Rand Paul Outlines Plan for 14.5% Federal Flat Tax

[Dave Stalwart]

Isolationist is a better word for it. Tries to say he's changing to get elected but he really is isolationist. Can be just as dangerous as a Hawk. Just look at what happened in WWII. Kept on giving Hitler what he wanted to avoid conflict and he took more. Afraid Obama and Kerry may be going that route with Russia and Iran.

That's a really good point I hadn't thought of. I wonder if right now the country is pretty anti-conflict just as a reaction to current frustrations. It's probably important to be very pro-conflict under certain circumstances and our country may not be very quick to recognize a moment like that right now because of politics and stuff. Being a pacifist or isolationist or whatever may not be a good thing if it runs so deep as to avoid intervening with a real global problem. Now if he just means he doesn't want to go meddle in other countries as often as we do, that's one thing, but if he would also make the mistake of leaving a Hitler unchallenged, that's another thing.
Our country is so mad about military stuff right now that if something big did come up, we might make a terribly neglectful mistake trying to hold fast to the "military and nationalism is wrong" idea that seems to be going around these days.

[MoValley John]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_reparations

[CBB_Fan]

I like the idea of a flat-tax, but any plan that relies on immediate spending cuts is bound to be a disaster. So many times we've cut taxes hoping that spending cuts would emerge from thin air, only to have the cuts reduced or eliminated and end up in massive debt. Simply switching to a decent flat tax would be a massive money saver in and of itself; we lose nearly $6.1B in tax waste from extraneous tax laws. Enact a flat tax, eliminate loopholes, and reduce waste first before trying to go into the spending cuts or you are bound to make a bad situation worse.

[shockmonster]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_reparations

Nice job MJV. No doubt that the Versailles Treaty was a cause for Hitler becoming the dictator in Germany.

Now, here is the rest of the story.

http://www.history.co.uk/study-topics/history-of-ww2/appeasement

http://www.history.co.uk/study-topics/history-of-america/american-isolationism

The U.S. congress wanted to stay out what was going on in Europe (isolationism). But some knew that a time of reckoning would occur and we would have to do something about Hitler's aggression. The result was Hitler taking over land in Europe and ultimately Pearl Harbor.

[MoValley John]

Nice job MJV. No doubt that the Versailles Treaty was a cause for Hitler becoming the dictator in Germany.

Now, here is the rest of the story.

http://www.history.co.uk/study-topics/history-of-ww2/appeasement

http://www.history.co.uk/study-topics/history-of-america/american-isolationism

The U.S. congress wanted to stay out what was going on in Europe (isolationism). But some knew that a time of reckoning would occur and we would have to do something about Hitler's aggression. The result was Hitler taking over land in Europe and ultimately Pearl Harbor.

I get the problem with isolationism, but the world does a good job of forgetting how France's greed shaped WWII. Do people remember that France refused to ease reparation payments from Germany, at the same time, France was loaning Germany money for reparation payments? England, on the other hand, didn't want war and was willing to forgive a bunch of German debt.

Yes, isolationism was a huge problem, but the attitude of the Germans was shaped by poverty, starvation, hyperinflation and the stripping of resources, all due to France.

The French want us to forget all about that.

[MoValley John]

Harvey, an elderly American absentmindedly arrived at French immigration at Charles de Gaulle airport, Paris and fumbled for his passport.

'You have been to France before Monsieur?' the official asked in an aggressive tone.

Harvey, smiled and admitted that he had been to France before.

'In that case you should know enough to have your passport ready for inspection,' barked the bad-tempered officer.

Harvey gently informed the man that the last time he came to France he did not have to show his passport or any other documents.

'Impossible, old man. You Americans always have to show your passports on arrival in 'la belle France.'

Harvey gave the Frenchman a long hard look. 'I assure you, young man, that when I came ashore on Omaha Beach in Normandy on D-Day in 1944, there was no damned Frenchman on the beach asking for passports.

[shockmonster]

MVJ-I've already given you the fact that Hitler came to power largely because of the Versailles Treaty and how it punished Germany for WWI. But after Hitler promised Germans who had a bad economy that he could lift them up and the nationalism it created, he began to be aggressive militarily. This happened over a period of approximately 10 years and not over night.

Let's go to present day Iran. They are asserting themselves militarily, and economically in Iraq, Yemen, and Lebanon. No matter what you say, they are not good guys (in fact I would classify them as religious mad men) that you want to have an atomic bomb. Then take Russia, who has a new dictator in Putin who is taking land and expanding militarily. He is not a friend of Europe nor America and they are just allowing him to do his thing without any reaction. I can see him taking more Eastern European and Baltic countries if he is allowed to. Then you have ISIS who is dangerous. They are trying to take more influence in the Middle East and even in America. If you add the atomic bomb capability to their already expanding influence and just allow them to operate with no push back where they live, and we are in for another awakening similar to WWII. We have a coalition of 50 countries but no one is doing anything to push back. America needs to influence the coalition to come to life and to push back.

You are arguing that isolationism is the way to go. I think that we can't afford to isolate ourselves. It's going to come over here.

[shockmonster]

Harvey, an elderly American absentmindedly arrived at French immigration at Charles de Gaulle airport, Paris and fumbled for his passport.

'You have been to France before Monsieur?' the official asked in an aggressive tone.

Harvey, smiled and admitted that he had been to France before.

'In that case you should know enough to have your passport ready for inspection,' barked the bad-tempered officer.

Harvey gently informed the man that the last time he came to France he did not have to show his passport or any other documents.

'Impossible, old man. You Americans always have to show your passports on arrival in 'la belle France.'

Harvey gave the Frenchman a long hard look. 'I assure you, young man, that when I came ashore on Omaha Beach in Normandy on D-Day in 1944, there was no damned Frenchman on the beach asking for passports.

Once Hitler took over France, the French people fought pretty hard (not the Vichy French but the French resistance) to get the dictator out. However, they do forget fast.

[MoValley John]

MVJ-I've already given you the fact that Hitler came to power largely because of the Versailles Treaty and how it punished Germany for WWI. But after Hitler promised Germans who had a bad economy that he could lift them up and the nationalism it created, he began to be aggressive militarily. This happened over a period of approximately 10 years and not over night.

Let's go to present day Iran. They are asserting themselves militarily, and economically in Iraq, Yemen, and Lebanon. No matter what you say, they are not good guys (in fact I would classify them as religious mad men) that you want to have an atomic bomb. Then take Russia, who has a new dictator in Putin who is taking land and expanding militarily. He is not a friend of Europe nor America and they are just allowing him to do his thing without any reaction. I can see him taking more Eastern European and Baltic countries if he is allowed to. Then you have ISIS who is dangerous. They are trying to take more influence in the Middle East and even in America. If you add the atomic bomb capability to their already expanding influence and just allow them to operate with no push back where they live, and we are in for another awakening similar to WWII. We have a coalition of 50 countries but no one is doing anything to push back. America needs to influence the coalition to come to life and to push back.

You are arguing that isolationism is the way to go. I think that we can't afford to isolate ourselves. It's going to come over here.

No, I'm not arguing for isolationism, that's a bad plan. I'm just making sure people understand that France had a huge role in the war.

[shockmonster]

No, I'm not arguing for isolationism, that's a bad plan. I'm just making sure people understand that France had a huge role in the war.

Your point is good. France has been traditional enemies of Germany (for centuries) so they didn't mind sticking it to them when they got the chance.

I still think that Rand Paul is an isolationist and that it is the wrong approach for International Relations.

[RoyalShock]

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.

[shockmonster]

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.

There is a difference in the terms as you described them. You call it open minded. Some call it pacifistic. I call it isolationistic or maybe naïve while putting your head in the sand until the threat comes to our shores.

[ShockdaWorld]

Meh, I enjoy spending my time helping a young Shocker crunch some numbers a 1000x more than whining about why gutless politicians won't pass a fair/flat tax for the 20th time.

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.

[Kung Wu]

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.

Anything's possible, but it seems unlikely. I'm showing that your next payment would be in the ballpark of: $356.63 principal / $591.47 interest and that you owe about $61,000 left in interest. Let's go PM, and I'll be happy to walk you through any scenario you want. If you look at the amortization table, you'll see that each month a little more of your payment goes toward principal than the prior month, and little less toward interest. So you don't start making large payments on the interest until toward the _end_ of the loan. If you just calculated the average interest and multiplied that times the total number of payments you will mislead yourself (badly) as to how much interest you have paid. Again, let's go PM and I can help you run any scenario you want.

[WuDrWu]

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.

While I despise all things governmental, you might also qualify for a harp discount, which for now goes away soon. If so, your fees will be minimal.

Yes, you've paid a lot of interest and how long you'll remain in this home is a large part of your decision, but it's likely you're going to be ahead if you have more than 18 months or so left on the note.