Why are you cowards so scared to discuss the HONESTY of Rand Paul?

They have not done a full independent audit. They are only allowed to audit what the FED will allow them to audit. And you're still a moron. They need a policy audit. Yep, you're still the moron.

Oh. You didn't answer the question. Moron. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You question was moronic, and you know it. I find it pointless to argue about wacko conspiracy theories.

You question was moronic, and you know it. I find it pointless to argue about wacko conspiracy theories. Originally Posted by DSK

Just admit you're too stupid to answer. At least you'd be honest.

Just admit you're too stupid to answer. At least you'd be honest. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I'm beginning to think that WTF is right about you!!!

He thinks you should get your money back from all of those correspondence courses you took on winning friends and influencing people.

I'm beginning to think that WTF is right about you!!!

He thinks you should get your money back from all of those correspondence courses you took on winning friends and influencing people. Originally Posted by DSK

Would you believe I never took those courses? Honest! But you still didn't admit you are too stupid to answer the question. Doesn't matter. It's obvious.

I don't need to explain the header more clearly. Both Rand and his Dad have SCARED the Ruling Class with exposure to the TRUTH!

Don't feel alone... the entire media , including FOX NEWS , is GUILTY!!

Shame on almost EVERYONE!! Originally Posted by NTJME

I've timed out... but given these initial replies... I should have shortened the header to "Cowards" !!
Fucking Shameless Bunch Of Useless POS, here!! * No Balls in this entire forum!! * Originally Posted by NTJME

So, you seem to have thrown down the challenge for someone to quibble with the "honesty" and purported "truth-telling" served up by Rand Paul.

OK, I'll play!

(Disclaimer: I am a fiscal conservative and right of center on most tax and economic policy issues, so I do like to give a fair hearing to libertarians as well as others who offer ideas aimed at implementing real reform.)

First, consider Paul's proposed tax plan. It has two branches; a 14.5% flat income tax and a 14.5% consumption tax, or national sales tax (similar to the VAT that's virtually universal in Europe). He has referred to the latter as a "business activity tax" and a "business transfer tax." Thus, his readers and listeners might get the idea that it's somehow similar to the corporate income tax. But it isn't, and I suspect that potential middle class and lower-income supporters might not be so happy when they find out that the tax is a regressive consumption tax, not the "usual" sort of corporate income tax. (Ted Cruz does the same thing, by the way -- he calls his 16% consumption tax a "business flat tax.")

In my view, there are good arguments in favor of replacing a destructive tax like our corporate income tax (one of the worst in the world) with a tax system that produces less deadweight loss. But I prefer that proponents of tax reform present their policy proposals forthrightly and straight up without applying misnomers or sleight-of-hand.

Our current tax code is a monstrosity that, in my opinion, should be pulled out by its roots and replaced with something much simpler and more efficient. But you can hardly pull up a dozen articles on the public policy debate without reading about how much income and wealth inequality has increased in recent years. Thus, something that amounts to a very large tax cut for the wealthy and high income earners is just about as much of a political non-starter as one can imagine.

Yet Paul offers a very large tax cut while promising to balance the budget. Good luck with that!

All of his "audit the Fed" talk is another big slice of disingenuousness. It's not about "auditing" the Fed at all, and it's just another red herring.

The Fed already undergoes multiple annual audits by an inspector general and an outside auditing firm (Deloitte and Touche), as well as reviews by the GAO.

If there were truth-in-advertising here, the "audit the Fed" bill would be called the "politicians' takeover of the Fed bill" instead. The effect would be to force-feed the policy whims and fancies of whatever party is in power to the Fed.

To envision what might result, try the following as a little thought experiment:

Suppose that Rand Paul or another like-minded candidate became president, and served with a complaisant congress. One might then expect a push to go back to the gold standard, or some sort of gold-exchange standard. Imagine the ensuing disruption and chaos that would shake global markets to the core while this was being debated.

On the other hand, suppose instead that Hillary Clinton were president and had a Nancy Pelosi-led congress with a majority equal to that of 2009-2010. If the economy began to falter, there's no telling what the Fed would be pressured into doing. For starters, a liberal congress would probably listen to Paul Krugman, who in 2011 urged QE in the amount of $8-10 trillion. (Yes, seriously!)

Imagine further that monetary policy vacillated between these two extremes every time the political winds changed direction in Washington. It wouldn't be a pretty picture.

The Fed has already given us enough to be alarmed about over a period of quite a few years. Further exacerbating the chaos by allowing full-blown (legal and institutionalized) politicization of the Fed can hardly be a prudent course. (And the Fed is already politicized enough as it is.)

That's why I suggest that Rand Paul supporters who cheer the "audit the Fed" bill drill down into the issue and think though what's really going on here. You should be careful what you wish for.

(Note: I wrote most of the above in October of 2015, but nothing stated herein has changed since then.)

Are you saying Nixon was impeached for the wrong thing? Originally Posted by WTF

Where the hell did you get that from my post? Your contact with reality declines daily. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Not really, COG.... the reference was to Nixon's decision to sever the dollar's $35-an-ounce link and abandon the gold standard in 1971.... I understood the reference, why didn't you?

OK, I'll play! Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Hey, the Cap'n is in! Time to halt the name-calling and engage in some intelligent discourse. I am not as familiar as you are with the details of each candidate's tax proposals. Do you like any of them or are they all built on pie-in-the-sky projections?

I have two general comments when it comes to tax reform. First, we did it all before under Reagan and it didn't last. For a brief and fleeting moment back in 1986-? there were only two individual income brackets and the same rates applied to both ordinary income and capital gains. Great simplification - until the politicians started to fuck with the code again, carving out new loopholes and exemptions and expanding brackets all over again. How do we prevent this from happening this time? If we're going to reform the tax code, let's do it right and ring-fence the new rules so they can't be fucked with!

Second, you mention how hard it would be to cut taxes today, since so much of the benefit would accrue to high-income earners and this would aggravate inequality. Well, why the fuck is that? It's because the libtards have made the tax code so steeply progressive over the years that the vast bulk of all federal income taxes (as opposed to SS/Medicare taxes) are now paid by the top 10% of all earners! In other words, the top 10% are the only ones left to cut in any meaningful attempt to stimulate the economy. Of course, libtards don't want to cut taxes anyway, and now they've gamed it so they can demagogue ANY proposed tax cuts or reforms as a "giveaway" to the rich!

I agree with you 100% about the audit-the-Fed stuff. If you press the conspiracy theorists to explain precisely what they're looking for, they usually mention things that are already publicly known or available. And too many of these Rand Paul acolytes are clueless about how the monetary system works. They think the Fed just prints out banknotes and makes them available to fund the government. They want to know who "controls" a process they can't even fathom correctly. They all need to take a course in Money and Banking 101, learn the basics (like how banks "create" money each time they make a loan, and how currency in circulation is just a tiny fraction of the money base) and then come back and try to rejoin the conversation.
.

Not really, COG.... the reference was to Nixon's decision to sever the dollar's $35-an-ounce link and abandon the gold standard in 1971.... I understood the reference, why didn't you? Originally Posted by lustylad

Of course I got reference. I was alive when it happened and opposed it then. It was another attempt by WPF to cloud the issue, and I didn't take the bait, you did. Congratulations.


As to auditing the FED, certain parts have been audited, but there has never been a full blown financial AND policy audit. That's what we need. Congress was given to sole responsibility to coin money and regulate its value. The people have a right to know what the FED is doing, how it is doing it, and why. No other institution has a bigger effect on our lives than the FED, and no institution operates with such secrecy. Have you ever watched Yellen testify before Congress? I can't believe they let her get away with so much lack of cooperation. This country (used to) belong to the people. The FED supposedly does the people's business. The people have a right to know.


And, since Captain Midnight has joined the conversation about taxes, I'd like to ask how would you, Captain, change the tax code? What would you keep? What would you change? Thanks.

Policy audit?

Is that what you call it?

Policy audit?

Is that what you call it? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Yes

So, you seem to have thrown down the challenge for someone to quibble with the "honesty" and purported "truth-telling" served up by Rand Paul.

OK, I'll play!

(Disclaimer: I am a fiscal conservative and right of center on most tax and economic policy issues, so I do like to give a fair hearing to libertarians as well as others who offer ideas aimed at implementing real reform.)

First, consider Paul's proposed tax plan. It has two branches; a 14.5% flat income tax and a 14.5% consumption tax, or national sales tax (similar to the VAT that's virtually universal in Europe). He has referred to the latter as a "business activity tax" and a "business transfer tax." Thus, his readers and listeners might get the idea that it's somehow similar to the corporate income tax. But it isn't, and I suspect that potential middle class and lower-income supporters might not be so happy when they find out that the tax is a regressive consumption tax, not the "usual" sort of corporate income tax. (Ted Cruz does the same thing, by the way -- he calls his 16% consumption tax a "business flat tax.")

In my view, there are good arguments in favor of replacing a destructive tax like our corporate income tax (one of the worst in the world) with a tax system that produces less deadweight loss. But I prefer that proponents of tax reform present their policy proposals forthrightly and straight up without applying misnomers or sleight-of-hand.

Our current tax code is a monstrosity that, in my opinion, should be pulled out by its roots and replaced with something much simpler and more efficient. But you can hardly pull up a dozen articles on the public policy debate without reading about how much income and wealth inequality has increased in recent years. Thus, something that amounts to a very large tax cut for the wealthy and high income earners is just about as much of a political non-starter as one can imagine.

Yet Paul offers a very large tax cut while promising to balance the budget. Good luck with that!

All of his "audit the Fed" talk is another big slice of disingenuousness. It's not about "auditing" the Fed at all, and it's just another red herring.

The Fed already undergoes multiple annual audits by an inspector general and an outside auditing firm (Deloitte and Touche), as well as reviews by the GAO.

If there were truth-in-advertising here, the "audit the Fed" bill would be called the "politicians' takeover of the Fed bill" instead. The effect would be to force-feed the policy whims and fancies of whatever party is in power to the Fed.

To envision what might result, try the following as a little thought experiment:

Suppose that Rand Paul or another like-minded candidate became president, and served with a complaisant congress. One might then expect a push to go back to the gold standard, or some sort of gold-exchange standard. Imagine the ensuing disruption and chaos that would shake global markets to the core while this was being debated.

On the other hand, suppose instead that Hillary Clinton were president and had a Nancy Pelosi-led congress with a majority equal to that of 2009-2010. If the economy began to falter, there's no telling what the Fed would be pressured into doing. For starters, a liberal congress would probably listen to Paul Krugman, who in 2011 urged QE in the amount of $8-10 trillion. (Yes, seriously!)

Imagine further that monetary policy vacillated between these two extremes every time the political winds changed direction in Washington. It wouldn't be a pretty picture.

The Fed has already given us enough to be alarmed about over a period of quite a few years. Further exacerbating the chaos by allowing full-blown (legal and institutionalized) politicization of the Fed can hardly be a prudent course. (And the Fed is already politicized enough as it is.)

That's why I suggest that Rand Paul supporters who cheer the "audit the Fed" bill drill down into the issue and think though what's really going on here. You should be careful what you wish for.

(Note: I wrote most of the above in October of 2015, but nothing stated herein has changed since then.) Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

I think it is very necessary to consider the political challenges like you have done. You cannot do anything completely rational in a society that is trained to get free handouts by the Democrat party.

Hence, we are left with QE, also known as printing money.(technically, expanding the balance sheet) Embrace it on our way down to becoming a third world country, for it is the most painless and politically palatable way to pay for huge government giveaways without raising taxes. It will only cause inflation, which raises real estate values, gold, and commodity pricing, which we mostly benefit from in the capital holding class.

The only people who don't like it are old grumps on fixed income and no assets.

Of course I got the reference. I was alive when it happened and opposed it then. It was another attempt by WPF to cloud the issue, and I didn't take the bait, you did. Congratulations. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

So you opposed Nixon's 1971 decision to sever the gold link - but not enough to impeach him for it? Ok, I get it. You do understand that if he hadn't acted, the nation's gold reserves would have been depleted a long time ago, as foreign Central Banks exchanged their excess dollar reserves for our gold bullion at the official $35-an-ounce price? How would that have helped the US economy or made Americans more secure?

And now you want to abolish the Fed and “back our money with gold or silver” again. How does that work? Who issues the US currency if the Fed is abolished? At what price(s) does the US government re-peg the dollar to precious metals? When everyone everywhere wants to exchange their dollars into gold or silver at the same time, how do we avoid depleting our bullion stocks? We're right back to the problem Nixon wisely solved by severing the link in 1971.

And as a “true Libertarian” what's your gripe anyway? If you're worried about the government printing too many dollars, don't hold cash. You're completely free right now to buy and hoard as much gold or silver as your heart desires. You can sit around all day counting your krugerrands, or you can melt the stuff down and decorate your bathroom with it. Nobody is stopping you. Nobody is infringing on your liberties in any way.

Hence, we are left with QE, also known as printing money.(technically, expanding the balance sheet) Embrace it on our way down to becoming a third world country, for it is the most painless and politically palatable way to pay for huge government giveaways without raising taxes. It will only cause inflation, which raises real estate values, gold, and commodity pricing, which we mostly benefit from in the capital holding class. Originally Posted by DSK

QE as currently practiced is not a way to fund the govt directly or a substitute for taxes. It simply means the Fed is buying and holding large quantities of debt. The sellers of the debt are mostly banks, which in turn deposit the cash as excess reserves with the Fed (since lending opportunities are slim). The Fed earns the difference between the interest it pays to the banks and the interest it earns on the debt it purchased under QE. Currently this is around $100 billion a year - not an insignificant amount, but equivalent to only 2.5% of annual federal spending.

As for inflation, where is it? The prices of gold, oil and nearly all commodities (except real estate in certain areas) are way down versus four years ago.

You have issues, Lusty. At the time, I didn't care why they impeached Nixon, so long as they did. I held a party when he resigned. The Constitution provides for Congress to manage the money supply. And I hold no cash positions.

Have some Ovaltine and take a nap. You'll feel better.

You have issues, Lusty. At the time, I didn't care why they impeached Nixon, so long as they did. I held a party when he resigned. The Constitution provides for Congress to manage the money supply. And I hold no cash positions.

Have some Ovaltine and take a nap. You'll feel better. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

No issues here. You're the one who wants to go back to a gold standard but can't explain how to do it or why it is a good idea. And you're the one who wants all "true Libertarians" to follow your lead in abolishing the Fed, but can't explain what liberties are being infringed.

But hey, I guess "Abolish the Fed!" is a popular bumper sticker in Wichita.