Posted on 11/26/2012 7:41:24 PM PST by mtrott
My goodness, I got a tingle up my leg just now, listening to Rand Paul vigorously advocate for cutting taxes to grow the economy at 4% or greater. And he also pushed back on the dem premise that only by raising taxes can we cut the deficit.
On the contrary, he strongly insisted that the Bush tax rates resulted in INCREASED revenues to the federal government for years. He also confirmed that he would not vote to raise ANY taxes, and did not buy into Greta's query about the whole idea of cutting deductions to raise revenue either.
This was so refreshing to hear, and actually renewed my hope that there was at least one right thinking person still in congress.
His message was in the same place as all the more conservative candidates were who didn’t already have the nod and fix in four years ago.
that’s the raw $. I meant as a % of GDP. At the peak in 2007 the revenue was 18.5% of gdp. In 2000 under Clinton it was 20.6% and around 19.5% the prior two years.
I think in raw $ revenue was its highest ever under Obama this past year, raw $ doesn’t mean very much in the larger scheme
So, we turn away engineers, teachers, and spouses, while keeping 12 million almost entirely manual laborers whose income potential is low, and whose drag on the system and likelihood of voting for benefits instead of conservatism is high?
Who the heck wants revenue to be a high % of GDP? That’s a BAD thing!!! We want to keep government SMALL. Or at least non-gargantuan. Eventually, the repercussions of high taxes & big gov’t hit the middle class hardest, regardless of how the taxation is outwardly structured. That’s not to mention the inevitable loss of freedom...
Besides, raw $ revenue is what actually pays for things. A high % of the GDP in taxation when the economy is weak pays for less, in part by keeping that economy weak, and spirals everything down into the black hole eventually...
What is more desirable is a revenue pattern like 2004-2007. (After the inevitable lag, then turn-around, then strong growth.) It’d be better without the increased spending and regulations of the Bush years, of course.
I’ve probably posted Rand Paul’s budget “Platform to Revitalize America” two dozen times on FR, and I don’t remember any comments about it. Yes, it’s on Scribd and yes, reading is hard ;-) - but in contrast to a 2,000 page Obamacare bill, this is easy and it will make you feel good!
http://www.scribd.com/doc/84514049/SENATOR-RAND-PAUL-S-PLATFORM-TO-REVITALIZE-AMERICA
Now - can anyone get their head around:
Rand Paul
&
Paul Ryan
2016
???
The way things are going I will vote for Rand on any ticket, which is what I expect he anticipates doing. Rand will not dance to the Establishment tune and they will prefer a Jeb bush, a clone of him or someone he has groomed, like Rubio, or eventually his own son.
Rand will need all four years to try and win Republicans over and enough of the Lbertarians that his father attracted, and build a third party among of the like minded. He made a good start tonight and most of all the tea party needs to coalesce around their pick early, before chopping up their forces between a half a dozen charmers.
I would take Rand over Newt! And I liked Newt a LOT. Rand I think is more dedicated, at his core, to the conservative/libertarian cause and so far has a record of trying to move the dang ball in our direction without deviating to go off and play nice with the Marxists.
Conserve America Party File.
Yeah.
I would give Rand a very serious look. He is not the kook on foreign policy his Dad is, and he is solid on most every other issue.
We could do far worse.
I agree. I really like Rand Paul.
Also, both Paul’s lay the illegal immigrant problem at the feet of the dang US government, where it belongs, for their open invitation for cheap Mexican labor, bigger business and the utter disregard by the US government for our own immigration laws and border enforcement.
Now we have generations of illegals with now citizen children! The cartels and terrorist threats have finally forced the issue and left a lot of hell for families returning to Mexico whose kids have never been there.
—— Rand Paul
&
Paul Ryan
2016 -—
Now you’re talking. The problem is, the monied interests will be coalescing around their 2016 candidate in 6 months.
How do we beat the next Romney?
You conveniently forget the other half of that package.
So Is Rand distancing himself from his father? Is he more Conservative than Libertarian? Will he not be as kooky? And will the libertarians abandon him if he runs because he differs a great deal from his pops? His biggest problem is being related to Ron Paul.
!
Excellent Link.
Bill Whittle...For President 2016!
What a pleasure to hear my own mind, articulated in voice.
What a real President would say and do.
Send it to every mailing list you have.
there was no increased revnue for years under the Bush taxes
Which is it? Either there were none or there were some.
During Clinton's administration, GDP totaled $78 trillion. A 20% revenue to GDP ratio would have resulted in $15.6 trillion in revenue. The Bush years saw a total of $98.8 trillion in GDP which, at 18%, would have brought in $17.8 trillion. By your numbers, there was an increase. What point are you arguing?
Just observing that we get all excited when someone repeats what we already know is common sense. It’s a sad case of affairs.
In a perfect world we would accept the best and brightest from overseas but you and I know we don't do that. We have a green card lottery and being the best and brightest is not a condition to be eligible.
We also have 12 million living here illegally in a big mess Congress and every president over the last 30 years created. You don't like it, I don't like it. But, it has to be dealt with.
Do you want to add to that problem by bringing in more people? That is what I think Rand is getting at. It is the only viable solution. If that plan is accepted, immigration is slowed significantly. We deal with the 12 million here.
Or, we just stick to present policy. Rand has the pragmatic approach. Best to take what we can get otherwise we get nothing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.