Politics

[wizards8507]

On foreign policy, he definitely does.

Fair. My boy Ron certainly doesn't.

Ron Paul: Crimea secedes. So what?

 

[RDU Irish]

Thanks Whiskey, good read.

My favorite quote from the article. “Rand came here not to be something but to do things.”

If you want to dance, you gotta pay the band.

I think he could be very effective at navigating the art of the possible and moving things in a particular philosophical direction. Something I don't think his dad could ever do.

Being right doesn't count for shit if you can't build any consensus.

 

[chicago51]

The New Republic just published an article comparing Cruz and Paul. Might of be interest to those debating his electoral prospects.

I figured I weigh in on Rand Paul since everyone else is.

I don't think he is a bad choice for the GOP.

I'm a big fan of his stance on drones, government surveillance, less hawkish foreign policy, his reforming prison sentencing, legalizing pot, and his calling out corruption in government.

Rand voted against the bank bailout and although he doesn't support breaking up the banks he has talked about other ways to limit their size. A view I don't find totally repulsive.

He had an idea for reducing inner city poverty which didn't suck. Basically areas identified as troubled economic neighborhoods he would give special tax status to businesses that locate in those areas. An idea Barack Obama has copied and came out in support of.

I'm totally against his idea of a flat tax especially that even with progressive taxation because of FICA taxes, local sales tax, and preferential treatment of high income capital gains and special interest tax loopholes middle class end up paying higher effective tax rates than the super rich. I think a better policy for cutting taxes (if that is what you want to do) would be to would be to cut taxes across the board by the same percentage and close tax loopholes for special interests and the super rich instead of broadening the tax base (which is code for shrink tax rates on rich people and not on middle class families).

I probably wouldn't vote him for because he just isn't progressive on economic issues and I think his economic plan would only making things even better for the rich and wouldn't do much to help working families and not all that much for small business either.

He isn't a bad candidate though by any means.

I think he'd have some cross over appeal.

Most importantly he is someone that is actually talking about problems. I don't agree with all his solutions but he is the only Republican that I know that is actually is discussing real problems in America.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

I really like Rand Paul, but to be honest, he's going to have to dial-down the twang. Every Republican candidate since Nixon gets skewered in the media as either an entitled jerk or an idiot. If he doesn't do something with that Southern dialect he'll get eaten alive.

 

[wizards8507]

I figured I weigh in on Rand Paul since everyone else is.

I don't think he is a bad choice for the GOP.

I'm a big fan of his stance on drones, government surveillance, less hawkish foreign policy, his reforming prison sentencing, legalizing pot, and his calling out corruption in government.

Rand voted against the bank bailout and although he doesn't support breaking up the banks he has talked about other ways to limit their size. A view I don't find totally repulsive.

He had an idea for reducing inner city poverty which didn't suck. Basically areas identified as troubled economic neighborhoods he would give special tax status to businesses that locate in those areas. An idea Barack Obama has copied and came out in support of.

I'm totally against his idea of a flat tax especially that even with progressive taxation because of FICA taxes, local sales tax, and preferential treatment of high income capital gains and special interest tax loopholes middle class end up paying higher effective tax rates than the super rich. I think a better policy for cutting taxes (if that is what you want to do) would be to would be to cut taxes across the board by the same percentage and close tax loopholes for special interests and the super rich instead of broadening the tax base (which is code for shrink tax rates on rich people and not on middle class families).

I probably wouldn't vote him for because he just isn't progressive on economic issues and I think his economic plan would only making things even better for the rich and wouldn't do much to help working families and not all that much for small business either.

He isn't a bad candidate though by any means.

I think he'd have some cross over appeal.

Most importantly he is someone that is actually talking about problems. I don't agree with all his solutions but he is the only Republican that I know that is actually is discussing real problems in America.

Good post overall, but the bolded simply isn't true. Low-income earners pay 0% on long-term capital gains, while higher-income earners pay 15% (not to mention the fact they they already paid 35% on those same dollars when they earned them the first time). Also, the "tax loopholes" people like to complain about are things like student loan interest deductions and home mortgage interest deductions, "loopholes" that benefit the middle class much more than the "super rich."

 

[GoIrish41]

I really like Rand Paul, but to be honest, he's going to have to dial-down the twang. Every Republican candidate since Nixon gets skewered in the media as either an entitled jerk or an idiot. If he doesn't do something with that Southern dialect he'll get eaten alive.

It worked for Slick Willy.

 

[GoIrish41]

Doesn't mean he wouldn't have been a better president than any given Senator.

Seems many equate winning an election with being a successful president.

You have to win an election to be a successful president, which is not to say that winning makes you one.

 

[chicago51]

Good post overall, but the bolded simply isn't true. Low-income earners pay 0% on long-term capital gains, while higher-income earners pay 15% (not to mention the fact they they already paid 35% on those same dollars when they earned them the first time). Also, the "tax loopholes" people like to complain about are things like student loan interest deductions and home mortgage interest deductions, "loopholes" that benefit the middle class much more than the "super rich."

Not if they are paid directly with stock to begin with.

Lets compare two rich guys.

You got a world class brain surgeon for example may make $500k. That doctor is paying 39.6% income tax (at least for the last $100k or so of his income) sure the money he invests he only pays 5% capital gains taxes on assuming it is less than $200k a year. Plus that doctor pays FICA taxes on his first $110k or so, Medicare taxes for his whole income.

Now you have a CEO paid with stock making $5 million. He only pays a 20% (was 15%) tax rate plus the new Obamacare Medicare tax of 3.8% on high income capital gains.

Romney only paid an effective tax rate of 14% in 2011. Romney is not a bad guy he didn't break any laws but the system is set up that if you make money from labor you have it harder than if you make money with money. I would doubt any $50k worker even with the mortgage interest deduction, the earned income tax credit, student loan interest deductions paid a 14% tax rate.

Yes a lot of wealthy people pay more in taxes but the super duper rich who make the vast majority of their money off capital gains do not.

We already debated the rather or not paying in stock is a good thing I'm not going down that rode but people who are paid mostly through stock are tax less.

 

[wizards8507]

Romney only paid an effective tax rate of 14% in 2011.

Dude I'm a CPA. If I know anything, it's taxation.

Mitt Romney did not work (in the traditional sense) in 2011. When Mitt Romney earned a salary at Bain Capital (in 1998 or whenever), he paid 39.6%. He then invested THAT money and paid an ADDITIONAL 15% capital gains tax on its growth, meaning those dollars have essentially been taxed at .396 + .15 * (1 - .396) = 48.66%.

 

[RDU Irish]

Way off on the tax discussion Chicago. Options, RSUs and other stock compensation is taxes as income at some point to establish the cost basis. The gains from this basis determine preferential capital gains treatment. If you think all CEOs are out there getting paid $10 million a year and paying less than 20% tax on that compensation you need to lay off the koolaid.

Plus Romney's effective tax rate was greatly influenced by CHARITY which offset taxable income. Then you have a large portion of his income from dividends, capital gains and municipal bond interest that lowers his effective tax rate also.

 

[RDU Irish]

You have to win an election to be a successful president, which is not to say that winning makes you one.

Chicken meet egg. You are hitting the nail on the head as to why Romney was crappy candidate.

 

[RDU Irish]

McCain by contrast was both a crappy candidate and probably would have been a disaster as a president, IMO.

 

[GoIrish41]

Chicken meet egg. You are hitting the nail on the head as to why Romney was crappy candidate.

Romney was a crappy candidate for a whole slew of reasons ... not the least of all his willingness to insult half of the country at a $2K a plate dinner for being the great unwashed.

 

[GoIrish41]

McCain by contrast was both a crappy candidate and probably would have been a disaster as a president, IMO.

We''d be at war with everyone if he was the president. lol

 

[Irish Houstonian]

It worked for Slick Willy.

Right...because he was a Democrat.

 

[GoIrish41]

Right...because he was a Democrat.

W barely spoke in complete sentences and he won

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I figured I weigh in on Rand Paul since everyone else is.

I don't think he is a bad choice for the GOP.

I'm a big fan of his stance on drones, government surveillance, less hawkish foreign policy, his reforming prison sentencing, legalizing pot, and his calling out corruption in government.

Rand voted against the bank bailout and although he doesn't support breaking up the banks he has talked about other ways to limit their size. A view I don't find totally repulsive.

He had an idea for reducing inner city poverty which didn't suck. Basically areas identified as troubled economic neighborhoods he would give special tax status to businesses that locate in those areas. An idea Barack Obama has copied and came out in support of.

I'm totally against his idea of a flat tax especially that even with progressive taxation because of FICA taxes, local sales tax, and preferential treatment of high income capital gains and special interest tax loopholes middle class end up paying higher effective tax rates than the super rich. I think a better policy for cutting taxes (if that is what you want to do) would be to would be to cut taxes across the board by the same percentage and close tax loopholes for special interests and the super rich instead of broadening the tax base (which is code for shrink tax rates on rich people and not on middle class families).

I probably wouldn't vote him for because he just isn't progressive on economic issues and I think his economic plan would only making things even better for the rich and wouldn't do much to help working families and not all that much for small business either.

He isn't a bad candidate though by any means.

I think he'd have some cross over appeal.

Most importantly he is someone that is actually talking about problems. I don't agree with all his solutions but he is the only Republican that I know that is actually is discussing real problems in America.

If the next president continues with progressive economic policies similar to the past 5 years, the poor and middle class will see the same results:

---lower household median income

---high unemployment

---lower labor participation rate

---record number on food stamps and disability

---people getting kicked off their insurance plans

*** minorities feel these effects more than anyone else, and it's because of big government policies

Kudos to you, however, for acknowledging that Rand Paul isn't the antichrist.

 

[Buster Bluth]

If the next president continues with progressive economic policies similar to the past 5 years, the poor and middle class will see the same results:

---lower household median income

---high unemployment

---lower labor participation rate

---record number on food stamps and disability

---people getting kicked off their insurance plans

*** minorities feel these effects more than anyone else, and it's because of big government policies

Kudos to you, however, for acknowledging that Rand Paul isn't the antichrist.

I see all of those continuing regardless of who is President or elected to Congress.

 

[connor_in]

Since this is the default anything politics thread...

Here's How NASA Thinks Society Will Collapse - NationalJournal.com

Why the Heck does NASA even have an opinion on this or other items recently like muslim treatment? How in the heck is it their jurisdiction? What's next ATF commenting on school board calendars?

 

[RDU Irish]

wtf NASA? Really? WTF does any of that have to do with Aeronautics OR Space?

 

[chicago51]

Since this is the default anything politics thread...

Here's How NASA Thinks Society Will Collapse - NationalJournal.com

Why the Heck does NASA even have an opinion on this or other items recently like muslim treatment? How in the heck is it their jurisdiction? What's next ATF commenting on school board calendars?

I don't know why NASA is saying this but there premise that too much inequality and too few natural resources could leave the West vulnerable to a Roman Empire-style fall isn't that far fetched.

Karl Marx basically said that too much inequality (from automation stealing jobs) would cause the collapse of capitalism. Inequality could cause the collapse of society absolutely.

The other part being too few natural resources is also very plausible. If global climate changes reduces crop yields to the point where the world can't feed itself you absolutely will see society collapse. I think the US is better off than the rest of the world in this aspect but that doesn't mean if that planet warms another 3-5 degrees Celsius we would not experience terrible consequences.

 

[connor_in]

 

[Bluto]

wtf NASA? Really? WTF does any of that have to do with Aeronautics OR Space?

If society collapses there's not gonna be much aeronautics or space exploration. So people are more concerned that it was a NASA sponsored study as opposed to the findings? Great....

 

[Buster Bluth]

March 13, 2014 - Anita Hill - The Daily Show - Full Episode | Comedy Central

The first ten minutes of this episode just about completely destroys any credibility that Fox News had left. Which wasn't much.

 

[connor_in]

If society collapses there's not gonna be much aeronautics or space exploration. So people are more concerned that it was a NASA sponsored study as opposed to the findings? Great....

Yeah...the next thing you know the IRS will have a major impact on political speech..........wait..........oooooooooohhhhhhhh

 

[wizards8507]

Rand Paul gets standing ovation at Berkeley | The Daily Caller

Rand Paul Addresses Berkeley: "I Don't Know About You, But I'm Worried" | Video | RealClearPolitics

 

[chicago51]

Yeah...the next thing you know the IRS will have a major impact on political speech..........wait..........oooooooooohhhhhhhh

The IRS showing partenship is bull but they did interfere with the actual political speech.

Political organizations lliberal or conservatives having tax exempt charity status is totally BS. They are not charities.

Interesting the youth sports organization I volunteer at and am a board member of is trying to get 501 status so we can host charity poker games to fundraise thus bringing down the cost.for our participants. We have a state non for profit status but we need a federal to host charitable poker games. Yet the line is so long to get approval for 501 status because all these political groups are applying thanks to the Citizens United fallout. The government shutdown didn't help matters for us getting approved quickly either. We applied April 2013 and are stil awaiting our approval.

 

[wizards8507]

The IRS showing partenship is bull but they did interfere with the actual political speech.

Political organizations lliberal or conservatives having tax exempt charity status is totally BS. They are not charities.

There you go again... You literally have no idea what you're talking about so please stop. Go ahead and express your opinion, but try to verify some of the "facts" on which you base them.

"Charity" status means IRS classification 501(c)(3). Political organizations are NOT 501(c)(3)s and therefore don't even CLAIM "charity status." There's no BS to be found. Super PACs and other political groups are 501(c)(4) organizations, which has nothing to do with "charity."

To be tax-exempt as a social welfare organization described in Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section 501(c)(4), an organization must not be organized for profit and must be operated exclusively to promote social welfare. The earnings of a section 501(c)(4) organization may not inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual.

...

Seeking legislation germane to the organization's programs is a permissible means of attaining social welfare purposes. Thus, a section 501(c)(4) social welfare organization may further its exempt purposes through lobbying as its primary activity without jeopardizing its exempt status. An organization that has lost its section 501(c)(3) status due to substantial attempts to influence legislation may not thereafter qualify as a section 501(c)(4) organization. In addition, a section 501(c)(4) organization that engages in lobbying may be required to either provide notice to its members regarding the percentage of dues paid that are applicable to lobbying activities or pay a proxy tax.

That's from the IRS and doesn't have a damn thing to do with Citizens United. The text is there, black and white. Citizens United enforced the law as it's written. It's not the court's job to create new law because @chicago51 wants it that way.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

There you go again... You literally have no idea what you're talking about so please stop. Go ahead and express your opinion, but try to verify some of the "facts" on which you base them.

"Charity" status means IRS classification 501(c)(3). Political organizations are NOT 501(c)(3)s and therefore don't even CLAIM "charity status." There's no BS to be found. Super PACs and other political groups are 501(c)(4) organizations, which has nothing to do with "charity."



That's from the IRS and doesn't have a damn thing to do with Citizens United. The text is there, black and white. Citizens United enforced the law as it's written. It's not the court's job to create new law because @chicago51 wants it that way.

Don't forget single payer health care and state censored media lol

 

[chicago51]

There you go again... You literally have no idea what you're talking about so please stop. Go ahead and express your opinion, but try to verify some of the "facts" on which you base them.

"Charity" status means IRS classification 501(c)(3). Political organizations are NOT 501(c)(3)s and therefore don't even CLAIM "charity status." There's no BS to be found. Super PACs and other political groups are 501(c)(4) organizations, which has nothing to do with "charity."



That's from the IRS and doesn't have a damn thing to do with Citizens United. The text is there, black and white. Citizens United enforced the law as it's written. It's not the court's job to create new law because @chicago51 wants it that way.

501c4 groups are not "charities" per say but they are social welfare groups which are supposed to me non political. The line between social welfare and political is real blury.

Anyway the accountant who is processing our request said that all 501 status rather it be c3 or c4 is processed in order they are received. So there was a backlog from the increase in 501c4s as well as the government shutdown. Maybe it is bull but that is what we (our organization) where told.

The way I see a social welfare group should be able to advocate for or against a certain issue or potentially issues such as the healthcare policies, taxes, climate, guns, immigration, etc. However once the group goes beyond advocacy of issues becomes directly involved with supporting or attacking candidates directly I see it as crossing a line to being an unofficial political campaign and should no longer be subject to special tax privileges.