Showing posts with label taxes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label taxes. Show all posts

Monday, January 19, 2009

Why having higher taxes is actually good

Taxes are both a helpful thing for a country and a bane to its people. None of us want to pay a large amount in taxes, but we all want to use the benefits that come from it. We all want to drive on roads. All of us want our children to be educated in good schools. And all of us want to be able to count on the fire department of the police to show up at our doors when we need them. We Americans love our social services, but we hate paying for them. Why is this? Furthermore, why is there this believe that it is actually a good thing to cut the taxes?

Let's start by simply looking at what taxes do. Simply put, they keep our government running. From the water, to the roads, to the salt trucks, taxes keep everything running smoothly and great. Sure, there might be some corruption every now and then, but generally, at least in America, we are getting exactly what we paid for. Taxes are the only reason that we have a functioning government, and they are one of the things that keeps our country strong. Without taxes, we would be a land dominated by monopolies, which, while they can be good, are usually bad to the average person.

No person can argue that taxes are a bad thing; the thing that we argue about is how much is too much. Sure, it is one thing to create a Communist nation, with each giving as they can. That is bullshit, and will not work in real life. On the other end, however, is the perfect capitalism, with dog-eat-dog. Again, that is bullshit, and will quickly result in a Hobbsian anarchy. The middle ground is the taxes, and that is where the argument is. Should we pay for a lot (health care, education, libraries, etc.) or just the needed (government, military, function)? This is where everything falls apart.

Well, I want to make this a very simple argument. If we can show that it is better for the economy (which, we can assume means that it is better for the country) to tax higher or lower, then we can show that that means that it is better to tax or not. We can ignore all other arguments, as they, simply, are of opinion and are not falsifiable.


So, is it better to tax or not to tax?

Now, basic logic would seem to dictate that the less money that you take out of a system (tax) then the more money is in the system to be spent and moved around. Basically, the lower the taxes, the higher the GDP. However, looking at this graph, you notice that the stereotypical lower taxes times (Reagan, Bush, Bush) are actually on average far lower in GDP change then during the high tax times (Carer, Clinton, JFK). Are these graphs wrong, or is common sense wrong?


Here, it seems, common sense is wrong.


Instead, think of it like this. Where does the tax money go, and what is it being taken from?

What is it from - Tax money is taken from profits, either a persons or a companies. When my company makes 100,000$ in profit, they tax it. If I go even, or lose money, it is not taxed. Same with people. Basically, the needs are already in the economy, so we can ignore them.

Where does it go - Tax money goes right back into the economy, guaranteeing an input of the profit made, even if the person wasn't going to spend it already. This guarantees that the economy will get more income then just straight up no taxing.

When you think about it like that, one quickly notices that the economy is actually better off with taxes, provided they are reasonable. As long as taxes allow the needed items, and leaves some for extra (growth), then the economy is much, much better under taxes.


Unless the two Bushes are major outliers, we will see in the next 4-8 years, that a higher taxing, larger spending, and big budgeted country has a higher GDP.


But does this work for Ohio?

Can one really assume that this same pattern will work for Ohio? Well, I suppose that if it works nationally, it should work within each and every location. Sure, various variables have been changed, but the overall concept is the same. However, the problem with Ohio is that it is a much smaller scale, which means that we would not have the same income level as the national scene. This, though, shouldn't make a problem in this equation.

The problem here, however, is the fact that the economies in one state are not tied only to that state. Not only does the national government effect it, but the actions out of state (say by Ford in MI) greatly effect it as well. Unless Ohio were to become isolated, I do not believe that we can use this model to show that taxes help or harm this state.

If you have graphs of Ohio's Tax rates and GDP, please send them to me (get my info in the contacts section). I would love to be able to talk about this sometime.

Read more ...

Monday, November 3, 2008

Whalertly Endorsements: For The President of the United States of America

Post 69


There will of course be another map update tomorrow, the last of the polls before election day actually finishes. Furthermore, my entry on Wednesday will be bragging about how I was right 100% of the time (or, if my Oscar picks show anything, none of the time).



To start this off, I would like to first talk briefly about third party candidates. Both Ralph Nader and Bob Barr and the who string of other candidates have no overall chance of winning this election. At most, third parties will pull in 5% or so ALL TOGETHER. This means that a vote for a third party is not only a wasted vote, it is a vote AGAINST your favorite mainstream candidate. That said, lets chat briefly about what third parties actually do. Third parties usually are very similar to a mainstream party, just they have one big difference. When that difference (their campaign base) gets enough attention and support, it jumps to the mainstream parties. Basically, third parties are vetting parties for new and interesting ideas. They should be allowed to get local power, but never national.




President of the United States of America

Please feel free to respond to this, challenge this, etc.



Taxes

As shown before in this entry Obama is better for most Americans than McCain if you are looking only at taxes. It is all good and dandy to keep taxes low (McCain's pledge) but at some point people have enough money to live on. Who needs to make more than 250,000$ a year? Frankly, I agree with the founder of capitalism, Adam Smith when he says that at some point people should start paying more taxes. That said, the spread the wealth theory of Obama has some work to be done on it. I think that we should tax the wealthier more, but that money should first be used to pay for Iraq, Education, Infrastructure, getting out of debt, etc. before we move onto cutting taxes for the lower classes.


Iraq

I believe that we need to remain in Iraq until the job is done. I hold this belief even though I was opposed to the invasion when we went in, and still contend that there was no logical reason to ever go in. My theory is quite simple, why should we cry over split milk when we should just be cleaning it up? I believe that McCain has a much better plan than Obama in this regard. Our troops deserve our full support, and the generals should be listened too. That said, Obama has pledged to listen to his generals, but McCain, having a fair bit of experience (both in the field and in the Senate) definitely wins this category.


Education

I think that education is one of the most important things that our country needs to deal with. The school systems are harming our children, and college tuition is sky-rocketing. We as Americans need to come together to create a plan to rectify this. This issue is not only a personal issue, it is a danger for our next generation of leaders and, frankly, a national security issue due to the US being surpassed by China and India in sciences. Both Obama and McCain have good plans for the reform of our educational system but only one would work in my mind. McCain wants us to keep looking at achievement rates (based upon testing) for moneys and improvements. I think that this is an absurd manner as it is punishing the schools for the students. Their should be (as Obama suggests) peer reviewed teaching which makes sure that good teachers are rewarded and that bad teachers are kicked. We also need to spend far more on education (something that both agree on).


Gay Rights

The president can not touch this issue so it should be ignored.


Abortion

The president can not touch this issue so it should be ignored.


Internet

A fair number of people feel that Internet censorship (it isn't, but ignore that for now) should be a hot topic this election. They feel that so called 'net neutrality' is something that the president should come out strongly in favor of and believe that the free world is at stake. I am strongly against this idea, and think that private companies should be able to do with their property as they see fit (see a future entry), provided it violates nobody else's rights. That said, The president can not touch this issue so it should be ignored.


Foreign Relations

There is no way to argue that Obama will win this category. Years in the Senate, on various committees and otherwise, have given McCain a strong lead in this category. Obama is quite well liked by other countries, which is a great plus in a US president, but McCain's strong standing here helps him out greatly.


The Economy

Cutting taxes is not the answer, period. Our economy is struggling because of outsourcing, and a loss of jobs. We need to create deals that help companies stay, and help keep Americans out of debt. McCain's idea of cutting taxes will only lead our country into a larger debt, and I can not stand for that. After all, it is my generation that will be paying the interest on that.


Experience

I do not really see how this should be a major issue. Not one presidential candidate has any executive experience, and one veep has 2.5 years. This is a non-issue, and really quite absurd.


Bipartisanship

This should be the number one issue in any persons mind this election, but, alas, it sadly is not. All Americans should care about working with all other Americans, because, after all, that is the only way that we are able to get anything done. McCain has a strong background of supporting both parties, and working through and against his own party. Obama, on the other hand, has little bipartisanship background. That said, McCain's own argument against Obama based on time in office helps Obama in this regard; Obama has pledged to work with both parties (and I believe him when he says that) and can explain his lack simply as not having the time yet. See here Mr. McCain, every dagger has two sides.


Global Warming

All candidates and their veeps believe that this is real and somewhat man made. They differ on how to fix it, but as long as they talk to their advisors it is a-okay.


Energy

Both candidates think that we should get off of our foreign oil addiction, and I agree. We need to work on alternate energies and fuel sources to ease our economy, to create more American jobs, and to make sure that Global Warming can be addressed. However, I do not think that this is within the Presidents area so I do not think that they should touch it (though I am all okay with them going around the country lecturing on it).


Health Care

Now, I do not think that we should start health care for all right away, but, in about 2 years time it should be a good idea. In about 2 years Massachusetts will have had state-wide health care for some time, and we will be able to see how this system works in America. Obama has a great plan with health care, one that makes sure that all Americans have it, and that all Americans can be treated as normal persons. McCain's, on the other hand, is good in that it ensures health care, but it guarantees nothing and actually still allows where we are now.



So, with pros and cons to both candidates, who should Whalertly endorse? McCain has strong standings in Iraq and foreign relations, while he falters on education and the economy. Obama, on the other hand, is loved around the world and has a good plan to keep jobs in America, however, his lack of experience in international politics and his plan to increase spending by trillions of dollars show that he is not an ideal candidate. However, there are several things that gave me a clear choice onto whom I would pick. Obama, with his strong stances on education, improving the economy, and his health care to all plans shows the leadership needed to be the next President of the United States of America.

Read more ...

Tuesday, October 7, 2008

Taxes Part 2

Post 60

Today we are going to take a look at how the taxes proposed by both the McCain camp and the Obama camp will effect the citizens in Ohio. The graphs use the tax changes provided by The Washington Post and The New York Times. The data on Ohio is provided by the 2000 Census.


I ask you to take a look at this image, and decide which candidate really has your best interest in mind. If you make over one million dollars a year I can understand why you would be vocal in support of Senator McCain. If you make under twenty thousand a year then I can understand why you support Senator Obama. This chart is merely to help you look at the financial aspect of the presidential race; if the financial burden on you is all that you care about, please vote based on this information. If you care about more than just the money, use this to help you weigh your decision. Please pass this on to all undecideds that you know, and pass this throughout the INTERNET.


This graphic is slight skewed due to the fact that the census data stopped at 200,000 and does not line up perfectly with the tax brackets given. If the amount falls within multiple tax brackets, then the average of the two will be used. Please use your yearly income when you look at this graph. Keep in mind that the Average yearly income per household in Ohio is $40,960. In all of these graphs Red is McCain and Blue is Obama.







As always, please leave any comments, no matter how large or how small about the contents of this blog post. Also, please leave any comments/suggestions about this site/post as a whole.

Feel free to e-mail me if you so wish too instead.

Thanks,

Robert M. Barga,

Editor of http://whalertly.blogspot.com/

barga.24@osu.edu



Digg my article

Stumble It!

Read more ...

Sunday, October 5, 2008

Taxes Part 1

Post 59



This is a small intro (part 1) of a three part series on the tax changes proposed by both McCain and Obama. Today the entry is simply two images, one of which is the taxes based upon brackets, the other is the taxes based upon the percentage of the American population. On Wednesday, I will be posting a look into how the tax changes effect the citizens on Ohio followed by an update on Friday about how the taxes will effect the citizens in every single state, state by state. Enjoy the images.





*MAP UPDATE*

This week, yet again, contains states that moved over to the Obama camp and none that moved over to the McCain camp. Nevada and Florida both switched to Obama with a small margin. Ohio, on the other hand, flipped into the blue with two gigantic poll leads. Both North Carolina and Virginia stayed in the Obama section, but their margins are still quite small. Missouri, on the other hand, stayed strongly in the McCain column.

The overall result means that Obama is winning in the Electoral College 353 to 185. Meanwhile, in the general election, Obama is winning with a score of 49.3 to 43.4 which means he has a +5.9 point lead; however, when you add Nader and Barr into the equation it drops to a 4.4 point lead. Based on the stats, it looks as though Obama is being harmed by Nader more than McCain is by Barr.






As always, please leave any comments, no matter how large or how small about the contents of this blog post. Also, please leave any comments/suggestions about this site/post as a whole.



Digg my article

Stumble It!

Read more ...

Friday, July 11, 2008

Jobs Leaving The Country and Ohio

Post 29:

Check out my latest terragen images and let me know what you think.

No, I am not being paid by the car lobby

There has been a whole splat of blogs recently about jobs leaving the country and the state of Ohio. Rowsey (I think I got his name right this time) had a good post about it that was then responded to by Lisa over at glass city jungle. The thing is, they both missed on what the problem actually is: We do not have a problem with outsourcing nor the economy (well, we have a problem with both, but neither contributes much to the jobs leaving the state), we have a problem with consumers.

Near the middle of the movie “Roger and Me” (I am well aware of the grammatical problems with this title) there is a sign on an overpass in Flint, Michigan: “Drive foreign cars and die”. Really, that seems to be the problem that this state is having. If you go out and buy a Toyota Prius, The Honda Fit, or the (you will only see one in person in your life) Lamborghini then you are the problem. Me, I drive around on my cute Ford Focus, a totally kick ass car. So, when a plant from one of the non-ohio made locations (some 'foreign' cars are okay, and the Prius will be made in Mississippi in 2010) what else would we expect. Stop buying your cars from foreign countries and our economy and jobs WOULD STAY HERE.

Lets take this one step further. If there is a product made in the US then buy it from the US. Unless there is a huge difference in quality, why would you buy a product from out of the country. Not only would you be helping to harm our economy, our jobs, and our state, you would be assisting in all forms of immoral activities. The same goes to where you shop. Buy from the places that only higher legal Americans, places that treat their employees right, places that are not Wal*Marts. If we do this, we can turn out economy around as a country, and all of us would benefit from that.

Remember children, Only you can prevent the economy from falling further.





As always, please leave any comments, no matter how large or how small about the contents of this blog post. Also, please leave any comments/suggestions about this site/post as a whole.
Feel free to e-mail me if you so wish too instead.
Thanks,
Robert M. Barga,
Editor of http://whalertly.blogspot.com/
barga.24@osu.edu


Digg my article
Stumble It! Read more ...

Wednesday, July 9, 2008

McCain, Part 2

Post 28:


*MAP UPDATE*
Due to not being here for an update in the map on Monday I will be posting it today.

As sad as this is, it appears as though there have been no changes in the map. Obama still has an easy win in November.
*END OF MAP UPDATE*



This is a continuation of my problems entries: Obama, Part 1,McCain, Part 1, and the newest entry, Obama, Part 2. This time I am going after some of McCains smaller issues that I take offense to. I think that McCain is dropping the ball in these three areas: The Gas Tax, Protecting Marriage, Lets Chat About Stem Cells. Mr. McCain, if you wish to keep my vote (and, being in Ohio, I am rather important) please take a better stand on these issues.

The Gas Tax:
A few months ago McCain joined Clinton in calling for a gas tax between Memorial Day and Labor Day (a bit late for this now). Obama, rightly, rejected the idea and called it stupid. While this is no longer important, this shows me how far McCain is willing to pander to get some votes. The gas tax would never have worked; it would have saved the average American roughly 75$ for the time it was extended. To me, that seems wasteful when it would push our federal government even further into debt. However, McCain was busy pandering to not-so-intelligent Americans who would fall for this sort of thing. Straight-Talk Express my ass.

Protecting Marriage:
Let me set one thing straight, I do not support marriage. I believe that marriage should be a contract between parties that consent, nothing more, nothing less. That said, because nobody is going to be getting rid of marriage anytime soon, I find it is most pertinent that we preserve this right for ALL Americans. Why should we only allow certain people to get married. Studies have shown time and time again that homosexual persons are born that way, not that it is a choice (though why anybody would chose to be hated by a large patch of humanity always gets lost on me). If your loved one was in the hospital, or died and wanted to leave you something, or even wanted you on their health care plan, your wishes are only granted if you happen to have the opposite genitalia. THAT IS BULLSHIT. All Americans should be viewed as equal in the eyes of the law (we are not all equal though) and thus all Americans should have the same basic rights.

Lets Chat About Stem Cells:
Stem cells are a major issue in American politics these days. While the source (abortion) of embryonic stem cells is an issue, most parties agree that Adult stem cells are okay. Well, adult stem cells are not as effective, and they do not do the needed things. I do not understand why people are against embryonic stem cells. If the fetus is going to be aborted, why not use it for a common good? If Nancy Regan comes out in support of these stem cells, then how can any self-respecting Republican not support their use?





As always, please leave any comments, no matter how large or how small about the contents of this blog post. Also, please leave any comments/suggestions about this site/post as a whole.
Feel free to e-mail me if you so wish too instead.
Thanks,
Robert M. Barga,
Editor of http://whalertly.blogspot.com/
barga.24@osu.edu


Digg my article
Stumble It! Read more ...

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

'Fair Tax' Supporters

Post 5:


*NEWS*
I have had this blog for a whole one and a half weeks now and am already at three hundred unique views. I am already read worldwide and want to keep growing. Please send links to your friends, DIGG me, facebook me, anything to get the word out. The more people this reaches the more people who can comment and create a better site. This site is here for you, and I want you all to be a part of it. This is a map of all the unique locations I have so far been viewed from.



There is also a new poll located on the side of this blog, please respond to it (will be put up soon as blogger lets me)
*ENDING OF THE NEWS*



Have you figured out what the theme that I am circling around is? Only a few more posts and that theme itself becomes the blog entry.

From our countries humble beginnings to the present we have always had thousands of people who have issues with taxes. They have issues with taxes in any forms; from property taxes to income taxes to sales tax. These objectors have usually kept their protests to vocal forms, but have, at times, erupted in violence - for example, the Whiskey Rebellion. Seeing as one of the major events leading up to the Revolutionary War was the Boston Tea Party we have a long history in this country of not liking taxes. But, in reality, taxes are essential for any society to function, as something is needed to protect the persons and the country as a whole. The issue really comes down to arguing how much is too much, and how much is needed. However, when the issue of where the tax comes from is brought up we, as a country, have vastly different angles and views. Most people, however, seem to accept our current system, that is, income tax subsidized by sales tax and the like. There is, however, a very vocal group of people who think that the idea of income tax is wrong (or even unconstitutional), and feel that all taxes should be done via sales tax, a flat one at that: Fair Taxers, What Really Grinds My Gigantic Notched Wheels.

Nobody likes taxes. We all have issues with spending money out of our checks and pocketbooks for seemingly pointless things. Do we all agree with what the taxes are spent on? Of course not. However, most of us agree that roads, fire fighters, police, schools, libraries, the Internet, etc. are worth the money. So when people start trying to change the way that our tax system works you need to start wondering how they are planning on taking care of said issues. It is hard to accept a new system when we are afraid that what we need to be a running functioning society is on the line. When fair taxers supporters start recommending and talking about their great discovery and idea four main things stick out as a sore thumb - They argue that the income tax is unconstitutional - they use faulty math - they do not explain how this tax will handle inflation or how it handles third-party used transfers (basically, the feasibility of it) - they do not address how regressive this tax actually is.

They argue that the income tax is unconstitutional
Most 'fair tax' supporters will start of their argument by saying that our system needs to change. Now, some will (logically) argue that there are inherent flaws with the IRS and income tax, most will simply argue that the income tax is unconstitutional. Now, last time I checked if something is specifically allowed in the Constitution it is Constitutional. Well, apparently the 'fair taxers' and tax evaders have never heard of the 16th Amendment. Now, even if the 16th had never happened income tax would still be Constitutional. Most will say that the decision Bowers V. Kerbaugh-Empire Co. clearly said that the 16th did not give any new taxing powers by quoting this part of the decision:
“It was not the purpose or effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power.”
The problem with this is that they clearly ignore the next line which says:
“Congress already had power to tax all incomes.”
If congress already had this power than there is no way to argue that the Income tax is Unconstitutional.

They use faulty math
If you are new to the concept of the 'fair tax' or want to gets a quick refresher and are wondering what the fair tax is here you go. It is a sales tax that would increase all sales to 30% (they claim 23%, but I will show how fuzzy their math is shortly) and eliminate all income tax. Furthermore, it would give a 'prebate’ that is supposed to cover the cost of living for the year (pays you back the sales tax used that year for ‘needed’ things). Now, let us address the issue of faulty math. Those who present the math on the site believe that sales tax is inclusive (they use the logic that it would be the same type as the current income tax system). Sales tax however, is an exclusive tax, so it is calculated after the final cost, not the initial. That said, here is how it is calculated according to the website:
Final product is $130.00
Tax was $30.00
30 is 23% of 130, ergo 23% sales tax
Common logic shows that $30 is 30% of $100, not the 23% that the ‘fair tax’ group says. The fact that they claim one statistic, and then don’t mention to tell you that that claim is false automatically makes me suspicious of the group.

They do not explain how the tax will handle inflation or how it handles third-party used transfers (basically, the feasibility of it)

While we are on the topic of fuzzy math, let us discuss exactly how we can fund the government with the ‘fair tax’. Currently, the Federal Budget is 2.8 trillion dollars. Our countries current GNP is 11059.3 billion dollars. If we use the 30% tax (the real amount they are taxing), we can see that we only get 3317.79 billion, or 3.31779 trillion. For now, that looks like it is the perfect amount needed to fund our current budget, but what happens if either our government spends more (they are increasing on average .2 trillion a year (meaning 4 years until this is not enough money)) or our country spends less as a people. The current proposal leaves no area for adjustment, and, as it is a Constitutional Amendment will not be able to change it before we go into a deeper debt.

One of the main problems with problems with the fair tax is that it is only a tax on taxable stores and new FULLY PRODUCED items. That said, is it not actually easier to circumvent this system than the current one? Sites like Ebay and Amazon and the like will need to be shut down, as they create a system that circumnavigates the governments income. Suddenly, we start buying used items because they are cheaper. Now, even though the GNP stays roughly the same, the government is making less money because there is no more sales tax. Soon, the government will need to crack down on these “black markets”; they will need to shut down drug rings, flea markets, half-priced books, and renegade sub shops. Soon, the government will need to be spending more money (something we already showed they will not have) to make the money. So, they stop the finished products black market, but why would I buy a full product? If labor is not taxed and unfinished products are not taxed why do I not just buy the parts and pay somebody to put it together. This would probably save me compared to the 30% add on. It becomes quite clear that the fair tax has no way to handle this, and our government would get into far more debt than we already have.

They do not address how regressive this tax is
My last issue with the ‘fair tax’ is what it does exactly. If we charge every person 30% on all items the poor will be charged more than the rest. While the supporters claim that the prebates should take care of this, we all know that will not happen. Already the rebates which are supposed to help those below the poverty level do not provide enough for the family, so why would the rebate. Furthermore, because you would need to deal with inflation and different locations, just to figure out who gets how much in a prebate would be a nightmare and cost more than the IRS does now. That said, this tax is clearly regressive. By having the poor pay roughly 30% of their paycheck on this tax while the rich pay 1% shows the clear disregard for the lower classes that this tax has. Clearly, this tax is not designed to help the lower classes, despite that being one of their main claims.

In the end, I feel that the 'fair tax' is nothing more than a cleverly designed ploy, a Trojan Horse if you will, to get those who have money more, and make those who are poor poorer. This is clearly not a fair tax, in any attempt at defining the word, and it is clearly an example of doublespeak which is intended to make others support it without reason. In the end, any group that specifically lies is worthy of intense scrutiny, and under that gaze, the ‘fair tax’ falls short. While the Income Tax is not the best system, until we get another that can replace it and replace it well, we need to work on fixing it up.


As always, please leave any comments, no matter how large or how small about the contents of this blog post. Also, please leave any comments/suggestions about this site/post as a whole. Thanks

Digg my article Read more ...

Monday, May 12, 2008

Ron Paulites

Post 4:


So, you might notice that there is a theme in these last few posts; that same theme continues in this post and will for the next few, until a culmination in one post in the not so distant future. Can you guess what the theme is?


I am a regular on gaiaonline under the screenname Agrab0ekim. On there I regular the politics forums (among many other I am often on) and run into many people who claim to be well versed in politics, taxes, the IRS, the Constitution, and the like. They will start by talking about the Founding Fathers, about the degeneration of America, and about the robbing of the rich to give to the poor. They will talk about how America is now facist, how the IRS is illegal and Unconstitutional (the previous link has this same info), how the big companies are running the world (yet at the same time saying that companies should have more rights), and how the World will soon be under a New Order. Some will even say that 9/11 was an inside job. While some political supporters really annoy me and make little to no sense, there are no stopping - RON PAULITES: What Really Grind My Gigantic Notched Wheels.


Let's start by looking at who Ron Paul is: He is the other Republican running for President in 2008 (against the clear nominee McCain). His claims to fame are serving for a long time in congress, being a gynecologist, and running in 1988 as a Libertarian for President. He has several controversial positions, all of which are very, um, interesting. He supports the abolishment of income tax, all federal tax, abortions, raises in congressional pay, gun control, drug laws, and the Iraq war. He supports the extension of states rights, supports banning gay marriage, and supports unregulated businesses. In short, he supports going back to ACPU. While his positions are all fine and dandy (he can think Hitler is God for all I care), his supporters take them too far. What bugs me the most boils down to a few main things: One, they think he stands for what he doesn't - Two, they believe his lies about the IRS - Three, they are contradictory in their beliefs. Please note that not all Paulites are like this, and I have met several intelligent and properly-thinking ones in my searches on these internets.


They think he stands for what he doesn't

I have yet to meet a Ron Paul supporter who gets what he stands for right. While a few Paul supporters know next to nothing about what Ron Paul supports, most know most, if not all, of his positions. Their problems, however, is the fact that they do not take the logic as far as it should go. If my position is states rights, the abolishment of the 14th Amendment, and banning the courts from hearing any case on Marriage it sounds dandy to most Americans, and most of his supporters. But let us follow the logic. So, courts can not hear marriage cases, okay, no interracial, inter religion marriages. You still have no problem? Good, I figured you would. Lets move to the 14th Amendment, hmmm, rights and privileges no longer protected, Hello Plessy V. Ferguson and goodbye Brown V. Board. Starting to have doubts? Good. Lets move onto state rights, hmmm, I seem to remember a Civil War about this. Not even getting into slavery, religious states, and the like, let us look at something quite simple: money. If each state were allowed to mint their own money (state rights) then we would have a problem. Always remember people, we got rid of ACPU for a reason.


They believe his lies about the IRS

Do not get me wrong, I think that there are many things wrong with the way we do taxes in this country. I think that we tax the poor to highly and the rich not enough, that we have too many loopholes, and that college kids should be exempt (more specifically, any person with my SS number). I think that we need a full overhaul. However, I do not for one second think that taxes are a bad idea, nor do I think that they are Unconstitutional. Ron Paul and other libertarians will have you believe that taxes are immoral (whole different argument), illegal, and unconstitutional. They will even go out of their way to create a movie to show it. However, they are wrong, and the Courts have shown that again and again. One of my main problems with Paulites is that they will refuse to see reason in this area. They think that court decision say one thing when two sentences later they say another. They think that the movies are 100% correct and when you show them TAX LAW they say it is not real. In short, they feel that they know the truth and we are all lying to them. I find this to be a bad sign for any politician, having an idiotic base.


Three, they are contradictory in their beliefs

Everybody is contradictory in their beliefs. I feel that we should have universal health care (or at least a plan to pay companies to provide it) but at the same time think that it is Unconstitutional. I think that we should not have quotas on businesses or schools but think that we should have regulations on them. I am hypocritical and contradictory, and so are you. That said, however, I think that Paulites take it further than most of us; they take it so far that they are in a realm all to their own. There are some who say that the corporations are running the world, some that say that corporations are the only thing that should be taxed, and some that say that corporations should not exist. They then all defend the deregulation of these companies. Do you see the problems there in. More you ask? A fair bit claim that there should be equal rights for all, a fair bit support state rights, and a fair bit support the idea of free people (seems to be their motto). They then go and support the banning of gay marriage, fight quotas and affirmative action and welfare, and argue that certain persons shouldn't be allowed to do certain things. The kicker is that they all (majority) support the ending of the 'war on drugs' with the argument “what goes into our body is our call because it is OUR BODY” and yet attack the concept of abortion. I mean, come on, what is more contradictory than that. The question comes down to this, is it worth having hundreds of thousands (I think he just passed the million mark) of crazy hard-core supporters who are wrong and don't actually support what/who you are or is it better to have millions of luke-warm supporters who actually know your positions and are mainstream? This Democrat say the latter.


As always, please leave any comments, no matter how large or how small about the contents of this blog post. Also, please leave any comments/suggestions about this site/post as a whole. Thanks


Digg my article Read more ...

Redirect

You will be redirected shortly to our new website. If you are not redirected within 5 seconds please CLICK HERE!

Copyright Notice

(C) All articles, postings, images, etc. on this site are protected by relevant copyright law, unless otherwise specified. To use any original material in totality please ask for author permission.

(C) 2009, all rights reserved by whalertly.blogspot.com, Robert M. Barga, and all contributing authors.