Exclusive: Paul Tops $5 Mil For Quarter

RealClearPolitics Politics ^ | October 03, 2007 | Reid Wilson

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

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

Sure there are. Haven't you heard Jeff Foxworthy going through his "Here's your sign" routine?

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).

C'mon, be fair to the guy. Remember his (her?) quote:

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

Sean Hannity has demonstrated time and time again that he doesn't think.

[rineaux]

Sean Hannity has demonstrated time and time again that he doesn’t think.

You are on today. LOL. I quit listening to the nitwit entertainer a long time ago.

[mnehring]

Looks like our friend Nash is telling his Paul friends he posted something different to get banned:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=22192

[KDD]

All the negative bile spewed here and at other places about Ron Paul help pique curiosity among those who didn't know him before. In Paul's case even the negative press plays to his advantage as long as they spell his name right. People who wonder how crazy Paul is can then go read about him through the nearly 1000 speech's and writings at this link and find out what the fuss is all about. His record puts a lie to all the anti Paul rhetoric spewed by those desperate to maintain the status quo. His writings strike a chord with many Americans. We shall see how it plays out but I double my donation to his campaign every quarter. I drove through the Truck Stop in Port Charlotte last night and saw half a dozen Paul stickers on the big rigs parked there. That may not be many but they were the only political stickers in sight on the lot.

[John Farson]

Paul does not advocate tariffs. You made that up.

He opposes NAFTA because it creates another regulatory body that “manages” trade. That isn’t free.

[rineaux]

Port Charlotte last night and saw half a dozen Paul stickers on the big rigs parked there.

With the NAFTA highway open, I’m surprised you saw that many american truckers in one place. Go back in 6 months to a year and you may be lucky to find just one american trucker on the road.

[Admin Moderator]

Not very bright, is he? Nashdiesel was kittenchow after #31, his very first post.

[SJackson]

Paul does not advocate tariffs. You made that up.

Well, he's voted against reducing them. And many of his supporters mention tariffs when queried about how revenue lost by eliminating the income tax will be made up. You'll note their mention in 47 and 53.

But if you're telling me Paul is opposed to tariffs, I'll take your word for it since it's a minor issue.

[BigTom85]

The last thing the Dem leaders would want is a ron Paul type to win. Relax yourself.

[dcwusmc]

But who he’s NOT out of step with are the Founders and the Constitution... you know, that pesky document that puts severe limits on what government is allowed to do? Remember? THAT Constitution... the one Bush ignores. Bush’s veto of SCHIP SHOULD have asked Congress the musical question: “WHERE is the Constitutional authority to spend the People’s money on anything to do with health care?” So it’s your Party that’s out of step... with the Constitution, the Founders and the majority (dare I say, “VAST majority?”) of the American People. Even if you don’t like Dr. Paul personally, why are you letting the Stupid Party get away with all these UNCONSTITUTIONAL behaviours??????

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

That said, why isn't he running as Libertarian or an Independent?

Because if he did, folks would be bitching that he's throwing the race to Hillary. Be glad that he's running as a Republican, and he has stated that he won't run 3rd party.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Ron Paul has never said it would be done in states.

It's obvious you've never haggled for a vehicle or tried to argue for the best deal. By advocating such an extreme position on his end, Paul increases his chances of getting something that most people will overwhelmingly accept. The IRS may not be abolished, but I'll bet that it's power will be drastically reduced and there'll be a low flat tax of about 10-15%. Paul will easily get a few departments abolished "in exchange" for "agreeing" to a low flat tax instead of outright killing it.

[dcwusmc]

Easily done. Watch:

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:

$699 500 billion - Defense(cuts are for expenses of maintaining troops in Europe, Asia, and other places NOT part of an active war zone)
$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 2.5 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

Now, selling off about 99 percent of NON-military-affiliated federally held lands would allow some latitude to get rid of one of the highest pieces of spending left, the interest on the debt... but once the debt is paid, NO MORE, ever. You can see where the Unconstitutional Spending could be dumped with very little impact on your average American, except for a major increase in his personal wealth as he was no longer constrained to pay over half or more of his substance to a bloated and evil government.

[jmeagan]

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

Well, Ron Paul has said that SS would be phased out. First, by allowing the youngest people to opt out while protecting the older people.

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

There are many other revenues to run the government. Bringing the troops home from Iraq would save a bunch of money.

****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.****

No, he says he will have a uniform but not a protectionist tariff. Our tariffs are so low that a uniform tariff of 10% will probably increase our tariff revenue close to 10 times.

***Lay out his plan. He hasn’t.****

Just because you don’t know it doesn’t mean he hasn’t laid our his plan.

*****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.****

Oh, Ron Paul supporters don’t think it will be a cake walk. We realize that many things will be passed over his veto, as we really have a go along, get along congress. However, he will be able to prevent a lot of excess spending via the veto power.

He won’t blink like Newt did against Clinton.

[George W. Bush]

Looks like our friend Nash is telling his Paul friends he posted something different to get banned:

I looked at your link. It appears from the linked page that he was replying when he got banned. I think he was posted #51 which we can't see.

He said "And thanks for the Welcome. The Ron Paul train is using some of the 5 million to upgrade to a Maglev." And he was quoting SJackson's tagline. So he was replying to Ditter's welcome in #35 and/or discussing SJackson's tagline when he got the Lavender Screen Of Death.

Not that it matters anyway. But it's clear that he was replying, not referring to his original post. I think our new signups get monitored by the mods here for a few days so they can decide if they're suitable members. Not sure when JohnRob introduced that feature.

[Proud2b4America]

Win or Lose , Ron Paul is Speaking the words
of Freedom and Liberty, and that message
is getting louder and louder. It’s not
about Ron Paul, don’t you get it?

[MEGoody]

The last thing the Dem leaders would want is a ron Paul type to win.

Uh, that's what I said. Next time, you might want to actually READ the post before you respond to it.

[SJackson]

I don’t consider the Republican Party the Stupid Party. You appear to be in complete agreement with my statement that Ron Paul is not a Republican based on agreement with Republican policies, rather for the convenience of having a major party ballot spot.

[SJackson]

Easily done. Watch:...Now, selling off about 99 percent of NON-military-affiliated federally held lands would allow some latitude to get rid of one of the highest pieces of spending left, the interest on the debt... but once the debt is paid, NO MORE, ever. You can see where the Unconstitutional Spending could be dumped with very little impact on your average American, except for a major increase in his personal wealth as he was no longer constrained to pay over half or more of his substance to a bloated and evil government.

I am, and again you make my point, Paul's proposals are completely unworkable.

Your version of a Paul "budget" spends $838 billion, on $411.7 in revenue. Doesn't work. Even if one accepts your highly speculative proposal to eliminate all our debt by selling off federal land, to the Saudis I presume, you're still spending almost $600 billion, 50% more than revenues.

As to additional unconstitutional spending, you're spending only on defense, veterans benefits, law enforcement and general expenses. Which of those are unconstitutional?

I should note that if the income tax is unconstitutional, I don't think it is, it's unconstitutional. You can't collect corporate income tax. On the other hand since we will have no active war zone under Paul, he's withdrawing from Iraq, Afghanistan and everywhere else immediately, you could cut defense spending to far less than $500 billion.

In any instance, another source of revenue is needed to replace the income tax, including the corporate tax.

[WhistlingPastTheGraveyard]

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

They want Ross Perot. That's what they're paying for. That's what they're getting.

They're pumping money into H. Ross Paul's campaign (which will be joined by Chuck Hagel as soon as Paul gets all he can out of the GOP debates and leaves the party in an anti-war huff) because he can never/would never/will never get any more than 10-15% of the vote in a national election. Which is about half of what Hillary Clinton needs to win easily.

You and the rest of the mujahadeen are working for Hillary Clinton, whether you know it or not. I suspect most of you do know it and just relish the chance to actually have an impact on an election for a change.