try it for a few years perhaps.There have been unintended conequences from a progressive income tax too but I don't think that would be yourpov on it.

Yes, but we have many years of data to tell us those effects. I may be mistaken, but weren't there progressive state income taxes prior to the National version? Also I don't see any reason why we couldn't let a few states opt out of Federal matching funds for a lot of things and then rescind their personal income tax. There might be some problems proving residency, but I think that issue could be cleared up.

Paul's message is liberty not engineering the country for equality. You're not his public, banyon. You and Paul are polar opposites.

Is it disturbing to you that I share some of his policy goals and attitudes on issues? Dick Cheney is my polar opposite and I think patteeu can vouch for that.

BucEyedPea
08-09-2007, 10:57 PM
The chances of us conflicting with Iran might go down in the short term, but I think they would go up in the long term. I don't think you can say that they wouldn't be more bold with a white house that was more adverse to use force.

With the leadership's attitudes toward Israel being what they are, and then certainly being nuclear capable, the keg would blow sooner or later. Maybe we'd choose it ignore it, I guess.
Now, see, this is where you and I have a totally different read on the situation.
Iran is being made out to be everything Iraq was by the same folks. Ya' know "birth pangs of a new ME" talk. That's social engineering and nation building on a grand scale. The thing is you believe them, when their credibility is shot with me. I feel your being manipulated by the Bush administration. I think religious folks trust him because he's one of their own. I say he's an apostate Christian though. Bearing false witness etc.

BucEyedPea
08-09-2007, 11:02 PM
Is it disturbing to you that I share some of his policy goals and attitudes on issues? Dick Cheney is my polar opposite and I think patteeu can vouch for that.
Well, I don't really understand why you asking me that. :huh:

Of course I don't find it disturbing...I knew you would agree on those issues and not the others. I just think except for those few issues, you prefer a more activist govt. Paul is not in that mold was all I was saying.

I really don't know how he'd handle matching funds. My guess is that we would end a lot of mandates on the states. Again, he'd be a gradualist. That right there may just get you where you want to go for testing things. Okay?

banyon
08-09-2007, 11:04 PM
Well, I don't really understand why you asking me that. :huh:

Of course I don't find it disturbing...I knew you would agree on those issues and not the others. I just think except for those few issues, you prefer a more activist govt. Paul is not in that mold was all I was saying.

I really don't know how he'd handle matching funds. My guess is that we would end a lot of mandates on the states. Again, he'd be a gradualist. That right there may just get you where you want to go for testing things. Okay?

I made that statement because of your "Polar opposite" comment. You usually have too much respect for the connotations of phrases and words to be so imprecise with it. (*edit* besides the word "socialist" I guess). Do you believe that there is no difference between "progressive" and "liberal"?

BucEyedPea
08-09-2007, 11:28 PM
I made that statement because of your "Polar opposite" comment. You usually have too much respect for the connotations of phrases and words to be so imprecise with it. (*edit* besides the word "socialist" I guess). Do you believe that there is no difference between "progressive" and "liberal"?
No, by "polar opposite" I simply meant you and Paul are at opposite ends of the spectrum overall, which I feel is the case. I'm not saying it as a put down that's just how I see you too.

Do I believe there is no difference between liberal and progressive? I didn't until I saw a post of yours regarding jaz early on when I first came here. I saw your post where you said: "this is why I'm not a liberal but a progressive." Or some such. I got curious about that so I googled it. It's not a huge difference, but those two are closer to each other, than say someone like Paul even if Paul can appeal to some on the left on other issues.

Generally, those words have relative meaning/ I mean some libertarians claim to be progressive, but I don't think you'd find that to be so. I guess it depend on what you are progressing towards and how one defines liberty.

wazu
08-10-2007, 12:03 AM
I would say that replacing one tax with another and calling it an "abolishment" or a "reform/replacement" is a distinction without a difference. I also think the word "abolish" implies that he will replace it with nothing. (Didn't I hear him say that someplace?)

I'm guessing you have signatures turned off.

Taco John
08-10-2007, 01:43 AM
"Deficits mean future tax increases, pure and simple. Deficit spending should be viewed as a tax on future generations, and politicians who create deficits should be exposed as tax hikers."


""By the way, when I say cut taxes, I don't mean fiddle with the code. I mean abolish the income tax and the IRS, and replace them with nothing."



-Ron Paul





Could Ron Paul Really Abolish the IRS?


One of the reasons Ron Paul is gaining such enthusiastic support is that he is the only major party candidate calling for significant change. Besides withdrawing from Iraq, instituting a more sensible foreign policy, and reinstating our fundamental Constitutional freedoms, Ron Paul is also calling for substantial reductions in federal spending, enough to eventually end the income tax and abolish the Internal Revenue Service.

But how realistic is that goal? How would the government be able to operate without income taxes? Ron Paul points out that the federal government did just fine for the first 137 years of its existence without the income tax, which wasn't enacted until 1913. But federal spending has gone up a lot since then, so where would the reductions come from?

Ron Paul has not yet published a detailed plan, but has stated several ideas in the debates and other speeches. Withdrawing US forces from Iraq and other countries around the world would save close to $200 billion per year. Closing down the departments of Education ($56B), Energy ($23B), and Homeland Security ($32B), and ending foreign aid ($26B), could save well more than $100 billion annually. In his speech announcing his presidential bid, Ron Paul said that no real fiscal conservative could doubt that federal spending could be reduced by at least 25 percent, so expect further across-the-board budget cuts.

We may have to wait for specific proposals, but a few key facts are worth noting. In Fiscal Year 2007, individual income taxes amounted to $1.17 trillion, just 42% of the total federal outlays of $2.78 trillion. Abolishing the individual income tax would not destroy the federal government, it would only force a reduction in spending levels back to FY1997, hardly the era of small government, when the total federal budget was $1.60 trillion. In other words, we could have ALREADY abolished the income tax, if Congress and the President hadn't increased spending by 74 percent in the past ten years.

Of course, the preceding argument ignores the deficit, projected at $240 billion for FY2007. Without the individual income tax, total federal receipts would have been $1.37 trillion, requiring a reduction in spending back to FY1992 levels to balance the budget, but again, hardly the days of the robber barons and widespread starvation. Americans concerned about Social Security or Medicare payments being adversely affected by the elimination of the income tax needn't worry -- both programs are funded by FICA payroll taxes, not by federal income taxes.

Another objection often raised is the idea that only a portion of the federal budget ($854 billion in FY2007) consists of "discretionary spending," while the rest is "mandatory." These terms and the amounts are not set in stone, however, and are simply the results of existing federal law. Congress can change those laws at any time, and redefine what is "discretionary" and what is "mandatory."

Where does the rest of the federal government's revenue come from? For FY2007, corporate income taxes amounted to $342 billion, payroll (FICA) taxes brought in $873 billion, federal excise taxes totaled $56 billion, and $99 billion was labeled "other" -- consisting of estate and gift taxes ($25B), customs duties and fees ($27B), Federal Reserve deposits ($33B), and miscellaneous ($14B). Even without the individual income tax, the federal government's revenue would still be enormous.

Would Congress go along with Ron Paul's plans to cut spending significantly? If Ron Paul is elected President in 2008, it will be a clear signal that the American people want dramatic changes, including substantial tax and spending cuts. Since the primary objective of most politicians is to stay in office, those who are most adept at judging the public mood shouldn't take too long to figure that out. And the changes don't need to be pushed through in the first 100 days, or even the first year.

Simply by holding the line on spending, President Paul could gradually eliminate the income tax while in office. Federal receipts from sources other than individual income taxes have gone up by 44 percent in the past eight years. A similar increase over two terms of the Paul Administration, coupled with the savings from a non-interventionist foreign policy, could be enough to free Americans from the income tax forever, and secure Ron Paul's place in history.

Source: Historical Tables (pdf), Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2008

http://paul4prez.blogspot.com/2007/07/could-ron-paul-really-abolish-irs.html

cookster50
08-10-2007, 07:11 AM
Of course. If you drop the income tax to zero for everybody, logically those who pay the most will benefit the most financially.

However, I would say that middle class win the most. I don't know about you, but just about everything in my paycheck is consumed by bills. That check hits the bank and it's gone in a flash. A 25% or so pay raise would improve my quality of life greatly, cause I need the money. I'm not going to whine and cry cause some richer guy is experiencing the same kind of financial freedom that I am. I'll be glad we both live in a country where we have a right to keep the money we earn.
It wouldn't be a pay raise because the taxes on every good and service would then skyrocket. This is like the minimum wage argument. Minimum wage workers want a higher wage so they can buy more, but when you hike up the minimum wage, the cost of goods and services increases and you don't end up getting ahead. I don't see how abolishing the income tax and replacing it with sales tax is going to help. Although on second thought, it kind of makes sense, the ultimate "use" tax. However, I can only see this as hurting poor people since pretty much all of the paycheck of a "poor" person goes to paying bills, while a "rich" person doesn't spend everything they earn.

cookster50
08-10-2007, 07:16 AM
""By the way, when I say cut taxes, I don't mean fiddle with the code. I mean abolish the income tax and the IRS, and replace them with nothing."



-Ron Paul

http://paul4prez.blogspot.com/2007/07/could-ron-paul-really-abolish-irs.html


Looks like I should have read the entire thread before posting :)

Anyway, the argument that reducing spending to a 1992 or 1997 level is crap. It doesn't take into account inflation and the increased costs from those days. You can't get the same bang for the buck now.

Schools already have a tough time getting funding, abolishing the D of Edumagation would cause states to increase taxes.

banyon
08-10-2007, 09:05 AM
I'm guessing you have signatures turned off.

Nah, I'm just very unobservant. :D

BucEyedPea
08-10-2007, 09:32 AM
Anyway, the argument that reducing spending to a 1992 or 1997 level is crap. It doesn't take into account inflation and the increased costs from those days. You can't get the same bang for the buck now.
That's another problem in itself and people are noticing it despite the claim inflation is low. But this relates to debt as well, as the debt is being monetarized via inflation. So cutting spending should help with that.

[Schools already have a tough time getting funding, abolishing the D of Edumagation would cause states to increase taxes.

This is funny. Billions have been poured into education. But education money from the fed govt is about 7% of their budgets. Very small. However, there's a catch which is through that 7% the feds control what a local school does and they have to do these things to get that money. That's were most of the experimental and pc junk come from....and these things are not improving education at all and in many cases are making it worse because it doesn't really focus on academics as much as shaping social viewpoints. The decline of education is date coincident to the first federal funds to education in 1966. The graph begins its decline then. Not to mention that even having a Dept of Ed is unconstitutional.

Taco John
08-10-2007, 01:18 PM
Anyway, the argument that reducing spending to a 1992 or 1997 level is crap. It doesn't take into account inflation and the increased costs from those days. You can't get the same bang for the buck now.





Actually, Ron Paul does take in account for inflation. His position is that it is the government's duty to provide a stable currency that retains its value. His position is that the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional, and the source of our inflation problems. Ron Paul would like to eliminate inflation by moving the US back to the gold standard. Here is a speech by Ron Paul on the subject:

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm

banyon
08-10-2007, 01:27 PM
Actually, Ron Paul does take in account for inflation. His position is that it is the government's duty to provide a stable currency that retains its value. His position is that the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional, and the source of our inflation problems. Ron Paul would like to eliminate inflation by moving the US back to the gold standard. Here is a speech by Ron Paul on the subject:

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm

These are the kind of explanations that make me wonder how sound the theory really is behind these ideas. The Fed was established in 1913 and this post states that it is the "source" of our inflation problems. Then it also says we will eliminate inflation by going to the gold standard which was done in the early 70's by Nixon IIRC.

Also, Countries on the gold standard don't have inflation?

Taco John
08-10-2007, 02:08 PM
Also, Countries on the gold standard don't have inflation?



THe Austrian School of Economics contend that inflation is caused by an increase in the supply of money without an increase in the supply of that which backs that money. What is a dollar if it's not a claim to property? Printing claims to property without increasing the supply of that property to back those claims, creates a devaluation of those claims, thus creating inflation.


Countries on a gold standard have inflation if they over-print the currency that the gold is backing.

Taco John
08-10-2007, 02:18 PM
Then it also says we will eliminate inflation by going to the gold standard which was done in the early 70's by Nixon IIRC.



This is incorrect. In fact, you've got it exactly wrong. Nixon eliminated the gold standard (http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/01-08-99.html). It was only supposed to be temporary, but you know how "temporary" situations go when government is involved.

Cochise
08-10-2007, 10:41 PM
Now, see, this is where you and I have a totally different read on the situation.
Iran is being made out to be everything Iraq was by the same folks. Ya' know "birth pangs of a new ME" talk. That's social engineering and nation building on a grand scale. The thing is you believe them, when their credibility is shot with me. I feel your being manipulated by the Bush administration. I think religious folks trust him because he's one of their own. I say he's an apostate Christian though. Bearing false witness etc.

Where do you think they are going? Do you think that Iran intends to sit inside their borders and play nice? Especially if no world power would be willing to confront them?

War begins when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap.

banyon
08-10-2007, 10:50 PM
This is incorrect. In fact, you've got it exactly wrong. Nixon eliminated the gold standard (http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/01-08-99.html). It was only supposed to be temporary, but you know how "temporary" situations go when government is involved.

Yeah, I guess I mistyped that post in a confusing way. I know Nixon got us off the gold standard.

My point was that you blamed inflation and penned the solution to it on two events that happened at two very distinct historical times. Is it the Fed's fault or is it the no gold standard's fault?

Fishpicker
08-10-2007, 11:49 PM
My point was that you blamed inflation and penned the solution to it on two events that happened at two very distinct historical times. Is it the Fed's fault or is it the no gold standard's fault?



that is when the IMF took over (central banking) too. the Bretton Woods agreement worked ok for us but left developing countries in the dust.

inflation took off in the following decade. inflation data 1972-1983 (http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/HistoricalInflation.aspx?dsInflation_currentPage=2)

returning to a gold standard wont solve anything so long as the central bank cartels run the Fed. the federal government should be put back in charge of the money supply.

jAZ
08-10-2007, 11:55 PM
Hillary 2-1
Rudy 3-1
Obama 7-2
Fred Thompson 4-1
McCain 5-1
Edwards 6-1
Gore 6-1
Romney 8-1
Ron Paul 8-1

I think Hillary hurt herself recently with her attack on Obama for "taking nukes off the table" commentary.

She opened herself up to a "how can we trust Hillary with Nukes... she doesn't know what she believes" attack during the general election with this following...

http://news.bostonherald.com/politics/view.bg?articleid=1016257

Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton, who chastised rival Barack Obama for ruling out the use of nuclear weapons in the war on terror, did just that when asked about Iran a year ago.

"I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table," she said in April 2006.

Her views expressed while she was gearing up for a presidential run stand in conflict with her comments this month regarding Obama, who faced heavy criticism from leaders of both parties, including Clinton, after saying it would be "a profound mistake" to deploy nuclear weapons in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

"Thereís been no discussion of nuclear weapons. Thatís not on the table," he said.

Clinton, who has tried to cast her rival as too inexperienced for the job of commander in chief, said of Obamaís stance on Pakistan: "I donít believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons."

But thatís exactly what she did in an interview with Bloomberg Television in April 2006. The New York senator, a member of the Armed Services committee, was asked about reports that the Bush administration was considering military intervention - possibly even a nuclear strike - to prevent Iran from escalating its nuclear program.

"I have said publicly no option should be off the table, but I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table," Clinton said. "This administration has been very willing to talk about using nuclear weapons in a way we havenít seen since the dawn of a nuclear age. I think thatís a terrible mistake."

I think a GOP attack about not trusting Hillary with nukes based on this "flip-flop" could really stick on her in a general election.

patteeu
08-11-2007, 12:57 AM
Three months ago, he was listed at 200-1. Recently, they upgraded him to 15-1. As of today, he is now getting 8-1 odds, equal to Mitt Romney.


Here are how they have the major candidates listed:


Hillary 2-1
Rudy 3-1
Obama 7-2
Fred Thompson 4-1
McCain 5-1
Edwards 6-1
Gore 6-1
Romney 8-1
Ron Paul 8-1
Bloomberg 15-1
Brownback 25-1
Richardson 50-1
Huckabee 50-1
Tancredo 100-1
Gravel 100-1


http://205.134.167.60/lines/lines.cgi?device=browser&site=sbcom1&sport=754


Based on those odds, I think Romney is the place to put your money.