Flash
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2007
- Messages
- 4,880
Ron Paul a liar
- Thread starter Flash
- Start date
partypooper
Member
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2007
- Messages
- 521
i don't know what is this 'real world dynamic scoring' - it sounds like a BS. it is quite disappointing to see such a ill-thought answer given by the official campaign to the important question. i am pretty sure that, if the column was opened to the comments, there would be much better answers by ron paul supporters reading it.
i think the argument might be that tax revenues will be very different (much higher) because different foreign and trade policy (e.g. no embargos etc, driving the prices down, possibly) will change the economy to the extent that tax revenues will go up despite abolishing income tax. also, i am not sure where in the budget spending on military bases in korea and such belongs, so there might be some gains there. there should also be serious cuts in funding all sorts of medical and other federal-funded research, i don't know if that was taken into account.
angrydragon
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 3,263
partypooper
Member
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2007
- Messages
- 521
yes, i noticed that now. i don't like that there are so many people merely attacking the writer. however, the important thing is that there are some very good replies.
partypooper
Member
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2007
- Messages
- 521
i trust him, too, i am just disappointed with the response that benton gave. apparently, he had time to prepare and he gave - this???
if he doesn't know the answer he should pose the question anonymously on this forum and select the best response.
a_european
Member
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2007
- Messages
- 175
Whats interesting is the first comment. Ron Paul lives in Fantasyland, because he believes in a small government. I stumbled over the argument now numerous times: "We live in modern times, we need a big government". So there you have it, only government can face the challenges the future holds. We would be probably all dead or back in the stoneage!
Damn socialists DO have good marketing!
Ok back on topic: The answer from the campaign was weak, i think thats the problem.
Damn socialists DO have good marketing!
Ok back on topic: The answer from the campaign was weak, i think thats the problem.
chipvogel
Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 323
just report some of the facts...don't go looking for the truth
here is how the game is played with the media
"So how will Paul perform the miracle? Drum roll, please, for Paul campaign spokesman Jesse Benton. Here is his full, unedited, response to my request for data to support the candidate's claims about abolishing the income tax:"
It doesn't say they let Jesse Benton read the artilce and respond to the inacuracies, only that Benton was asked for data to support the claims.
Where is the money saved from closing the military bases around the world?
The article only mentions pulling all U.S. troops back home from Iraq and Afghanistan.
here is how the game is played with the media
"So how will Paul perform the miracle? Drum roll, please, for Paul campaign spokesman Jesse Benton. Here is his full, unedited, response to my request for data to support the candidate's claims about abolishing the income tax:"
It doesn't say they let Jesse Benton read the artilce and respond to the inacuracies, only that Benton was asked for data to support the claims.
Where is the money saved from closing the military bases around the world?
The article only mentions pulling all U.S. troops back home from Iraq and Afghanistan.
partypooper
Member
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2007
- Messages
- 521
i agree. so, where is that in benton's response?
i agree that the article has a malicious flair. but that is a trap. lets suck it up and respond with arguments. it is not about convincing the person who wrote it necessarily but about convincing those that are reading.
'ron paul 2008 - hope for america' or 'google ron paul' is just not sufficient any more. we are challenged and we need to respond adequately. we wanted to be taken seriously and so we are because we are getting bigger and more relevant by the day. let us live up to that.
The article makes no sense:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget,_2006
Income tax revenue for 2006: $0.967 trillion
Total Spending for 2006: $2.6 trillion
So without the income tax we have 1.623 trillion to play with (including deficit)
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year2000_0.html
Total spending for 2000 was 1.789 trillion
So spending needs to be reduced further by 166 billion:
Education 60
Military(overseas only ) 140
Agriculture et
So that's easy.
BTW dynamic analysis just means you take into account the fact that things change (eg when you lower taxes revenues don't decrease by the amount of the cut but rather by a lesser amount). It is not a cop-out answer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget,_2006
Income tax revenue for 2006: $0.967 trillion
Total Spending for 2006: $2.6 trillion
So without the income tax we have 1.623 trillion to play with (including deficit)
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year2000_0.html
Total spending for 2000 was 1.789 trillion
So spending needs to be reduced further by 166 billion:
Education 60
Military(overseas only ) 140
Agriculture et
So that's easy.
BTW dynamic analysis just means you take into account the fact that things change (eg when you lower taxes revenues don't decrease by the amount of the cut but rather by a lesser amount). It is not a cop-out answer.
mragreeable
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2007
- Messages
- 18
I view this almost exclusively as a failure on the part of Dr. Paul's campaign. Mr. Dobbs gave them a week to prepare some comprehensive numbers. Benton's reply looks like he put about two minutes of thought into it.
Several posts here may a far more persuasive case than the campaign spokesman himself. I would have to imagine that there were dozens of volunteers at the campaign headquarters who would be perfectly happy to spend a couple hours doing some good, solid research and providing a plausible answer - even if it came with the disclaimer that the numbers provided do not come directly from Dr. Paul, and are more of a proof of concept.
A few hours research and a good, solid reply may well have bought the equivalent of many thousands of dollars of great, free publicity to the campaign. Instead now we have a legion of Paul supporters trying to do damage control in the article's comments, offering wildly disparate numbers to answer a question which is one of the central points of this campaign.
I really hope that it is ultimately revealed that there was a miscommunication somewhere and the campaign attempted to deliver some far more comprehensive numbers. Otherwise, what on earth was Mr. Benton thinking in treating this query - from a major news source, no less - so trivially?
Several posts here may a far more persuasive case than the campaign spokesman himself. I would have to imagine that there were dozens of volunteers at the campaign headquarters who would be perfectly happy to spend a couple hours doing some good, solid research and providing a plausible answer - even if it came with the disclaimer that the numbers provided do not come directly from Dr. Paul, and are more of a proof of concept.
A few hours research and a good, solid reply may well have bought the equivalent of many thousands of dollars of great, free publicity to the campaign. Instead now we have a legion of Paul supporters trying to do damage control in the article's comments, offering wildly disparate numbers to answer a question which is one of the central points of this campaign.
I really hope that it is ultimately revealed that there was a miscommunication somewhere and the campaign attempted to deliver some far more comprehensive numbers. Otherwise, what on earth was Mr. Benton thinking in treating this query - from a major news source, no less - so trivially?
Georgia Gray
Member
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2007
- Messages
- 6
The Factchecker gave Dr. Paul -
For Claiming that the IRS and Income Tax can be Eliminated
I protest that this is unfair.
The fact is that I was uncomfortable with this claim, too, but then listened to the caveat that Dr. Paul added at the SC Debate and that he discloses readily every time he is questioned about it.
Dr Paul said of eliminating the IRS
Another excellent reference is the 6-part interview Ron Paul gave in NH. (This part is the first in a series, so you might have to look for the IRS answer in the later segments)
Dr. Paul In-depth interview with Nashua, NH editorial board - Part One
Besides, Dr. Paul is only taking the GOP mainstream Laffer Curve BS to its logical conclusion, which is that lowering rates to nearly zero will stimulate the economy and produce more tax collections. (I do not accept this particular premise, either.)
The Factchecker decries the lack of specifics to back up doing away with the 'personal income tax' when candidates who give such specifics never honor them anyway.
I give
FactChecker an "I" for Incomplete Analysis of what Dr. Paul actually said.
For Claiming that the IRS and Income Tax can be Eliminated
I protest that this is unfair.
The fact is that I was uncomfortable with this claim, too, but then listened to the caveat that Dr. Paul added at the SC Debate and that he discloses readily every time he is questioned about it.
Dr Paul said of eliminating the IRS
Another excellent reference is the 6-part interview Ron Paul gave in NH. (This part is the first in a series, so you might have to look for the IRS answer in the later segments)
Dr. Paul In-depth interview with Nashua, NH editorial board - Part One
Besides, Dr. Paul is only taking the GOP mainstream Laffer Curve BS to its logical conclusion, which is that lowering rates to nearly zero will stimulate the economy and produce more tax collections. (I do not accept this particular premise, either.)
The Factchecker decries the lack of specifics to back up doing away with the 'personal income tax' when candidates who give such specifics never honor them anyway.
I give
FactChecker an "I" for Incomplete Analysis of what Dr. Paul actually said.
- Joined
- May 10, 2007
- Messages
- 8,781
In a recent news piece, one of the WP staff writers wrote " marked with the craggy visage of their hero" in reference to Dr. Paul.
How can anyone with critical thinking skills take anything they say seriously? The campaign should not waste their time with such sorry displays of journalism.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/16/AR2007111602267.html
How can anyone with critical thinking skills take anything they say seriously? The campaign should not waste their time with such sorry displays of journalism.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/16/AR2007111602267.html
mragreeable
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2007
- Messages
- 18
Calling a relief of a face in a coin a "craggy visage" doesn't strike me as terribly inflammatory, and calling Dr. Paul a "hero" to a great many of his supporters is hardly controversial.
This was the work of an anonymous staff writer. Are you seriously proposing that the campaign ignore the 5th most widely circulated newspaper in the country because of this one article?
I gather from your comment that you hold your critical thinking skills in high regard, but I really don't see any compelling argument suggesting that the campaign should ignore the Washington Post's public requests for facts about Dr. Paul's platform because of the work of a single staff writer. Least of all when the request for facts came nearly a week before the article you find so distasteful.
Mr. Benton's brief response to the fact checker article was a real mistake, but a forgivable oversight. To declare as anathema and forever disregard a newspaper with a daily circulation of nearly one million would be an act of shocking neglect.
ladyliberty
Member
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2007
- Messages
- 1,535
I wanted to look at what sort of budget is being proposed as an alternative to Dr. Paul's ideas, and I ran across this ...
www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst040207.htm
The 2008 Federal Budget
April 2, 2007
The fiscal year 2008 budget, passed in the House of Representatives last week, is a monument to irresponsibility and profligacy. It shows that Congress remains oblivious to the economic troubles facing the nation, and that political expediency trumps all common sense in Washington. To the extent that proponents and supporters of these unsustainable budget increases continue to win reelection, it also shows that many Americans unfortunately continue to believe government can provide them with a free lunch.
To summarize, Congress proposes spending roughly $3 trillion in 2008. When I first came to Congress in 1976, the federal government spent only about $300 billion. So spending has increased tenfold in thirty years, and tripled just since 1990.
About one-third of this $3 trillion is so-called discretionary spending; the remaining two-thirds is deemed “mandatory” entitlement spending, which means mostly Social Security and Medicare. I’m sure many American voters would be shocked to know their elected representatives essentially have no say over two-thirds of the federal budget, but that is indeed the case. In fact the most disturbing problem with the budget is the utter lack of concern for the coming entitlement meltdown.
For those who thought a Democratic congress would end the war in Iraq, think again: their new budget proposes supplemental funds totaling about $150 billion in 2008 and $50 billion in 2009 for Iraq. This is in addition to the ordinary Department of Defense budget of more than $500 billion, which the Democrats propose increasing each year just like the Republicans.
The substitute Republican budget is not much better: while it does call for freezing some discretionary spending next year, it increases military spending to make up the difference. The bottom line is that both the Democratic and Republican budget proposals call for more total spending in 2008 than 2007.
My message to my colleagues is simple: If you claim to support smaller government, don’t introduce budgets that increase spending over the previous year. Can any fiscal conservative in Congress honestly believe that overall federal spending cannot be cut 25%? We could cut spending by two-thirds and still have a federal government as large as it was in 1990.
Congressional budgets essentially are meaningless documents, with no force of law beyond the coming fiscal year. Thus budget projections are nothing more than political posturing, designed to justify deficit spending in the near term by promising fiscal restraint in the future. But the time for thrift never seems to arrive: there is always some new domestic or foreign emergency that requires more spending than projected.
The only certainty when it comes to federal budgets is that Congress will spend every penny budgeted and more during the fiscal year in question. All projections about revenues, tax rates, and spending in the future are nothing more than empty promises. Congress will pay no attention whatsoever to the 2008 budget in coming years.
www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst040207.htm
The 2008 Federal Budget
April 2, 2007
The fiscal year 2008 budget, passed in the House of Representatives last week, is a monument to irresponsibility and profligacy. It shows that Congress remains oblivious to the economic troubles facing the nation, and that political expediency trumps all common sense in Washington. To the extent that proponents and supporters of these unsustainable budget increases continue to win reelection, it also shows that many Americans unfortunately continue to believe government can provide them with a free lunch.
To summarize, Congress proposes spending roughly $3 trillion in 2008. When I first came to Congress in 1976, the federal government spent only about $300 billion. So spending has increased tenfold in thirty years, and tripled just since 1990.
About one-third of this $3 trillion is so-called discretionary spending; the remaining two-thirds is deemed “mandatory” entitlement spending, which means mostly Social Security and Medicare. I’m sure many American voters would be shocked to know their elected representatives essentially have no say over two-thirds of the federal budget, but that is indeed the case. In fact the most disturbing problem with the budget is the utter lack of concern for the coming entitlement meltdown.
For those who thought a Democratic congress would end the war in Iraq, think again: their new budget proposes supplemental funds totaling about $150 billion in 2008 and $50 billion in 2009 for Iraq. This is in addition to the ordinary Department of Defense budget of more than $500 billion, which the Democrats propose increasing each year just like the Republicans.
The substitute Republican budget is not much better: while it does call for freezing some discretionary spending next year, it increases military spending to make up the difference. The bottom line is that both the Democratic and Republican budget proposals call for more total spending in 2008 than 2007.
My message to my colleagues is simple: If you claim to support smaller government, don’t introduce budgets that increase spending over the previous year. Can any fiscal conservative in Congress honestly believe that overall federal spending cannot be cut 25%? We could cut spending by two-thirds and still have a federal government as large as it was in 1990.
Congressional budgets essentially are meaningless documents, with no force of law beyond the coming fiscal year. Thus budget projections are nothing more than political posturing, designed to justify deficit spending in the near term by promising fiscal restraint in the future. But the time for thrift never seems to arrive: there is always some new domestic or foreign emergency that requires more spending than projected.
The only certainty when it comes to federal budgets is that Congress will spend every penny budgeted and more during the fiscal year in question. All projections about revenues, tax rates, and spending in the future are nothing more than empty promises. Congress will pay no attention whatsoever to the 2008 budget in coming years.
Alabama Supporter
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2007
- Messages
- 795
I imagine the staff has more important things to do than reply to blog posts on the internet.
The response may have been weak, but what kind of answer do you expect after the biggest week of the campaign???
No need for RP to have a staffer write a term paper to respond to this. It is irrelevant. I don't think this goes in the print edition anyway.
The response may have been weak, but what kind of answer do you expect after the biggest week of the campaign???
No need for RP to have a staffer write a term paper to respond to this. It is irrelevant. I don't think this goes in the print edition anyway.
- Joined
- May 10, 2007
- Messages
- 8,781
Obviously a matter of personal opinion but is this a label that Dr. Paul has given to himself? IMO it's an ugly word with no positive connotation, it's certainly not the worst thing written but then again this was at the very top of the front page of their printed paper.
I don't propose anything for the campaign, they know what they are doing- I'm just stating my view.
No- why would you make such a statement? Please answer.
I have no idea how the WP reviews and edits their paper but my guess is that it akes more than a single staff write to get something on the front page- what makes you think this would be the case?
Who said anything about distasteful? Obviously it wouldn't make sense to somehow retroact spending time for them.
That is your opinion which is fine, I agree with Alabama Supporter and further note that IMO this blog is pretty juvenile with this "look what they wrote to me!" attitude. That's pretty sorry for a high school level IMO, if the WP was to do something serious on this they would go back and ask for more clarification and information rather than assume that the campaign is going to drop 100's of pages of data on them upon first request.
Cheers!
mragreeable
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2007
- Messages
- 18
I'd imagine we could debate the finer points of cragginess for a good long while and not make a lot of progress. I think it's kind of a fun word and I can picture a bored staff writer typing out the phrase "craggy visage of their hero" with just the faintest smile on their face.
I consider it harmless, and you, if I'm not mistaken, consider it significant enough that the campaign should never associate with the paper again? Surely not.
I was mostly being a jerk when I wrote that. Not terribly helpful, agreed.
Well, I said something about "distasteful," though it doesn't strike me as much of a stretch. And, my primary problem with what you wrote is that it certainly seemed that you were arguing precisely what you say you weren't - that the campaign should just have nothing to do with the WP forevermore.
I'm not fan of the MSM, that's for certain, but as Donald Rumsfeld might say (no doubt lots of his fans hang out here), the campaign works with the mainstream media it has, not the mainstream media it wants.
This guy issued a public request for clarification, and then even posted the campaign's whole response verbatim. That's remarkably fair. Yeah, he mocked them a little. I mocked them a little too.
The claim that the Federal government can be run without income tax is, certainly in our present political climate, an extraordinary one. I think Dr. Paul can substantiate it, at least in a long term plan. If anything I remain shocked that there isn't a stock one-pager that the campaign can just fire off to anyone who asks. This is, after all, a central issue to the campaign.
At this point I'm mostly restating my above post, so I think we'll have to accept that we disagree on the possible significance of the article. I will say that gaining a bit of goodwill on the part of just about any WP staff member is almost certainly not harmful, and we really don't know if this will be the topic where the "fact checker" column gains enough interest to make it to the print edition.
