Who is Gary Johnson?

[themadscientist]

Take 45 minutes out of your life and listen to the man. The question and response at 30 min was so great. I know he has the same reaction as me, because he actually does it!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjVTBKVGDFE&sns=fb[/youtube]

[bigbadberry3]

The Obama robot is kind of faux pas IMO.

[themadscientist]

I agree, but I don't call your attention to it to see bad impersonation.

[themadscientist]

All that glitters is not gold. I walk my talk folks, pay attention. Just because Obama makes me projectile vomit and Romney makes me dry heave doesn't mean a damned thing when I look at the third guy and Houston, we have a problem.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/rel ... _blog.html

The Grand Old Party has lost Roger Stone. The once-golden (if wild) child of right-minded Republicans has broken ranks — and left his past behind.

“On Monday, I left the Republican Party changing my Florida voter registration to the Libertarian Party,” he wrote Wednesday on his “Stone Zone” blog. “. . .To put it bluntly the Republican Party is hopelessly [expletive] up.”

I agree with your assessment of the "grand old party" Mr. Stone. So what's the problem?

Nice Tat Roger. Is that, Nixon? Why yes it is! What a great Libertarian he was, certain to be ensconced in the pantheon of, wait a f*** minute.


Nixon was an ***hole scumbag. People tend to associate with and certainly only get tattoos of people they like. Let's dig.

Well, he had some advice for disgraced congressman Anthony Weiner.
http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailyp ... ony-weiner

Was it to apologize for being such an ***hole? Not so much.

"The American people have a short memory and are forgiving by nature," he said. "Now [Weiner] needs to follow my other rule: 'Lay low, play dumb and keep moving.'

Apparently Mr. Stone has a list of suchs rules. Here's a few that Rahm Emmanuel would appreciate.

"Admit nothing, deny everything, launch counterattack."

"Unless you can fake sincerity, you'll get nowhere in this business."

Yeah. I am putting 2 and 2 together and getting fecal matter. This just hit the inboxes of the LP Chair and the Gary Johnson campaign.

Mr. Johnson,,,,'s operative, good day. I don't expect he answers these things himself, that's fine.

I am a supporter of Ron Paul's candidacy, but I think the GOP has effectively subverted that so unable to tolerate the bile pooling at the back of my throat from the idea of voting for Mitt Romney I go in search of another option.

I have taken a cursory look at Mr. Johnson and I like a great deal of what he says. I am on the cusp of checking his name in November. Unfortunately, unlike most people, I dig a little bit before deciding such things of portent. My shovel has hit a stone, though. I mean a Stone, a Roger Stone. We have a problem.

The Libertarian Party states, and I quote, "We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized."

A noble statement and I support that 100%. There is, however, what we say, then there is what we do. If what we say does not jive with what we do, we are liars. I don't support dishonest people. I don't do business with people who say one thing and do another.

I am not taking Mr. Stone to task. Yes, he has ideas about personal and professional conduct that would make Machiavelli cringe, but he owns that. He makes no bones about being a scumbag that Rahm Emmanuel probably has nightmares about. In a way, I actually respect that. Why? Because he says and does the same thing. In a twisted way, by being honest about being dishonest, he's, for lack of a better term, "honest."

Here's the rub. This man, his ideas, his tool kit, his tactics, do NOT jive with the stated ideals of the Libertarian party and do NOT jive with the manner in which candidate Johnson portrays himself. Despite this, here he is working for a party and a candidate that if they adhere to their stated goals should be the first to rebuke him.

I am having difficulty reconciling this and I am confident I am not the only one who just went from "WOW" to "WTF?" I like Mr. Johnson's words. What I have dug up about his time as governor to this point are also positive, but this revelation is a poison pill. I think Mr. Johnson needs to take a hard look at who is in his campaign and understand what it says about him and decide if he can allow that to define him because it does and it will.

If Roger Stone is going to continue to be a part of the Johnson campaign, it needs to be explained to us. I am looking at your candidate because I don't vote for the "lesser of two evils." I will not vote for the lesser of three evils either and Stone is an evil man.

Between now and election day one of two things needs to happen for Mr. Johnson to secure my vote.

1. Stone needs to get the boot and his sort of dirty tactics need to be avoided. That the Democrats and Republicans engage in the same with reckless abandon is true, but in no way justifies the same. If you can't win with the truth, you don't deserve to win because there is so much factual information readily available on Obama and Romney that a wet towel could effectively cast doubt on their character and ability. or

2. Mr. Johnson needs to prepare possibly the most compelling argument in the history of the written word how enlisting the services of the "GOP hitman" reconciles with the stated ideals of the Libertarian Party and its chosen candidate.

The ball is in your court. I would prefer to have someone to vote FOR on that day, but make no mistake; if there is no such person, I WILL STAY HOME. I will do something productive with my day as the electoral process will be a failed enterprise.

[IBCoupe]

I like Gary Johnson and appreciate the fact that he exists. I don't want him as my President.

[carloslebaron]

Gary Johnson is just another politician, that's all.

Lets see his point about taxes. In minute 7:44 he says that he will eliminate the IRS, he doesn't say about of what he will do with the thousands and thousands of people from government and private corporations (H&R Block as an example) who will be unemployed because the IRS is out.

But, regardless of the future of these people, why Gary Johnson hasn't started his famous FAIRTAX at home already? As a twice elected governor, he could have adopted his FAIRTAX at a State level long time ago, and prove that such a method of collecting taxes works, but, of course, as a good politician, he promises that such method of collecting tax will work only at the federal level...sure, right Mr Johnson...

Look Mr.Gary Johnson, I don't believe you until you eliminate your STATE TAX COLLECTION OFFICES first, and change New Mexico into a FAIRTAX State...and let the people to pay their Federal taxes only.

Lets see him with education, starting at minute 8:21. His policy is the same than president Bush policy, by providing vouchers in order to comply with parents who are not happy with public schools. He claims that the best is to eliminate the Department of Education, sure, right, he loves creating more unemployment. But, lets pass over this out of job situation for many and lets go to specifics.

The current method is to make the student to pass grades even if he didn't learn the subjects, what the STATE will do for this situation? Will the STATE (lets say New Mexico) will finally return back to the system where if the student doesn't learn he just won't pass the grade and must repeat the grade on the following school year?

Gary Johnson...hello?

In the topic "President Obama's hoax" (locked topic). themadscientist posted the following as his points to make better public education:

Return control of public education back to the states...make public schools compete with private through school vouchers...
50 labs of innovation..practice...etc.etc... this is to say, the same words said by Gary Johnson in his one hour TV interview...

Dear themadscientist, even when you claim that Gary Johnson shares the same ideals with you, let me tell you that I know Gary Johnson, and that you are not Gary Johnson...

[stebo0728]

Lets see his point about taxes. In minute 7:44 he says that he will eliminate the IRS, he doesn't say about of what he will do with the thousands and thousands of people from government and private corporations (H&R Block as an example) who will be unemployed because the IRS is out.

But, regardless of the future of these people, why Gary Johnson hasn't started his famous FAIRTAX at home already? As a twice elected governor, he could have adopted his FAIRTAX at a State level long time ago, and prove that such a method of collecting taxes works, but, of course, as a good politician, he promises that such method of collecting tax will work only at the federal level...sure, right Mr Johnson...

Look Mr.Gary Johnson, I don't believe you until you eliminate your STATE TAX COLLECTION OFFICES first, and change New Mexico into a FAIRTAX State...and let the people to pay their Federal taxes only.

Ok, I suppose I am as close to the FairTax expert on this forum as we have. Anytime I see someone speak ignorantly of the plan, I have to chime in. First of all, the FairTax plan is NOT Gary Johnson's plan. He does back then plan, and for that I admire him, because its a fabulous plan. So, next, lets address this "thousands will be out of jobs" issue. Yes, some will lose their jobs, but with the dismantling of the IRS, a new entity will be required, though its size and scope will be quite dimished from that of the IRS. Also, you can expect the cookie cutter tax temp workers that work for 4 weeks in March and April to be out of a job. But actual CPA's by FAR welcome the FairTax. They have far more financial matters to be involved with than just finessing a tax code that not even Timmy Geitner could understand.

Next, the FairTax plan was designed as a Federal revenue neutral plan. Although I am convinced that a similar plan could work at the state level, it would require different details than a Federal plan. Again, since Mr. Johnson did NOT devise this plan, he's not really in a position to advise a state level plan either.

I implore you to actually learn something about the FairTax plan before blindly bashing it, or its supporters. If you like being easily manipulated and mislead by an income tax system that no one can understand, well that's you're prerogative. But if you actually expand your mind a bit and seek to take the power of taxation back into your own hands, you just might find yourself on Mr. Johnson's side of the fence on this one.

[carloslebaron]

Lets see his point about taxes. In minute 7:44 he says that he will eliminate the IRS, he doesn't say about of what he will do with the thousands and thousands of people from government and private corporations (H&R Block as an example) who will be unemployed because the IRS is out.

But, regardless of the future of these people, why Gary Johnson hasn't started his famous FAIRTAX at home already? As a twice elected governor, he could have adopted his FAIRTAX at a State level long time ago, and prove that such a method of collecting taxes works, but, of course, as a good politician, he promises that such method of collecting tax will work only at the federal level...sure, right Mr Johnson...

Look Mr.Gary Johnson, I don't believe you until you eliminate your STATE TAX COLLECTION OFFICES first, and change New Mexico into a FAIRTAX State...and let the people to pay their Federal taxes only.

Ok, I suppose I am as close to the FairTax expert on this forum as we have. Anytime I see someone speak ignorantly of the plan, I have to chime in. First of all, the FairTax plan is NOT Gary Johnson's plan. He does back then plan, and for that I admire him, because its a fabulous plan. So, next, lets address this "thousands will be out of jobs" issue. Yes, some will lose their jobs, but with the dismantling of the IRS, a new entity will be required, though its size and scope will be quite dimished from that of the IRS. Also, you can expect the cookie cutter tax temp workers that work for 4 weeks in March and April to be out of a job. But actual CPA's by FAR welcome the FairTax. They have far more financial matters to be involved with than just finessing a tax code that not even Timmy Geitner could understand.

Next, the FairTax plan was designed as a Federal revenue neutral plan. Although I am convinced that a similar plan could work at the state level, it would require different details than a Federal plan. Again, since Mr. Johnson did NOT devise this plan, he's not really in a position to advise a state level plan either.

I implore you to actually learn something about the FairTax plan before blindly bashing it, or its supporters. If you like being easily manipulated and mislead by an income tax system that no one can understand, well that's you're prerogative. But if you actually expand your mind a bit and seek to take the power of taxation back into your own hands, you just might find yourself on Mr. Johnson's side of the fence on this one.

The point here is that Mr Gary Johnson applies for the Independence of the States from the Federal Government.

Please don't tell me that if the FAIRTAX is a reality at the federal level, the States will still be collecting taxes the "old fashion way", because such will be nonsense.

Again, if Mr. Gary Johnson is "real" about his words saying that he supports FAIRTAX as the best method of tax collection, then HE AS THE GOVERNOR OF NEW MEXICO should start FAIRTAX in his STATE. I want him to do first at the State level what he promises at the Federal level. I want him to close all New Mexico State Tax collection offices and change the system to Fairtax. If he doesn't do it, then he is just another talker who will promise a lot and do nothing about it. Right now he has the power to do the change in his State, there is no obstacle at all to impede him to do such a reform, we are talking of a governor elected twice in New Mexico, with great popularity in this State.

Your opinion that the Fairtax was designed at the Federal level only and that to comply this system at the State level will require some modifications, then, do it. I see no tax reform at all by having Fairtax at Federal level and still paying taxes as we currently do at the State level. In other words, you are telling me that you don't believe that such Fairtax works at the State level, so, your position is in jeopardy.

[stebo0728]

No, I said I do happen to believe that it will work at the state level. But the FairTax is an actual Congressional Act, thats been written and designed to be revenue neutral for the national revenue system. Now, someone could certainly take the FairTax bill and use it as a starting point to draft a similar act at the state level. I actually join you in challenging Mr. Johnson to do so. However, having not done so does not preclude him from the ability to promote the National FairTax plan. Keep in mind, his support of the FairTax is part of his presidential platform, not his gubernatorial platform.

I also join you in the idea that state's retaining their old method of taxation would be less desirable should the FairTax be passed. But the federal government CANNOT mandate upon the states to perform taxation in a particular manner.

[carloslebaron]

Other points from Gary Johnson are located between the acceptable and encouraged, but he wants to go to extremes most of the time, eliminating instead of reforming or restoring. He has a good vision about the unnecessary wars and interventions in other countries, and that working hard and innovation are better keys for success, etc.

His debate with fake Obama showed him some kind of nervous, he wasn't prepare for debates at that time. The high school students who made questions didn't mention the name of their school, neither their grade, something that it appears was avoided in purpose.

In resume, Mr. Gary Johnson didn't show much the character of leadership, even when he has records of being a twice elected governor...perhaps his opponents had no character at all...

Thanks themadscientists for this topic, I have better idea about what I have missed in this presidential campaign, still, I don't think Mr. Gary Johnson is the "guy".

[themadscientist]

For further consideration. Granted, this is HIS website. All these positions should be vetted against his past actions where possible. You may see something that appeals to you. You might not, but at least look at his platform.

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues

Health Care
GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE SIMPLY WON'T WORK. Competition and Price Transparency WILL work.

Fewer government mandates and less regulation will allow innovation and competition to make health care more affordable and more accessible to all Americans.

Removing arbitrary obstacles to interstate competition among health insurance providers will reduce costs.

OUR CURRENT MEDICARE AND MEDICAID SYSTEMS ARE unsustainable and must be reformed.

In New Mexico, when the state took responsibility for Medicaid, costs were reduced by 25% and services improved. Removing unnecessary federal mandates would have allowed even greater savings.

Federal assistance for those who cannot afford essential health care should be provided through simple block grants to the states, where innovation will create efficiencies and better care at less cost.

Energy and the Environment
GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES & INCENTIVES FOR SPECIFIC ENERGY resources don't work.

Cap and Trade schemes, tax subsidies, and government efforts to steer us to one energy source over another are inherently inefficient, disrupt the market, and ultimately impose costs we cannot afford.

No where in the Constitution is the government given the power to manipulate our behavior as consumers or producers of energy.

ESSENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DOES NOT REQUIRE DESTROYING jobs, infringing on property rights, or curtailing freedom.

Insisting on a basic cost-benefit analysis for regulations will restore an appropriate balance and common sense to environmental policy.

Much of what government does in the name of environmental protection is really an effort to impose values on property owners, consumers and individuals. Protecting us from harm does not require the government to manage our lives, our businesses or our farms.

Gun Rights

TREAT 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS AS THE INDIVIDUAL constitutional rights they are.

Many argue that the 2nd Amendment doesn't really apply to individuals. Would those same people suggest that rights to free speech, association or religious freedom don't apply to individuals?

DO NOT NEGOTIATE AWAY OUR FREEDOMS IN the name of safety.

From the United Nations to city council chambers across the nation, gun rights are constantly under attack from those who believe, mistakenly, that restricting our right to own firearms legally will somehow make us safer.

Immigration

LEGAL IMMIGRATION STRENGTHENS AMERICA'S ECONOMY AND THE social fabric. It will also strengthen our relationship with our southern neighbor Mexico.

It should be easier for a potential immigrant to get a work visa. Potential immigrants should pass a background check, and then be issued a Social Security card, which would allow them to pay income, payroll, and all other taxes workers pay.

There should be a two-year grace period for illegal immigrants to attain work visas so they can continue contributing to America and begin taking part in American society openly.

Immigrants with temporary work visas should have access to the normal procedures for gaining permanent status and citizenship, and should be able to bring their families to the U.S. after demonstrating ability to support them financially.

REAL BORDER SECURITY MEANS KNOWING WHO IS coming here and why.

Legalizing marijuana will reduce border violence and illegal immigration significantly, decreasing the U.S.-Mexican drug trade by 70 percent. Without a monopoly on the marijuana trade, Mexican drug cartels will have vastly diminished incentives to violate U.S. law and risk capture.

Streamline the legal immigration process to reduce illegal immigration and allow the U.S. to know who enters the country and for what reasons.

Enforce a 'one strike, you're out' rule for immigrants who circumvent the streamlined work visa process.

Foreign Policy

AMERICAN MILITARY ACTIVITIES IN AFGHANISTAN SHOULD END, our troops returned home, and the focus of our foreign policy reoriented toward the protection of U.S. citizens and interests.

With Osama bin Laden now killed and after 10 years of fighting, U.S. forces should leave Afghanistan's challenges to the Afghan people.

Decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union, American troops remain scattered throughout Europe. It is time to reevaluate these deployments.

The U.S. must make better use of military alliances which allow greater sharing of the human and financial burdens at less cost of protecting national interests.

AMERICA CAN ACHIEVE OUR FOREIGN POLICY GOALS without sacrificing American values.

No criminal or terrorlst suspect captured by the U.S. should be subject to physical or psychological torture.

Individuals incarcerated unjustly by the U.S. should have the ability to seek compensation through the courts.

Individuals detained by the U.S., whether it be at Guantanamo Bay or elsewhere, must be given due process via the courts or military tribunals, and must not be held indefinitely without regard to those fundamental processes.

Internet and Technology

KEEP THE INTERNET THE CENSOR-FREE, AFFORDABLE TOOL it is today.

Government should cease subsidizing or giving favorable treatment to Internet service providers and content-creators. 'Net Neutrality' leads to a government role in the Internet that can only lead to unwanted regulation.

The FCC should not be allowed to create rules regulating content, Internet speeds, and pricing for services. The government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers in the content marketplace. The Internet should remain independent, accessible and market-based.

Internet 'kill switch' legislation should be scrapped completely. No person or group of people should be able to turn off the Internet.

ACCESS TO THE INTERNET MUST NOT BE taxed.

The Internet has flourished and society has benefited immeasurably because it has remained relatively free of taxation. The moratorium on access and service taxation must be made permanent.

Every scheme to impose a global Internet tax should be opposed.

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT RESTRICT COMMERCE that doesn't hurt anyone.

Political speech should in no way be censored.

Online gamb|ing should be legal for adults.

Crimes committed online should be investigated and treated identically as crimes committed offline. This includes fraud and child pornography.

Civil Liberties

THE FREEDOMS ON WHICH AMERICA WAS FOUNDED are now under attack from the very people charged with protecting and upholding them.

The PATRIOT Act should be repealed, which would restore proper judicial oversight to federal investigations and again require federal investigators to prove probable cause prior to executing a search.

Habeas corpus should be respected entirely, requiring the government to either charge incarcerated individuals with a crime or release them.

The TSA should take a risk-based approach to airport security. Only high-risk individuals should be subjected to invasive pat-downs and full-body scans.

The TSA should not have a monopoly on airport security. Airports and airlines should be encouraged to seek the most effective methods for screening travelers, including private sector screeners. Screeners outside of government can be held fully accountable for their successes and failures.

WE ARE A NATION OF MANY PEOPLES and beliefs. The only way to respect all citizens is to allow each to make personal decisions themselves.

Life is precious and must be protected. A woman should be allowed to make her own decisions during pregnancy until the point of viability of a fetus.

Stem cell research should only be completed by private laboratories that operate without federal funding.

Government should not impose its values upon marriage. It should allow marriage equality, including gay marriage. It should also protect the rights of religious organizations to follow their beliefs.

Economy and Taxes

THIS RECESSION HAS FORCED FAMILIES AND BUSINESSES across America to make hard choices and limit their expenditures. We must now expect our elected officials to make the tough calls that will keep our government on a sustainable path moving forward. We must restrain spending across the board:

Revise the terms of entitlement programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, which threaten to bankrupt the nation's future.

Eliminate the costly and ineffective military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan; limit defense spending to actions that truly protect the United States.

Stop spending on the fiscal stimulus, transportation, energy, housing, and all other special interests. The U.S. must restrain spending across the board.

THE U.S. TAX SYSTEM IMPOSES AN ENORMOUS toll on productivity through high marginal rates, absurd complexity, loopholes for the well-connected, and incentives for wasteful decisions. A better, fairer system will be:

Abolish the Internal Revenue Service.

Enact the Fair Tax to tax expenditures, rather than income, with a 'prebate' to make spending on basic necessities tax free.

With the Fair Tax, eliminate business taxes, withholding and other levies that penalize productivity, while creating millions of jobs.

Suggested Reading: www.FairTax.org

MUCH FEDERAL INTERVENTION IS A PAYOUT TO special interests or counterproductive meddling that stifles competition, innovation, and growth.

We should:

Reject auto and banking bailouts, state bailouts, corporate welfare, cap-and-trade, card check, and the mountain of regulation that protects special interests rather than benefiting consumers or the economy.

Restrict Federal Reserve policy to maintaining price stability, not bailing out financial firms or propping up the housing sector.

Eliminate government support of Fannie and Freddie.

Reduce or eliminate federal involvement in education; let states expand successful reforms such as vouchers and charter schools.

Legalize, tax, and regulate marijuana, rather than wasting money on an expensive and futile prohibition.

Eliminate needless barriers to free trade and make it easier for would-be legal immigrants to apply for work visas

Education and School Choice

LOCAL CONTROL MEANS THAT WE ALL WIN.

All parents should have an opportunity to choose which school their children attend.

Putting educational funds in the hands of the people who use them gives parents and students a vote as to which schools are best and which need to improve.

Our children deserve the chance to succeed educationally, but the same old way of thinking won't cut it. It's time to free individuals and states from burdensome federal mandates and regulations so they can pursue the right educational strategies for their students.

ALTHOUGH IT MAY SOUND DRASTIC, THERE ARE practical reasons why it should be considered.

The Department of Education grants each state 11 cents out of every dollar it spends on education. Unfortunately, every dollar of this money comes with 16 cents of strings attached. States that accept federal funding lose five cents for every dollar spent on education to pay for federal mandates and regulations, taking millions of dollars out of the classroom.

Schools should have the authority to decide how best to spend educational dollars. Without federal regulations and mandates, schools could choose to purchase new computers, better lab equipment, and maintain after-school sports and music programs even during times of tight budgets.

Once citizens and their local representatives have the freedom to decide how their educational funds will be spent, they can consider innovations that will drive student choice, educational competition, and better results.

Drug Policy Reform

AMERICANS WERE PROMISED IN THE 1970'S AND 1980's that hefty enforcement budgets and tougher sentences would lead to less crime and drug abuse.

We have all been raised to believe that there are only two camps in the drug policy universe -- "pro-drug" and "anti-drug" -- and that any person who does not support the "War on Drugs" is automatically "pro-drug." This simply isn't the case.

Since only criminal gangs and cartels are willing to take the risks associated with large-scale black market distribution, the War on Drugs has made a lot of dangerous people and organizations very rich and very powerful.

The same happened with Alcohol Prohibition (1920-1933). Prohibition had only a minimal effect on the desire of Americans to drink (in some cases, it clearly made drinking more attractive), but pushing alcohol underground had other effects: overdose deaths, gang violence, and other prohibition-related harms increased dramatically during the Prohibition years.

OVER A MILLION AND A HALF AMERICANS were arrested last year on drug charges, and nearly 40% of those arrests were for marijuana possession alone. Does this make sense?

A recent Gallup poll reports that 46% of Americans now agree that marijuana should be legalized, a dramatic increase in support that reflects Americans' increased knowledge and understanding of the issue. Proposals to regulate marijuana similarly to alcohol have been considered in several states, and Governor Johnson has supported those efforts; he believes the federal government should end its prohibition mandate and allow each state to pursue its own desired policy.

Governor Johnson believes it is insane to arrest roughly 800,000 people a year for choosing to use a natural substance that is, by any reasonable objective standard, less harmful than alcohol, a drug that is advertised at every major sporting event.

As Governor Johnson often points out to concerned parents, "it will never be legal for a person to smoke marijuana, become impaired, and get behind the wheel of a car or otherwise do harm to others, and it will never be legal for kids to smoke marijuana." But we have to understand that marijuana is our nation's #1 cash crop despite the prohibition; it will always be available to those who really wish to use it.

When polled, high school kids say marijuana is easier to get than alcohol. Perhaps this is because they buy from black market dealers who do not ask for ID?

Legalization of marijuana would instantly and dramatically improve conditions on our southern border. Marijuana is Mexico's #1 illegal export; legalizing it would result in dramatically reducing the power and wealth of the drug lords, and instantly helping to restore stability in a nation whose stability and sustainability is truly vital to our economic and national security interests. If we truly wish to reduce border violence, take the profit out of it.

BEFORE WE CAN GET SERIOUS ABOUT REDUCING the harms associated with drugs, we have to accept that there will never be a drug-free society.

To create a drug-free society, we'd have to build a police apparatus so intrusive that all Americans would have to be under surveillance 24 hours a day... presumably for their own good. Would citizens of the "land of the free" ever stand for that?

Abuse of hard drugs is a health problem that should be dealt with by health experts, not a problem that should be clogging up our courts, jails, and prisons with addicts. Instead of continuing to arrest and incarcerate drug users, we should seriously consider the examples of countries such as Portugal and the Netherlands, and we should ultimately choose to adopt policies which aim to reduce death, disease, violence, and crime associated with dangerous drugs.

Honest, effective education will be key to succeeding with this transition. America has cut teen cigarette use in half, not by criminalizing possession and use, but through a combination of honest education and sensible regulation.

We can never totally eliminate drug addiction and drug abuse. We can, however, minimize these harms and reduce the negative effects they have on society by making sure drug abusers are able to access effective treatment options (jail is not an effective treatment option).

Spending and the Deficit

THE U.S. IS BORROWING OR PRINTING MORE than 40 cents of every dollar the government spends today. The math is simple: Federal spending must be cut not by millions or billions, but by trillions. And it must be done today.

It's time to:

Submit a Balanced Budget to Congress, not five or ten years down the road, but in 2013.

End excessive spending, bloated stimulus programs, unnecessary farm subsidies, and earmarks.

Reassess the role of the federal government and identify responsibilities that can be met more efficiently by the private sector.

Recognize that you can't have limited government at home, but big government abroad.

MOST PEOPLE IN WASHINGTON SEEM TO THINK that we can control spending and balance the budget without reforming Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. This is lunacy.

Identify and implement common-sense cost savings to place Medicare on a path toward long-term solvency.

Block grant Medicare and Medicaid funds to the states, allowing them to innovate, find efficiencies and provide better service at lower cost.

Repeal President Obama's healthcare plan, as well as the failed Medicare prescription drug benefit.

Fix Social Security by changing the escalator from being based on wage growth to inflation. It's time for Social Security to reflect today's realities without breaking trust with retirees.

THE FEDERAL RESERVE SHOULD BE TRANSPARENT and its actions held to the same level of scrutiny as any other federal department.

The American people deserve to know the extent to which the Fed has purchased private assets at home and abroad.

Many Americans have become interested in the Federal Reserve in recent years. America's representatives in Washington, D.C. need to also become a lot more interested in how this government institution affects the American economy.

The role and the activities of the Federal Reserve are long overdue for examination, reassessment, and ultimately, thoughtful reform. Can the Federal Reserve pursue both stable prices and full employment, or does its currency manipulation cause malinvestment, inflation, and prolonged unemployment?

Conduct an audit to provide true transparency of the Federal Reserve's lending practices.

Establish clear Congressional oversight.

Get the Federal Reserve out of the business of printing money and buying debt through quantitative easing

[WDRacing]

Huh, I kinda like him...

Thx for the last post Mike. I really enjoy cliff notes, my ADD doesn't allow for much else.

[telcoman]

Huh, I kinda like him...

Thx for the last post Mike. I really enjoy cliff notes, my ADD doesn't allow for much else.

Interesting that my wall of text gets locked with a liberal point of view and others do not

ever-wonder-how-romney-could-make-so-mu ... 63297.html

Telcoman

[carloslebaron]

.............Conduct an audit to provide true transparency of the Federal Reserve's lending practices.....Establish clear Congressional oversight.....Get the Federal Reserve out of the business of printing money and buying debt through quantitative easing........

Sure, right...

Talk is cheap.

I wonder if he can explain HOW his proposals will be fulfilled.

In his plan, he must show who will be fired who will be hired, what agency will be discarded what agency will be extended, what agency will be created...how benefits will be shared...what time frame is calculated...etc... and at the end, he must give an estimated of the benefits for citizens, reflected in money, services, etc...

I went to a town meeting once, and the city council "gave good news" and showed that the town will SAVE such and such amount of money by doing this and that. The savings were great indeed, until someone raised the hand and asked him: what those savings mean... lower taxes next year? Where the saved money will go...what program...to what purpose...how the residents will feel the benefit of the savings?

The city council evaded the question...

(To me, the "savings" had the destination of filling up the Mayor and city councils pockets... )

[themadscientist]

I agree. A person can say they will do anything, but the ability or inability to expand on the process that reaches the goal will reveal what the chances are they understand and can achieve the goal. If Johnson can manage to sneak into the debates despite the best efforts of the major parties I will be looking for him to perform under pressure of scrutiny. he still has not earned my vote, just my attention.

Huh, I kinda like him...

Thx for the last post Mike. I really enjoy cliff notes, my ADD doesn't allow for much else.

Interesting that my wall of text gets locked with a liberal point of view and others do not

ever-wonder-how-romney-could-make-so-mu ... 63297.html

Telcoman

It's not the wall of text that triggers the lock, it's the tabloid BS nature of the post. This should help dislodge the granular obstructions in your crevice.



And this should help your metal acuity.



Now GTFO.

[WDRacing]

Interesting that my wall of text gets locked with a liberal point of view and others do not

ever-wonder-how-romney-could-make-so-mu ... 63297.html

Telcoman

Mikes post wasn't the first post in the thread. Wasn't inflammatory baseless BS. Has everything to do with the on going conversation and was in direct reply to another post.

Your post sucked on all counts. That and I didn't like it

[Marenta]

My one stickler for FairTax is that the lower income people are generally spending more money than the higher income people.

The ones with the surplus money don't just go out and buy a brand new Porche every month. They just don't go and blow money, or hell, they don't even feel the pinch of needing to buy gas or groceries. But, average people have to account for these things. In the last month, I have had to replace 2 tires on Bart's car and 2 tires on my car because of random crap giving us flat tires.

Not only is the quality of what we buy lower, it doesn't have the sustainability that money can afford. So, the lower incomes will be buying more goods and services than the higher incomes just based upon product quality. That's kinda why I like a flat tax, 15 or 20 % across the board on all (ALL) income, period. No loopholes, no exemptions, no write-offs, and no freaking filing.

[themadscientist]

But when you get near the lower income brackets people spend a larger percentage of their income on non-negotiable items like food, rent, utilities etc so it winds up being a de-facto regressive tax.

[Marenta]

So far, the hardest hit would be gas, groceries, and utilities. I'd hate to do the math on that one. 27% tax on those items, Jebus!

[stebo0728]

Do you guys even read my posts on the FairTax? Have you ever bothered to read the bill? Hell I'll mail you a copy of the book if you'll read it. FairTax IS NOT A REGRESSIVE TAX!! POINT BLANK END OF DISCUSSION!!

I post this everytime, and yet within a week someone else posts the same inane comment "Fairtax is blah blah regressive blah blah". NO IT IS NOT!!

Here, once again, is WHY:

When people consider the FairTax, the either have read the plan, or the book, and have a good understanding of the plan, OR, they oppose it without having read either, and base their opinions on baseless claims idiots like Krugman have made over the years, or they base it on a general consumption tax based assessment. Both are wrong, and once again, Ill explain why. When considering the FairTax, you can't just take pieces here and there and assess it. You have to consider the ENTIRE plan. Would a flat consumption tax be regressive? Absolutely! Is the FairTax regressive? NO. Please please take a minute and actually absorb the following, let it soak in.

When considering the FairTax, the architects of the plan ran into their first speed bump in that consumption taxes are generally regressive. This caused a realization to occur. People, not just poor people, but ALL people, should NOT be taxed on the purchases of the necessities of life. This is where the prebate was born. The metric for the prebate is poverty line based purchases at a given household size. For instance, lets say, on average, a family of 4 spends $500 a month on necessities, whatever they are, doesn't matter, it takes $500 a month for a family to live. In order to remove this family's tax liability on these purchases, they will receive a prebate check, deposit, whatever, in the amount of the taxes to be spent that month on these purchases. THAT THERE is your regressive measure. That levels the playing field back out, and in fact makes the FairTax a POSITIVE measure for the poor. It is by NO MEANS WHATSOEVER a burden upon the poor. Now, you can argue that maybe 100% poverty is a bit low, maybe we should say 110% of the poverty line, whatever, thats negotiable, but only at the start. The prebate, and its specifics are NOT to be a matter for demagoguery, or vote buying. But......let me blow your mind a bit more, even just saying 100% poverty line is the metric, over time, this plan will have an even greater positive impact upon the poor. How? Because initially yes, goods and services will see an increase in price of 23%. So the prebate just takes that burden away, so you have a basically neutral change. But over time, with embedded taxes now removed from the costs of goods and services, market forces will at some pace, either quickly or gradually, drive the prices down to a level corrected for the ommission of these embedded taxes. Estimates show that this will level off at a drop of about 20%, and since the tax is 23%, prices will really only see about a 3% increase over time. But the poor aren't gettin a prebate based on 3%, no, they still get the full prebate of 23%! This is a net gain for the poor!

Next you'll say, "but then the rich just wont spend money either, they'll squirrel hole it". This may be true to a certain extent, after all, as I posted in a different thread, the wealthy stay that way because of a certain mindset, and as such, they would be cautious on spending. But, this is not a flat avoidance that you'll see, its more of an avoidance based on diminishing returns. There's a certain comfort level that wealthy will desire to attain. It varies based on personal preferences, but generally, it will be a good bit above the poverty line metric the prebate is based on. There will be discretionary spending ABOVE this line. The wealthy will continue to spend until their level of comfort begins to experience a diminished return compared to their spending.

Please, PLEASE, no one post this asinine notion that FairTax is regressive again. Im gonna get carpal tunnel for sure

[stebo0728]

So far, the hardest hit would be gas, groceries, and utilities. I'd hate to do the math on that one. 27% tax on those items, Jebus!

23%

Let me tell you why that math is fuzzy. There are 2 types of taxes, or I should say 2 ways of figuring taxes. Exclusive, and inclusive. The FairTax is listed at a 23% tax, figured INCLUSIVELY. Typically, when the income tax is discussed, its discussed and quoted EXCLUSIVELY. This breakdown and misunderstanding in rates is because of the difference in these two principles. Both taxes are quoted properly, and in the right context, but it makes their comparison wrong, because you have to convert one or the other over to the other calculation method in order to accurately compare them. But...this is also a very popular are in which the plan is attacked, without showing a fair comparison.

Here's one of the nice features of the FairTax. Its an INCLUSIVE tax, that's to say, if you pay $1 for an item, you've already paid the tax, as the tax is INCLUDED in the price of the item. But this can cause problems when comparing the rates. Follow me now:

Item price: $1.00
Product component: $0.77
Tax component: $0.23

Since this is computed inclusively, $0.23 is 23% of $1.00.
However, if you wanted to calculate the tax EXCLUSIVELY, then you would say, $0.23 is 29.9% of $0.77

Unfortunately we are programmed to look at consumption tax in an exclusive way. That's because we are used to seeing a price, and having to figure a % of that price to figure its tax. That goes away with the FairTax. Its actually easier to shop now, because you pay what you see, no more "ok gotta make sure and save enough for tax when I get to the register".

Lets contrast this to the income tax. Lets say your AGI in a year is $100k, and you're effective rate is 25%. So you owe $25k. That's figured EXCLUSIVELY, and rightly so, that's what makes sense given the equation. But look at it inclusively instead. Say you keep $75k and pay $25k. Thats an effective rate of 33.3%.

See the difference? Don't believe the negative hype when you see these "29" or "30" % figures. The facts are being twisted, and you deserve to know the truth.

[stebo0728]

So far, the hardest hit would be gas, groceries, and utilities. I'd hate to do the math on that one. 27% tax on those items, Jebus!

And see my first post, as over time, this tax burden would be greatly reduced as the embedded taxes are removed, and prices adjust due to market forces. Gas, don't forget, has an additional 10% federal tax on it. Im not sure as to whether this specific tax would be removed and replaced by the FairTax or not. Either way, it doesn't matter as much. If it were replaced, that would then be an additional price break on gas.

[WDRacing]

What's the title of this book? Is there an EPUB version of it?

I had a nice lol at your carpal tunnel comment. Makes me wanna mention regressive blah blah every week or so...just so you HAVE to reexplain.

[stebo0728]

http://www.amazon.com/The-FairTax-Book- ... 0060875410 First book

http://www.amazon.com/FairTax-The-Truth ... pd_sim_b_1 Second book

The second one is the one to get if you just want to get a good grasp on the plan, and why most of the critiques against it are wrong, and why they are wrong.

[WDRacing]

Found it on TPB

[stebo0728]

Cool, let me know what you think when you're done reading it! Maybe you can help me keep people straight around here on it!

[WDRacing]

I can only find the audio book, probably listen to on the way down to NOPI this month.

[Marenta]

stebo, if you're going to say: "YAY! FLATTAX IS AWESOME!" Don't link people the www.flattax.org site, it's garbage. That's what I looked at, and that's where I made my assumptions, on the information you provided. It told me little of what actually was in the plan and just the general jist of "It's all good, brah!"

And, over time, how is the effective tax going to diminish? Are we just going to make more money while the prices of goods stays the same, thus dropping the cost of inflation and the amount of tax burden for buying the object? Because, believe me, companies are going to want to get their money, and if they can throw in another 5 or 6 % to cover the 23% increase that the item is going to have.. yeah.. it'll just keep scaling because people are greedy.

I'm not trying to chafe, I'm just trying to clarify issues that I have with it that the site you linked does not clearly identify.

[themadscientist]

As I understand it flat tax and "fair" tax are not exactly the same. The latter offering a prebate that the previous does not.

Japan has a consumption tax and prices are figured to include the tax. No math in the cereal aisle. I actually find a consumption tax to be fair(er) since people who consume more get taxed more as a monetary figure. There has to be a mechanism where necessities are taxed at a lesser rate than luxury items, though.

[IBCoupe]

There's more to it than the prebate, Mike; the FairTax is a consumption-based tax. I'm open to arguments that a consumption-based tax is the way to go (as opposed to an income-based tax), but the most recent one I heard is that "if you tax something, society produces less of it, so why would we want to tax income?" which came from Planet Money at NPR. It's that kind of utter idiocy that makes me not want to think about tax policy.