Tell me about Ted Cruz.

[unknown]

Looks like he got an endorsement from RP but he also got an endorsement from Frothy?

 

[Jeremy]

Santorum endorsed Rand eventually too. Once his favorite person loses, he goes to the other side.

 

[Matt Collins]

Here is what Reason said about Cruz during the election:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ine-says-about-Ted-Cruz&highlight=reason+cruz

 

[kathy88]

He refused to endorse Ron.

 

[TokenLibertarianGuy]

He refused to endorse Ron.

Endorsing Ron would have hurt Cruz. I'd much rather he not have endorsed Ron and have him as Rand's biggest ally after Mike Lee in the Senate.

 

[PatriotOne]

Here is what Reason said about Cruz during the election:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ine-says-about-Ted-Cruz&highlight=reason+cruz

So Rand's comment about 17% flat tax in his speech yesterday didn't come right out of the blue. Maybe a pet project of Cruz's he's been working with him on behind the scenes?

From your link....

Cruz has talked vaguely about his support for a “fairer” or “flatter” tax system while getting behind a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

 

[The Gold Standard]

He's a warmonger that I would never personally support, but I appreciate any help he offers on domestic issues until we can get a better guy in there.

 

[Slutter McGee]

He's a warmonger that I would never personally support, but I appreciate any help he offers on domestic issues until we can get a better guy in there.

I honestly think that is still yet to be seen. Id like the context of those comments. He did have to win an election in Texas.

Either way, I don't blame those who are wary of him, but as of now I am really liking him.

Slutter McGee

 

[compromise]

Santorum endorsed Rand eventually too. Once his favorite person loses, he goes to the other side.

Can you source this?

 

[compromise]

He refused to endorse Ron.

As did a lot of people, even one of Ron's closest House allies, Jimmy Duncan.

 

[sailingaway]

Ron didn't endorse him until the very end, when it was between two people, the other being much worse. He seemed to me to do it for Rand to have a Senate coalition, his comments were that he was someone Rand could work with. Cruz is good on NDAA and the FEd, voted for Ron's audit, and we are learning his other views. He is more Jim De Mint in some ways than Ron Paul, but I couldn't tell you the exact boundaries. I don't know if he has De Mint's strength of character, which is one of DM's best features, yet, though. His wife was CFR and on the North American Partnership whosis, but he is apparently known for fighting local implementation of Agenda 21... I don't know that from my own knowledge but people here have said that.

 

[Matt Collins]

So Rand's comment about 17% flat tax in his speech yesterday didn't come right out of the blue. Maybe a pet project of Cruz's he's been working with him on behind the scenes?

From your link....

Cruz has talked vaguely about his support for a “fairer” or “flatter” tax system while getting behind a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

Rand is like us on taxation, but he uses popular language to help trumpet things that people like to hear (BBA is one as well as term limits).

 

[sailingaway]

Rand said running for Senate that he'd be open to anything that 'lowered the burden' but the question is always 'on who'? My problem with some of Rand's compromises are that they are with the corporatists putting corporate welfare first as a priority. (I'm thinking of stuff he works on with Graham which I am very leery of) but each plan has to be looked at on its merits when it comes out, imho.

 

[jbauer]

I'm coming around to Cruz for standing with Rand.

As for the 17%, thats a tax increase for most Americans. If you figured out the average persons marginal tax rate its WELL BELOW 17%. You'd have to be taking in a decent way into the 25% bracket to have a marginal rate at 17%. So for a married couple with 2 kids you'd be talking in excess of $200k'ish a year (I haven't done the math). To get your marginal bracket to that level.

 

[RonRocks]

I'm coming around to Cruz for standing with Rand.

As for the 17%, thats a tax increase for most Americans. If you figured out the average persons marginal tax rate its WELL BELOW 17%. You'd have to be taking in a decent way into the 25% bracket to have a marginal rate at 17%. So for a married couple with 2 kids you'd be talking in excess of $200k'ish a year (I haven't done the math). To get your marginal bracket to that level.

I was also disappointed in Rand's suggestion for a 17% flat income tax. I think GJ's sales tax + a $200 probate for living expenses was a better proposal as it doesn't penalize the poorest as much as the flat tax. Plus, it would do more to get rid of the IRS more than Rand's proposal.

 

[economics102]

It's hard to argue with Cruz' actions. For a freshman senator, he's been a powerful ally on several important issues.

In the sphere of forming coalitions on issues where we can find agreement, as Ron always talks about, Cruz seems pretty good.

Aside from simply voting with us on various issues and joining Rand's filibuster, he's clearly very smart, if you watch his questioning of AG Holder or listen to some of his filibuster speech.

Never forget, Audit the Fed sailed through the House in large part because of Ron's alliance with Alan Grayson, and his good relationship with Barney Frank, even though Frank opposed the bill.

I do wonder if Cruz' combative tone is counter-productive for him, and for us, but I can't exactly blame him for the fact that Diane Feinstein gets angry when engaged in intelligent dialogue about the 2nd amendment.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I was also disappointed in Rand's suggestion for a 17% flat income tax. I think GJ's sales tax + a $200 probate for living expenses was a better proposal as it doesn't penalize the poorest as much as the flat tax. Plus, it would do more to get rid of the IRS more than Rand's proposal.

I don't like FairTax either. Too much. So is 17% of everything...

Ron wants to abolish the income tax and increase it with nothing. I personally don't care exactly what type of tax we have but it needs to be less than 10%. Ideally 5% with default and dramatically cut spending, like 90% cut. Not going to happen though, and Rand knows this. I guess he's doing what he can. Personally I don't care about "Tax reform" unless we're actually paying less.

 

[TaftFan]

I don't like FairTax either. Too much. So is 17% of everything...

Ron wants to abolish the income tax and increase it with nothing. I personally don't care exactly what type of tax we have but it needs to be less than 10%. Ideally 5% with default and dramatically cut spending, like 90% cut. Not going to happen though, and Rand knows this. I guess he's doing what he can. Personally I don't care about "Tax reform" unless we're actually paying less.

Keep in mind the Fair Tax as proposed is revenue neutral so that it can be more widely accepted. Obviously the rate can be changed up or down when it is in law.

Before we reduce revenue (not rates) we have to pay off all of this debt, unfortunately. Otherwise it will exacerbate our monetary crisis.

 

[talkingpointes]

As did a lot of people, even one of Ron's closest House allies, Jimmy Duncan.

But anyone we already care about, ? No, don't compromise, compromise.

 

[Aeroneous]

I was also disappointed in Rand's suggestion for a 17% flat income tax. I think GJ's sales tax + a $200 probate for living expenses was a better proposal as it doesn't penalize the poorest as much as the flat tax. Plus, it would do more to get rid of the IRS more than Rand's proposal.

I wouldn't necessarily say I was disappointed with his suggestion, but I do agree that a consumption tax would be superior. My wife and I aren't that far into the 25% bracket, and 17% would be a decrease for us. If we have to have the income tax, I would prefer that it be a flat rate across the board.