Ron Paul, does he stand a chance?

[Arbitrary]

Can't we instead cut corporate taxes or business taxes or something? Blanket tax breaks based on income brackets I don't quite get.

[Havelock]

Originally Posted by Arbitrary

Can't we instead cut corporate taxes or business taxes or something? Blanket tax breaks based on income brackets I don't quite get.

McCain and Giuliani (and maybe others) proposed corporate tax cuts recently as part of their economic stimulus plans.

[Soriak]

Originally Posted by Arbitrary

Can't we instead cut corporate taxes or business taxes or something? Blanket tax breaks based on income brackets I don't quite get.

Corporate taxes in the US are a messy business... it's true that the "normal" rate is the second highest in the world, but a LOT of business sectors get reduced rates or in the case of online services are not taxed at all. This is definitely something that'd have to go with a revision, as it distorts the market in favor of these sectors. That'd effectively lead to a tax increase in some areas though, which is going to be hard to pass politically.

Corporate tax breaks also are more of a long term measure. They're not going to help over the next few months as businesses won't change major plans quickly. Allowing higher first-year write-offs would move up spending that was planned for the next year or two to right now, which is a good short-term fix that can delay the problem long enough for long-term measures to take hold. Though the fed said it opposes long-term cuts, because revenue/spending is out of whack already and before you can cut the revenue, you need to cut the spending. (and cutting spending = recession becomes far more likely - somewhat of a catch 22)


Any promising plan is going to have to include both short and long term measures and get them done at the right time. The $16bn McCain found in pork spending - even if slashed entirely - work nice politically, but far more than that will have to be cut. And it'll have to be found somewhere other than social services, because you need to get money to the people who will spend it right away.

The obvious sectors would be security and military, as money spent there might improve security, but doesn't increase long term revenue. Given the choice between losing an unquantifiable amount of security and avoiding a recession, I know I'd pick the former. It's a competitive world and "you snooze, you lose" has never been any truer.

[Hippos II]

ron paul is basically in a tie for second with mccain in the nevada caucus right now (romney blowout lead)

[darksensei]

2nd place then why isn't his picture up here?

[lendarios]

You seem surprised. FNC is boycotting anything Ron Paul related.

[Believe]

Because he doesn't look like a frog.

[FulorianC]

Go to imageshack... wow. That's some stupid shit. They show Romney, Mccain, and Huckabee? What the fuck?

[Zhaun's_Shade]

Paul beat McCain by less than 1%. MSNBC showed this and mentioned Paul took second place and spent time discussing him for a moment, saying this should give him a boost and that Paul is probably being conservative with his cash because he is going to stay in the race to the end, potentially running as an Independant at the end. They weren't saying it was likely he will, just that it would be a possibility for him.

[GrobbeeTrull2.0]

Good thing we decided to exclude him as viable before this race, huh Zhaun?

[Zhaun's_Shade]

Originally Posted by GrobbeeTrull2.0

Good thing we decided to exclude him as viable before this race, huh Zhaun?

He has a long way to go to get the nomination, one (very) distant second place win (where no one else but Paul & Romney really campaigned) doesn't throw him massively forward in the game. It is a nice forward boost, but its a long way to go still.

But I think it's more likely some Republican hard-liner would shoot him before they would let him get the nomination.

edit: To add some more, this is the first time he has placed better than 4th, and even here he was less than 1% higher than the 3rd place spot. Worse still, when one of the "top 4" (Giuliani, Thompson, Huckabee, McCain) drops, the majority of their supporters will go to one of the other three there and not to Ron Paul, putting him farther behind. The same will happen when another of those 4 drops, the vast majority of the votes will go to one of the other two, not to Paul. He'll end up looking, at best, like Edwards does right now in the Democrat race. Sure, you may be third, but behind 2nd by 20% or somthing.

[FulorianC]

The fact that he has topped the other Republicans, even in one state, in a campaign where the mass media (the most influential force in public opinion in history) has done their best to dismiss him and prop up the other 5 Republicans, proves that they had no right to do so. He's got a long way to go to get the nomination BECAUSE the media has manipulated public opinion so effectively. He would be a viable candidate for the nomination had they not so purposely fought that from ever happening.

[Zhaun's_Shade]

Originally Posted by FulorianC

The fact that he has topped the other Republicans, even in one state, in a campaign where the mass media (the most influential force in public opinion in history) has done their best to dismiss him and prop up the other 5 Republicans, proves that they had no right to do so. He's got a long way to go to get the nomination BECAUSE the media has manipulated public opinion so effectively. He would be a viable candidate for the nomination had they not so purposely fought that from ever happening.

What is the saying? "That and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee." or somthing.

How much higher in the polls would he be if the "vast media conspiricy" wasn't working against him? 2%? 5%? 10%? 50%? We have no way of knowing and I'm not sure it matters at this point.

What about Huckabee? He was in about the same league with Paul at the begining of this thing, yet he found a way to pull into a leader. Can it just be that Paul's views aren't popular enough to win a primary, rather than some conspiricy?

[FulorianC]

He became a leader the instant the media started reporting on him INCESSANTLY.

Don't give me this 'that and a cup of coffee' bullshit. Nobody knows what he'd do with media coverage, the point is that he's still holding his own with the ones deemed to be 'media worthy' with little to no press, and what little it is treating his as a lunatic fringe candidate. The media is manipulating what choices the American people have, because - lets face it - the masses make the decisions, and the masses are uninformed and easily manipulated. The informed have no bearing on politics any more. The average person on the street either does not know who Ron Paul is, or has a highly distorted view of his positions. THAT is what destroys his chances of winning a primary - the manipulability of a public that doesn't care enough to find out otherwise.

One point of irony, the ABC news break a moment ago named all top four contenders in South Carolina (guess who was #5), named all three meaningful (greater than 1% of the vote) Democratic candidates in BOTH Nevada and South Carolina, then wrapped up by saying "and Mitt Romney won in Nevada". Are you fucking kidding me?

[Zhaun's_Shade]

Originally Posted by FulorianC

He became a leader the instant the media started reporting on him INCESSANTLY.

You know that to be factually true, or you just like to believe it happened in that order because you hate the media. I don't recall if coverage came before support or not myself.

Don't give me this 'that and a cup of coffee' bullshit. Nobody knows what he'd do with media coverage, the point is that he's still holding his own with the ones deemed to be 'media worthy' with little to no press, and what little it is treating his as a lunatic fringe candidate.

So you're saying anyone with the "media's favor" can win elections no matter what their politics are? There is no chance that a large amount of people just aren't interested in what Paul is selling? A Republican running on an anti-war platform alone would lose him a lot of votes you realize?