Exactly. Why not at least get an assessment before we tear it down?

 

Seems to me we've had a 30 year assessment already.

Did the tax plan come up? I read that Mr. Paul is reluctant to discuss it. I have no clue what his plan is.

He favors a Fair Tax. Eliminate ALL federal withholding taxes (Income, Medicare, Socail Security etc.) and replace them with a 23% federal sales tax. Maybe the reason he is reluctant to talk about is is becasue all the liberal news papers ever tell you is that he favors a 23% sales tax with out telling the part about the tazes that would be eliminated.

Maybe the reason he is reluctant to talk about is is becasue all the liberal news papers ever tell you is that he favors a 23% sales tax with out telling the part about the tazes that would be eliminated.

 

I guess I missed those articles.

Rand Paul supports replacing income tax with higher sales tax, eliminating IRS

He favors a Fair Tax. Eliminate ALL federal withholding taxes (Income, Medicare, Socail Security etc.) and replace them with a 23% federal sales tax. .

 

Thanks . I wasn't aware of it but I had heard he was going back and forth. Here's what I found.

 

 

Tuesday:

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20101012/NEWS0108/310120059/Rand-Paul-supports-changing-tax-code-eliminating-IRS

 

"The federal tax code is a disaster no one would come up with if we were starting from scratch," Paul said in a written statement distributed by an anti-tax group and verified by his campaign. "I support making taxes flatter and simpler. I would vote for the FairTax to get rid of the Sixteenth Amendment, the IRS and a lot of the control the federal government exerts over us."

 

Today:

 

http://www.kentucky.com/2010/10/14/1478915/rand-paul-distances-himself-from.html

 

An anti-tax group had announced Tuesday that Paul pledged support for a proposal to repeal the Sixteenth Amendment, which created the tax, and replace it with a national sales tax.

But when reporters asked Paul Wednesday why he thought the tax should be abolished, he said, "I really haven't been saying anything like that."

 

 

So is he for it but doesn't want to say it again?

I don't know, nor do I care. He is a better option the JFK lite Conway.

 

Conway still hasn't given a position on anything.

I don't know, nor do I care. He is a better option the JFK lite Conway.

 

Conway still hasn't given a position on anything.

 

You don't care what tax position he takes?

That's going to be real interesting in the coming election. Many Tea Party candidates have complained about career politicians, but it will be interesting to see how many of them step down after only one or two terms. My guess is that not many will be leaving Washington by choice any time soon, be they Democrat, Republican, Tea Party, or whatever.

 

You are right, they will not leave by their own choice because they have created such a great environment for themselves that it's to difficult to leave. I want term limits so bad, but they will never be voted on by the very people who oppose them because of all of their sweetheart deals. They are in a private club, and none of them ever want to leave. It's almost sickening. Politics in this country are so out of whack.

You don't care what tax position he takes?

 

He favors lower taxes for most people that's what I care about and I do favor a Fair Tax. I'm a big picture kind of guy. There's very little chance that Rand Paul by himself can accomplish many of his stated goals BUT he will be a vote that will help stop the Democratic agenda. Conway will be IMVHO a rubber stamp for Obama and Reid. I have little optimism that the Republicans will regain control of the Senate BUT I do think they can pick up 2 or 3 seats and negate the filibuster breaking votes of RINOs like Olympia Snowe. That's the main reason that I will vote for Paul.

You are right, they will not leave by their own choice because they have created such a great environment for themselves that it's to difficult to leave. I want term limits so bad, but they will never be voted on by the very people who oppose them because of all of their sweetheart deals. They are in a private club, and none of them ever want to leave. It's almost sickening. Politics in this country are so out of whack.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but hasn't it been determined by the SCOTUS that enacting term limits on the House or Senate would require a constitutional amendment? After the whole "Contract with America" changeover I thought that the SCOTUS issued such an opinion but I may be wrong.

leatherneck, I have responded in bold.

Is the drug problem in eastern Ky something a U.S. Senator should make a major concern if elected; try to solve; has the capability to solve? Yes I do because the drug problem is not isolated to eastern Ky but it is a state wide issue. If this problem isn't solved then we as a state lose because we stand to lose an entire generation to drugs. The abuse and diversion of prescription drugs, particularly hydrocodone and oxycodone, remain one of, if not the, largest drug problem in southeastern Kentucky. The availability of diverted pharmaceuticals in central and northern Kentucky remains at a high level. The presence of heroin in Kentucky is limited, but the availability of Mexican Black Tar heroin has risen in the Louisville area. There is a low demand for small amounts of heroin in some areas of southeastern Kentucky. When encountered, heroin has usually been found in user amounts, with the sources of supply from Atlanta, Georgia, or Chicago, Illinois. http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/state_factsheets/kentucky.html

Or is that more of a local problem to be a addressed by parents, local law enforcement, churches, school personnel and business and community leaders? No its not just a local problem. Local officials reported 114 overdose deaths during the first two months of this year in 21 Eastern and southern Kentucky counties, Karen Engle, head of the Operation UNITE anti-drug task force, said recently.Read more: http://www.kentucky.com/2010/08/13/1390380/paul-eastern-kentucky-drug-problem.html#ixzz12NC9iybn Is every problem, even a big problem like drugs in eastern Ky, something the federal govt should be looked to for the answers? Yes the program is already in place. When Paul first criticized federal spending on Operation UNITE in early July, Rogers issued a statement defending the program. "Both the local and state authorities lacked the resources and manpower necessary to address this problem, and communities were literally crying out for help," Rogers said at the time.

 

I have no idea what Paul meant when he said it wasn't a real pressing issue. I'd have phrased it: "it's a big problem. But it's a big local govt problem. Solve it yourselves and don't look for the federal govt to fix all your problems. As a U.S. Senator, I've got other problems that are the responsibility of the federal govt to fix and they are more pressing to me."

I don't see what could be more pressing than trying to save your loved one from an early death.

 

I think the best way that the federal govt can help the drug problem is to fix this economy, revamp the tax code to stimulate the creation of more jobs, and reduce the amount of federal regulations driving jobs overseas. And those should be the pressing issues of our next U.S. Senator. This makes absolutely no sense to me. I know several friends who are fighting this drug problem within their families. These families all have good jobs but yet their son or daughters are hooked on these drugs. They have tried everything available to help them but I personally know of four of those families who have buried their love one. This drug problem has to be a pressing issue of someone that I would vote for as my U.S. Senator.

Edited October 15, 201015 yr by rockmom
fixed quote

I guess I'm trying to figure out how Mr. Paul is going to improve Kentucky by, say, eliminating the Department of Education. His views are so extreme that, quite frankly, few of them are likely to be given even a glance. That helps no one.

 

Logical thing to want to figure out, but in order to know what we will be missing if it's eliminated, we first need to know how is the Department of Education helping Kentucky? And does the level of help justify the level of cost?

I am not sure it does.

So we should eliminate the free and reduced lunch program, special education, Title 1 . . .

So we should eliminate the free and reduced lunch program, special education, Title 1 . . .

 

While some are good programs they are by NO MEANS efficiently ran with the federal government involved. A good amount of time is wasted on federal paperwork that could actually be spent helping the students.