Rand Paul Outlines Plan for 14.5% Federal Flat Tax

[shockmonster]

Story here - OpEd here. This involves some pretty draconian spending cuts, which in turn raises feasibility concerns.

That said...I love love love that a major candidate finally has embraced this. He will most certainly get my vote if he can articulate his position well in the coming months.

Back the the Flat Tax idea. It's really a great idea if it is implemented correctly and without the draconian cuts. I think that the public could get behind it. Here is a very smart discussion regarding how the Fair Tax Plan could be implemented.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvuJVg62pMg

You can begin watching at about the 4:10 mark. Krauthammer makes some good points.

[Rlh04d]

There is a difference between isolationism and non-interventionism. Isolationism also means we don't trade with other nations. Both Pauls have been for open trade, which is a good thing for US factories and other sectors. Just because he doesn't want to start a war with Iran, or because he's open-minded enough to see what our role in the middle east has been, doesn't make him an isolationist.

I wish the US could afford to practice non-interventionism. I completely agree with it. I wish we weren't in the Middle East. I think most of our interventionism is nonsense.

The only problem I see is that I know the threats we face, they scare me, and I know the United States is the only country in the world with the courage to tackle them without being forced to do so.

This world would be a much, much worse place if the United States adopted a non-interventionist strategy. And don't get me wrong, I was absolutely opposed to the Iraq War in the first place, and there aren't many situations where I would personally wish for our country to go to war.

It's the only thing I completely oppose Paul on. I'm very much for strategic intervention and long-term manipulation in international relations. I know our enemies and rivals are as well. The US taking a step back from the world stage at a point where Russia and China are taking on increasingly aggressive positions would be disastrous -- not next year, but for decades to come. I wish we weren't forced to shoulder the burden for others, but ... we are.

[SHOCKvalue]

I haven't been able to get in touch with my current mortgage holder yet to get exact numbers, but did run through quite a few numbers scenarios this weekend on the various mortgage calculators. A couple of the results were somewhat surprising to me. Is it possible that even at my 6.5% rate, I may have paid on this existing mortgage long enough that refinancing may actually cost me money in the long run rather than saving me money, due to the fact that the interest is mostly paid off now, and what remains is mostly principal? I'm not sure if this is the reason, but I did have a couple of the numbers scenarios come back and tell me that my savings would be minimal or nonexistent.

Excluding closing costs (which is a big elephant to ignore), and assuming you plan to see the loan to its end, if you retain the same loan term that you currently have remaining (say you have 176 payments left in current note, and new note would be exactly the same number of 176), it is impossible to not save money by refi-ing to a lower rate. Where people screw themselves is when they reset back to a full, typical term length like 15 or 30 years after refi-ing, and they refi every 5 or 10 years. Like a hamster running in a wheel.

[Kung Wu]

The only problem I see is that I know the threats we face, they scare me, and I know the United States is the only country in the world with the courage to tackle them without being forced to do so.

I wonder how much of that is because we do tackle them without being forced to do so? What I mean to say is, is there a global welfare mentality thing going on among the western states where the other countries have enjoyed being protected so much that they no longer have any skin in the game? Worse yet, maybe by overprotecting them, the people of other countries don't even believe there is a real threat? Perhaps they assume because they aren't being attacked, that our government is just making crap up for our own interests?

This world would be a much, much worse place if the United States adopted a non-interventionist strategy. And don't get me wrong, I was absolutely opposed to the Iraq War in the first place, and there aren't many situations where I would personally wish for our country to go to war.

Maybe, maybe not. Maybe allowing these bastards to actually gain some footing in Europe and in parts of Asia will wake our allies' collective butts up? I guess I'm not proposing a non-interventionist concept, but more of a very strategic stand-down.

I wish we weren't forced to shoulder the burden for others, but ... we are.

I am starting to believe that we have created that monster, just like we have our own welfare state, by providing too much protection.

I'd also add that George Washington himself even warned of being too involved with allies and over-doing it in terms of foreign affairs in his Farewell Address of 1796. For anybody that hasn't read that speech, you are missing out on a serious piece of brilliance.

[RoyalShock]

I wish the US could afford to practice non-interventionism. I completely agree with it. I wish we weren't in the Middle East. I think most of our interventionism is nonsense.

The only problem I see is that I know the threats we face, they scare me, and I know the United States is the only country in the world with the courage to tackle them without being forced to do so.

This world would be a much, much worse place if the United States adopted a non-interventionist strategy. And don't get me wrong, I was absolutely opposed to the Iraq War in the first place, and there aren't many situations where I would personally wish for our country to go to war.

It's the only thing I completely oppose Paul on. I'm very much for strategic intervention and long-term manipulation in international relations. I know our enemies and rivals are as well. The US taking a step back from the world stage at a point where Russia and China are taking on increasingly aggressive positions would be disastrous -- not next year, but for decades to come. I wish we weren't forced to shoulder the burden for others, but ... we are.

I want to clarify that I was only pointing out that there is a difference between isolationism and non-interventionism, and using the isolationist label is intellectually lazy. I was not advocating for either one.

I largely agree with your take. I do think the proliferation of al-Qaeda and ISIS is largely due to US intervention in the middle east. I was a proponent of getting out of the region up until the last year or so. It's a problem that now has to be dealt with. We've made our bed, basically.

As for Russia and China, in the last century-plus we've never had the luxury of ignoring them.

[shockmonster]

I want to clarify that I was only pointing out that there is a difference between isolationism and non-interventionism, and using the isolationist label is intellectually lazy.

I want to clarify that I don't have a problem with anything that has been said. I surely don't want to be branded as intellectually lazy (although my past college professors may disagree) so I will change my description of Rand Paul to quazi-isolationist. My main point is that I although a Flat tax that is fairly balanced and well thought because if done right, it could stimulate the economy, I don't trust Rand Paul to be our leader, especially in the area of foreign policy. I also didn't think that his filibuster on the Patriot Act was best for the immediate safety of our country. He seemed to be trying to score political points instead. In essence, I don't disagree with all of his views but don't trust him to be a good leader for our country.

[Rlh04d]

I want to clarify that I was only pointing out that there is a difference between isolationism and non-interventionism, and using the isolationist label is intellectually lazy. I was not advocating for either one.

I largely agree with your take. I do think the proliferation of al-Qaeda and ISIS is largely due to US intervention in the middle east. I was a proponent of getting out of the region up until the last year or so. It's a problem that now has to be dealt with. We've made our bed, basically.

As for Russia and China, in the last century-plus we've never had the luxury of ignoring them.

Completely agree with you on the Middle East. Ultimately our poor decisions created ISIL and now it has to be dealt with. Long term I see an eventual unification of the Middle East as a world power ... it'll either be done peacefully and diplomatically with a unification of the major divisions of Islam under a relatively moderate Caliph, or it'll be done with the mass genocide of either the Sunni or Shia branches. If ISIL/Daesh is the group standing at the end of a Muslim power struggle, millions of people will have been slaughtered, millions more will be essential slaves, and madmen will control a massive chunk of the world with zero ability to govern responsibility, and they will threaten and likely use nuclear weapons to achieve their aims. It's phenomenally depressing to me how easy that was to predict prior to the invasion of Iraq. Working towards gradual change wasn't guaranteed to produce the first option, but destabilizing the region and then leaving it is nearly guaranteed to produce the second.

Russia and China are entirely different beasts. If the US backs off on the world stage, Russia will continue absorbing chunks of the former Soviet Union, through military force or threat. Long-term they'll extend too far and a massive war will break out. Which they'll lose, because Russia has never had true allies and will never have true allies. They have sycophants and vassals. But ultimately too much of Putin's support is built up in Russian pride, and external muscle flexing is the ultimate distraction from their domestic problems, which will never be cured under their corrupt leadership. And like with South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Transnistria, there are no shortage of Russian enclaves in the FSU for Russia to justify continuous advancement against, thanks to Stalin's forced population transfers.

China's far smarter. They have a solid long-term strategy and simply will supplant us in worldwide diplomatic cache over the decades. How much that matters to anyone depends on how much emphasis individuals put on the supremacy of the US as a super power or in how much they value democratic development worldwide. You can ignore China as long as you're fine with China being the dominant world power in a few decades. Based on historical cultural precedent, China's rise will be relatively peaceful -- they won't go to war with anyone. They'll just steal everything and promote an alternate ideology through economic rewards until they've supplanted us, at which point they'll bully us and the rest of the world for a long time to come unless their rising middle class eventually replaces their government.

ISIL and Russia are enemies, China's a rival. The two enemies are the ones I can see leading us into massive world wars in my lifetime. China would likely be on our side in both ... eventually.

[MoValley John]

ISIL and Russia are enemies, China's a rival. The two enemies are the ones I can see leading us into massive world wars in my lifetime. China would likely be on our side in both ... eventually.

But, but, but... I thought the 80's called and they want their cold war back. Obama told us that Russia wasn't a threat and they weren't our enemy.

[Rlh04d]

I wonder how much of that is because we do tackle them without being forced to do so? What I mean to say is, is there a global welfare mentality thing going on among the western states where the other countries have enjoyed being protected so much that they no longer have any skin in the game? Worse yet, maybe by overprotecting them, the people of other countries don't even believe there is a real threat? Perhaps they assume because they aren't being attacked, that our government is just making crap up for our own interests?

Maybe, maybe not. Maybe allowing these bastards to actually gain some footing in Europe and in parts of Asia will wake our allies' collective butts up? I guess I'm not proposing a non-interventionist concept, but more of a very strategic stand-down.

I am starting to believe that we have created that monster, just like we have our own welfare state, by providing too much protection.

I'd also add that George Washington himself even warned of being too involved with allies and over-doing it in terms of foreign affairs in his Farewell Address of 1796. For anybody that hasn't read that speech, you are missing out on a serious piece of brilliance.

Absolutely we've created a monster. I almost completely agree with you. The problem I see is, how do you get rid of the monster without another massive world war, this time with significant proliferation of nuclear weapons? How much do we gamble on others waking up when what we'd have to put at risk is the eradication of the human race?

People always want to look at issues as something that has to be fixed or created NOW. No one ever wants to acknowledge the long-term development of issues, both positively and negatively. The world we live in now is a result of decades of decision making. We created a monster over the last several generations. It'll take at least that long to eliminate it. It can't be done at once, anymore than it could have been created at once. A strategic stand-down is exactly right, but it's a long-term strategy, which has to be coupled with slowly replacing our position with rising contributions from responsible allies so as not to create a power vacuum that will absolutely be filled, most likely by people that we don't want to fill it.

Long-term, it's likely a jolt to the system would wake up the world. It happened prior to World War II -- Hitler was appeased for a period of time before countries finally began to wake up and put their foot down. Us primarily, considering our hesitance to join the war. Still, 50 to 85 million people died in World War II. How many would have died if we didn't have to wait for countries to slowly wake up? Hell, the US could have interjected on China's behalf in 1937 and prevented the entire Pacific war, and likely the victory of the communist party in their civil war, which was almost entirely due to the Japanese invasion, likely saving 10s of millions of lives who died under the brutal policies of Mao Zedong, and possibly giving Germany second-thoughts about their own advancement in Europe. We've already been appeasing Russian military advancement for at least seven years, to say nothing of their economic warfare in the FSU. What worries me is that Putin's far smarter than Hitler, and can take just enough at a time to achieve his goals without ever really threatening the major powers. Who cares if Russia absorbs the majority of the Ukraine this year, or northern Georgia next year, or Moldova the year after? That's a blip on the radar to most of us, barely relevant in most Western media beyond a slow news day between school shootings and celebrity drug rehab -- I doubt most on this forum could find those countries even with a labeled map. Putin's not dumb enough or arrogant enough to repeat Hitler's mistake of invading a country that has a defense pact with the major western powers. At least until he's regained the territory Russia believes is theirs, and then realize that they're not satisfied with it.

It's a shame we hadn't paid attention to Washington before we built this monster.

[Rlh04d]

But, but, but... I thought the 80's called and they want their cold war back. Obama told us that Russia wasn't a threat and they weren't our enemy.

And Bush looked into Putin's soul through his eyes and saw dancing fairies and gumdrop waterfalls. It's not about partisan politics.

I've got my opinion, based on what I think is a pretty decent understanding of Russia's actions and history -- but to be fair I don't know Russia nearly as well as I do China. Still, IMO, they've never been satisfied and they never will be, and that goes back MUCH farther than the 80s. I'm okay with the President of the United States not shouting that from the mountain top, though. As long as diplomacy is an option it should always be utilized. You can't negotiate with ISIL, but you can with Russia. Economic sanctions don't work against ISIL, but they do (to at least a degree) against Russia. ISIL can't be manipulated through public shaming or intimidated by strength, but Russia possibly can.

[MoValley John]

And Bush looked into Putin's soul through his eyes and saw dancing fairies and gumdrop waterfalls. It's not about partisan politics.

I'm just a man with a personal opinion, based on understanding Russia's actions and history. They've never been satisfied and they never will be, IMO. I'm okay with the President of the United States not shouting that from the mountain top, though. As long as diplomacy is an option it should always be utilized. You can't negotiate with ISIL, but you can with Russia.

So, back to Bush? Russia is Bush's fault? Face it, just as bad as Bush miscalculated in the Middle East, Obama messed up with Russia. And he used partisan politics and a witty sound bite in a debate that proves his miscalculatation.

Your response was as partisan as it gets.

[MoValley John]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=sFiLVe7_NYWpsAX606fYCw&url=http://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DT1409sXBleg&ved=0CB8QtwIwAQ&usg=AFQjCNG9kscbhE632kgQ4EArurPudFVraA

[Rlh04d]

So, back to Bush? Russia is Bush's fault? Face it, just as bad as Bush miscalculated in the Middle East, Obama messed up with Russia. And he used partisan politics and a witty sound bite in a debate that proves his miscalculatation.

Your response was as partisan as it gets.

Everyone messed up with Russia. Bush did, Obama did, every single major Western leader did. But you're only interested in blaming one person -- one person who wasn't even in office when Russia illegally invaded Georgia, and who entered office with Russia having illegally occupied Moldovan territory for years. Clinton miscalculated in the Middle East as badly as Bush did, and Bush miscalculated on Russia as badly as Obama did. Not interested in your partisan politics, sorry.

No one ever wants to acknowledge the long-term development of issues

[MoValley John]

Funny, Obama himself made Russia partisan. So, if your not interested in partisan politics, you must really dislike Obama.

I'm so partisan, I voted for Obama once. Once.

[Rlh04d]

Funny, Obama himself made Russia partisan. So, if your not interested in partisan politics, you must really dislike Obama.

I'm so partisan, I voted for Obama once. Once.

Not interested in your partisan politics, sorry.