Exclusive: Paul Tops $5 Mil For Quarter

RealClearPolitics Politics ^ | October 03, 2007 | Reid Wilson

[Captain Kirk]

Texas Congressman Ron Paul, an anti-war libertarian making his second run at the White House, will report having raised $5.08 million in the third quarter. The number, which rivals those of John McCain and Bill Richardson, was boosted thanks to last-minute online fundraising that brought in more than $1.2 million in the last week of the quarter alone.

Paul has drawn himself in sharp contrast with the rest of the field, often engaging in loud exchanges with fellow candidates over his vehement opposition to the war in Iraq. His campaign has been marked by frugal spending and a surprisingly strong online fan base; he routinely wins online straw polls after debates.

This is the second quarter in a row Paul has shown fundraising strength. Last quarter he reported having more cash on hand than McCain, a sidebar that contributed to stories of McCain's collapse.

[Moleman]

Thanks!

[Captain Kirk]

Quixotic? Sure....if you want to include a multitude of Sancho Panza’s who contribute five million dollars out of their own pockets.

[SJackson]

This is supposed to be a bad thing?!?

Not necessarily, I disagree with no child left behind and medicare drugs, but I'm not so arrogant as to suggest I'm the true Republican, and that the Party Platform is out of step with me. It's the other way around.

[rineaux]

Ross Perot spent an estimated 60 Million

Had Perot gotten in, than as he was gaining in some polls, bowed out because he said his daughter’s life was threatened by the powers that be (paraphrasing), then jumped back in...

Who knows what would have happend if he had just stayed in.

As far as waste of money comment, I hope all that have given and will give to Rudy find out just what that comment means. Add McCain, Obama, Hillary and all the other nitwits in this race.

[rineaux]

what did girliani raise?

Like most that read “girliani”, I am LOL!!!

[uxbridge]

Paul would oppose all of these, favoring an elimination of the income tax with no replacement, essentially shutting the government down.

I have no issue with abolishing the income tax...and I don't imagine what issue I would have with a severe reduction to the operational capacity of the federal government. If we had a federal government that still operated in accord with the Constitution, we would dramatically reduce the federal budget...and try to imagine an America where the federal government wasn't confiscating the fruits of your labor

Last April, Ron Paul wrote on this:

But could America exist without an income tax? The idea seems radical, yet in truth America did just fine without a federal income tax for the first 126 years of her history. Prior to 1913, the government operated with revenues raised through tariffs, excise taxes, and property taxes, without ever touching a worker's paycheck. Even today, individual income taxes account for only approximately one-third of federal revenue. Eliminating one-third of the proposed 2007 budget would still leave federal spending at roughly $1.8 trillion-- a sum greater than the budget just 6 years ago in 2000! Does anyone seriously believe we could not find ways to cut spending back to 2000 levels? Perhaps the idea of an America without an income tax is not so radical after all. It’s something to think about this week as we approach April 15th.

[SJackson]

But could America exist without an income tax? The idea seems radical, yet in truth America did just fine without a federal income tax for the first 126 years of her history. Prior to 1913, the government operated with revenues raised through tariffs, excise taxes, and property taxes, without ever touching a worker's paycheck. Even today, individual income taxes account for only approximately one-third of federal revenue. Eliminating one-third of the proposed 2007 budget would still leave federal spending at roughly $1.8 trillion-- a sum greater than the budget just 6 years ago in 2000! Does anyone seriously believe we could not find ways to cut spending back to 2000 levels? Perhaps the idea of an America without an income tax is not so radical after all. It’s something to think about this week as we approach April 15th.

Cute statement, thoroughly irrelevant.

Yes, we got along without an income prior to 1913, but Paul isn't running in the 1912 elections, it's 2007.

And GWB did dramatically increase spending, and a 40% spending cut would get us near 2000 levels (Clinton's favorite year too), which is thoroughly irrelevant as regards the income tax.

I'll reproduce a previous post below. Show me how Ron Paul is going to run the government on $155 billion.

Answer, he's not, he's not serious, he's just tossing red meat to the uninformed.

--------------

 It's not 2000 anymore. Wikipedia is adequate for this. 2007 estimates. Scrap the income tax without replacement, you reduce receipts from $2.4 trillion to about $1.04 trillion.

Expenses (social security, medicare, debt interest) of about $1.22 trillion. How do you run the government?

OK, scrap social security and medicare and default on the debt. That's feasable in the real world. Now you've got $155 billion in revenue to run the government on.

Which expenditures do you keep?

It's an irresponsible "plan", there is no plan, which puts both Republicans and the issue of tax reform in a bad light.

But it get's whoops and hollers for Paul.

Total receipts

Estimated receipts for fiscal year 2007 were $2.4 trillion.
$1.1 trillion - Individual income tax
$884.1 billion - Social Security and other payroll taxes
$260.6 billion - Corporate income tax
$74.6 billion - Excise taxes
$28.1 billion - Customs duties
$23.7 billion - Estate and gift taxes
$48.4 billion - Other
Total spending

The President's budget for 2007 totals $2.8 trillion. Percentages in parentheses indicate percentage change compared to 2006. This budget request is broken down by the following expenditures:

$699 billion (+4.0%) - Defense
$586.1 billion (+7.0%) - Social Security
$394.5 billion (+12.4%) - Medicare
$367.0 billion (+2.0%) - Unemployment and welfare
$276.4 billion (+2.9%) - Medicaid and other health related
$243.7 billion (+13.4%) - Interest on debt
$89.9 billion (+1.3%) - Education and training
$76.9 billion (+8.1%) - Transportation
$72.6 billion (+5.8%) - Veterans' benefits
$43.5 billion (+9.2%) - Administration of justice
$33.1 billion (+5.7%) - Natural resources and environment
$32.5 billion (+15.4%) - Foreign affairs
$27.0 billion (+3.7%) - Agriculture
$26.8 billion (+28.7%) - Community and regional development
$25.0 billion (+4.0%) - Science and technology
$23.5 billion (+0.0%) - Energy
$20.1 billion (+11.4%) - General government

 

[MEGoody]

He has no chance so its a waste. But a fool and his money is easily parted.

Ever notice how often George Soros spends a bunch of his money trying to sway things politically and doesn't get results?

[MEGoody]

The last thing that the moveon.org types and Democratic leadrers want is a Hillary v. Paul race.

I can agree on the Dem leaders. But moveon and Code Pink would vote for Paul. He's the only nutjob, anti-war candidate so they can relate to him.

[reagan_fanatic]

You might want to re-think getting into your Mom’s medicine cabinet the next time around - it’s risky taking all that stuff at once.

[jmeagan]

******Cute statement, thoroughly irrelevant.

Yes, we got along without an income prior to 1913, but Paul isn’t running in the 1912 elections, it’s 2007.

And GWB did dramatically increase spending, and a 40% spending cut would get us near 2000 levels (Clinton’s favorite year too), which is thoroughly irrelevant as regards the income tax.*******

You have to remember that these things will be done in stages. Ron Paul knows that you can’t undo 90 years of problems with the stroke of a pen.

Also Ron Paul will fund, or at least partially fund, the federal government with “a uniform, but not a protectionist tariff.” Many economists believe that a “revenue” tariff will not harm free trade. I think any level of tariffs will help bring good jobs back to the country.

[uxbridge]

Well...lets assume that when a President puts his hand on the Bible and takes a sacred oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" that he's actually serious...I know its been a long time since a President took his oath seriously...but lets assume we would want the next President to do so. You can read Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution...it lists out the powers of the federal government. The 9th and 10th Amendments made clear what those who ratified the Constitution knew...if a power is not given to the federal government...they don't have it and any attempt to execute powers it does not have is a violation of the Constitution. You can read the powers...or consider Madison's summary of the powers from the Federalist 45:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negociation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

So, from your list of budget outlays, we can, if we are serious about the Constitution, eliminate Social Security (the Supreme Court has several times held that SS is not an insurance program...no one has any interest in payroll taxes they've paid...its merely a welfare giveaway for those who reach a certain age...so no need to concern ourselves that we're defaulting on SS benefits), Medicare, Medicaid and all health related expenditures, Unemployment and welfare, Education and training, Natural resources and environment, Agriculture, Community and regional development, Science and technology and Energy. Reduce Transportation by half or more...eliminate Foreign Affairs to the extent that it is foreign aid or financing for international agencies that the US government has no constitutional authority to be funding...and then adjust the remaining taxes to get you what you need.

With the economic boom created by eliminating the income tax, the government may have far more revenue than it needs to meet its Constitutional obligations

[april15Bendovr]

Anyone else thinking Ron Paul is getting his money from this cash cow?

[billbears]

Amazing. Everyone else down in 3Q which is normal but Ron Paul more than doubles his 2Q haul

Actually it's not amazing, it's on target with the feeling of the general public. Why are Democrats pulling in twice what Republicans are? Is the general public so concerned with healthcare? Or schools? Yeah, maybe that's it.

It's the same reason that Dr. Paul pulled in 5 times what that nut Huckleberry pulled in and when you take out what the Suit gave to himself, even more than Romney. The general public, like it or not, is tired of the police action. And they're going to vote based on that. And they're going to give based on that. In any other year, Rep. Paul would not get half of what he's getting. But he is. Because as even NRO has pointed out Rep. Paul has merged two groups of the Republican party they left behind a long time ago. Anti-war libertarians and limited government conservatives.

So Hannity can bloviate right along with Bill O'Reilly till the cows come home about how the terrorists hate our ATMs or some such. Bush can give another speech about 'spreading democracy' and winning the war on a tactic. Fox can interview Thompson and his wife tonight and slobber all over them (I'll be watching South Park instead). But facts are facts, and cold hard cash is cold hard cash. The only people still giving to the Republican party would give to the mainstream Republican party candidates if they ran a gerbil, hamster, and a mangy mutt as candidates. The general public is not listening anymore, plain and simple. This is not WWII part 2, this is not Japan and democracy remade, this is not the fight for civilization.

Now the faithful can get up in arms if they want, I don't care. Have a go with your one liners about Rep. Paul, or me for that matter. I don't care. I've said it before. Come this time next year no matter who the Republican candidate is, unless he is espousing limited government and ending the police action in Iraq, better get ready for Hillarycare because she'll win in a d#mn landslide.

[SJackson]

I understand why you didn't address the numbers, and why Paul doesn't. You can't, they don't add up. Any way, any how.

But the I'll eliminate the income tax stuff is just to get some hurrah's from the pitchfork waving crowds as we both know.

With the economic boom created by eliminating the income tax, the government may have far more revenue than it needs to meet its Constitutional obligations

A fascinating statement, does Ron Paul say this.

You eliminate the unconstitutional income tax and since it's accompanied by a shutdown of the government, business booms.

I'll play.

With no new taxes, and no income tax, why would a business expansion raise government revenue?

[SJackson]

You have to remember that these things will be done in stages. Ron Paul knows that you can’t undo 90 years of problems with the stroke of a pen.

No, I don't. Ron Paul has never said it would be done in states.

Second, what difference would it make. No revenue to run the government is no revenue to run the government.

If Ron Paul is going to "find" a protectionist tariff which will raise tariff revenues ten to twenty times, it's time for him to say that.

Lay out his plan. He hasn't.

I won't even go to the question of how a Congressman who's accomplished nothing legislatively in his long career is going to get these iniatives through Congress.

[rineaux]

better get ready for Hillarycare because she’ll win in a d#mn landslide. I Agree

IMO the Bush family will be excited about a Clinton win.

Jeb than will run for President in 2012, keeping the Bush, Clinton dynasty going.

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

Anyone else thinking Ron Paul is getting his money from this cash cow?
[Soros gif]

Nope.

Any more stupid questions?

[rineaux]

Anyone else thinking Ron Paul is getting his money from this cash cow?

Nope.

Any more stupid questions?

First, there is no such thing as a stupid question. LOL

A wait and see scenario, Hannity will start doing some digging and find out that some poor fella who works for one of Soros’ many of companies gave a donation to Dr Paul, therefore Dr Paul is guilty of ... (fill in the blanks).