Gary Johnson

I

ilwrath

Active Member
Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
1,199
Reaction score
475
Well, we had the other three candidates with their own threads... Might as well throw in the Libertarians and Gary, right?

Despite voting for him four years ago (I think I had to write him in, even!)... As I examine him, now... He's not exactly doing a lot to win me over, either.

I'd love to hear some of your thoughts on his platform this year... I know at least Red's got some thoughts.

I'll start it off by just saying that while simplifying taxes and scaling back the IRS is a noble cause... I think we really need income taxes. In fact, if you had to cut down to just one tax, I'd say income tax is the crucial one.
 
Despite voting for him four years ago (I think I had to write him in, even!)... As I examine him, now... He's not exactly doing a lot to win me over, either
Click to expand...

That's about my feelings too. Gary Johnson was my choice in 2012, but he has strongly re-branded himself. He went from a Tea Party darling, to trying to be Bernie Sanders 2.0. I am amazed how fast and how hard he shifted left.
 
Well, I don't mind some liberal in there. In fact, I prefer it on a lot of the social issues... But the financial issues need to make some sense. And a giant sales tax with nothing else...? The numbers just don't work.
 
ilwrath said:
Well, I don't mind some liberal in there. In fact, I prefer it on a lot of the social issues... But the financial issues need to make some sense. And a giant sales tax with nothing else...? The numbers just don't work.
Click to expand...

I voted for Steve Forbes in the Republican primary some years back when he ran, mainly due to his flat tax proposal. It was common sense and simple. Everyone would pay taxes. Poor would pay less because they consume less. Rich would pay more because no loop holes and they consume more. It would also eliminate the IRS, which would save taxpayers at least 1/2 TRILLION DOLLARS per year.

IRS and Tax Bureaucracy Cost Tax Payers $431 Billion a Year

Those are 2011 numbers, so the actual 2016 numbers would be even higher.
 
Yeah, but it still just doesn't work. Look at the numbers you cited yourself, in another thread.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Right now, Federal, State and Local revenue per capita is $20,411. That is the total amount collected, divided by the number of US citizens. And you're going to inflict that on a group where median income is $30,368, and GDP divided by population is $57,015?

So, the mythical "average person" would generate nearly $60,000 worth of productivity, and have less than $10,000 of actual purchasing power to show for it? And the 450-500 billion saved by eliminating the IRS entirely would still not balance the current budget without increasing taxes or needing further cuts elsewhere.

The rich don't (and can't possibly) buy enough more for this to work.
 
Gary Johnson in full pander mode.

 
ilwrath said:
Right now, Federal, State and Local revenue per capita is $20,411. That is the total amount collected, divided by the number of US citizens. And you're going to inflict that on a group where median income is $30,368, and GDP divided by population is $57,015?

So, the mythical "average person" would generate nearly $60,000 worth of productivity, and have less than $10,000 of actual purchasing power to show for it? And the 450-500 billion saved by eliminating the IRS entirely would still not balance the current budget without increasing taxes or needing further cuts elsewhere.
Click to expand...

That's not how it works. You've got every single point wrong based on impossible assumptions. How you came to such assumptions is beyond me. Here is a recent article by Forbes.

My flat-tax proposal calls for a 17% tax rate for all, with generous deductions for individuals and families ( a family of four would owe no federal income tax on their first $46,000). And that’s it—no tax on savings and no death tax. The federal corporate tax rate would be dropped to 17%, and capital investments would be expensed immediately. There are other worthy variations of the flat tax.

In 2016 I'd probably lean towards a flat national sales tax and eliminate the IRS completely.
 
redrumloa said:
That's not how it works. You've got every single point wrong based on impossible assumptions. How you came to such assumptions is beyond me. Here is a recent article by Forbes.

My flat-tax proposal calls for a 17% tax rate for all, with generous deductions for individuals and families ( a family of four would owe no federal income tax on their first $46,000). And that’s it—no tax on savings and no death tax. The federal corporate tax rate would be dropped to 17%, and capital investments would be expensed immediately. There are other worthy variations of the flat tax.

In 2016 I'd probably lean towards a flat national sales tax and eliminate the IRS completely.
Click to expand...

I'm willing to admit, I may have some points wrong, or not completely current. As I had heard, his latest proposal was a 23% sales tax, and no others, but with a prebate.

But what I'm saying is that regardless if it's 17%, 23%, the number you'd need to maintain current collections is over 50%, and that is not even calculating the loss from the prebate, which would be well more than 50% of the population, as the median income is lower than the prebate value.

That's a big problem.
 
redrumloa said:
That's not how it works. You've got every single point wrong based on impossible assumptions. How you came to such assumptions is beyond me.
Click to expand...
He is 100 percent correct. The total tax revenue in the US (federal, state, and local) is estimated to be 6,46 trillion (Source). The country has a population of less than 320 million people. If all other taxes were to be abolished (corporate taxes, capital gains taxes, etc.) except for a national sales tax and all expenses were being kept equal, on average you would need revenues of 20,000 USD in sales tax per capita and year. The math is pretty straightforward on this.

Now, let us generously assume that abolishing the entire IRS, which also handles tasks such as investigating money laundering and Bank Secrecy Act related crimes, would save close to 500 million USD, then you still need close to 19,000 USD per capita per year on average.

I hope everyone on this forum understands that these are completely ridiculous numbers no matter if the tax is a national sales tax or an income tax.

redrumloa said:

Here is a recent article by Forbes.

My flat-tax proposal calls for a 17% tax rate for all, with generous deductions for individuals and families ( a family of four would owe no federal income tax on their first $46,000). And that’s it—no tax on savings and no death tax. The federal corporate tax rate would be dropped to 17%, and capital investments would be expensed immediately. There are other worthy variations of the flat tax.

In 2016 I'd probably lean towards a flat national sales tax and eliminate the IRS completely.
Click to expand...
Are you aware that Forbes is only talking about replacing the federal income tax code? He wants to keep coporate taxes, too.

Mind you, ilwrath was talking about the proposal to use a single tax to replace local, state, and federal taxes...
 
redrumloa said:
That's about my feelings too. Gary Johnson was my choice in 2012, but he has strongly re-branded himself. He went from a Tea Party darling, to trying to be Bernie Sanders 2.0. I am amazed how fast and how hard he shifted left.
Click to expand...

Wow... This is the same guy I supported from 2012 until earlier this year? :smh: Either he was a complete fraud then, or he's a complete fraud now. Either way, he's a complete fraud on the level of Hildabeast.

 
The video seems outdated. Johnson distanced himself from carbon taxes in late August, for example.

Also, just for the record, the claim that there would be weekly terrorist attacks in Germany is completely idiotic.
 
JoBBo said:
Also, just for the record, the claim that there would be weekly terrorist attacks in Germany is completely idiotic.
Click to expand...

Really? There sure seems to be a story every week like THIS.
 
So, incidents of men groping women at alcohol-fueled events are "terrorist attacks" now?

Do we need to put Roger Ailes and Bill Cosby on the terror watch list? Should SEAL team six be deployed to American college campuses?
 
JoBBo said:
So, incidents of men groping women at alcohol-fueled events are "terrorist attacks" now?

Do we need to put Roger Ailes and Bill Cosby on the terror watch list?
Click to expand...

Nah, neither of them are refugees or muslims:
(muslim || refugee) + $disagreeableBehaviour == terrorism;
 
JoBBo said:
So, incidents of men groping women at alcohol-fueled events are "terrorist attacks" now?

Do we need to put Roger Ailes and Bill Cosby on the terror watch list? Should SEAL team six be deployed to American college campuses?
Click to expand...

Wow, really JoBBo? You really believe in all the Regressive talking points? where to start?

Rape is rape, anyone who rapes or genuinely sexually assaults women (or men) need to br prosecuted. Roger Ailes may or may not have been railroaded, he has supporters and detractors. The way the settlement just happened reflects badly on him. Bill Cosby is looking like a real creep who will finally be prosecuted, decades too late. American College campus narrative is just that, a narrative. I won't bother providing citation as you probably wouldn't believe it anyway.

OTOH you have a culture and a religion who promotes violence against women as a weapon. Maybe you will believe these links. Too many citations to provide, as this is common knowledge, but considering under Sharia victims of rape are punished, what else is to be said? Also your country is covering up the violence, refusing to report rape as rape. You largely have to go to media outside of Germany to see rape reported as rape. Somehow in your country even rape victims self censor, thinking the rapists themselves are the true victims. Don't believe me or the news, the Quran itself defines Sharia law. Apparently the situation is worse than you thought, and yes rape is jihad.

Sweden is the current rape capital of the western world, but Germany may take that crown soon.
 
redrumloa said:
Wow, really JoBBo? You really believe in all the Regressive talking points? where to start?

Rape is rape, anyone who rapes or genuinely sexually assaults women (or men) need to br prosecuted. Roger Ailes may or may not have been railroaded, he has supporters and detractors. The way the settlement just happened reflects badly on him. Bill Cosby is looking like a real creep who will finally be prosecuted, decades too late.
Click to expand...
You are completely missing the point.

The video claimed that there would be terrorist attacks in Germany on a weekly basis. You cannot willy-nilly equate "rapes" with "terrorist attacks" or equate "sexual harrassment" with "rape". Whether you like it or not, they are not the same. Period.

American College campus narrative is just that, a narrative. I won't bother providing citation as you probably wouldn't believe it anyway.
Click to expand...
Right. but I am the one living in a bubble? Maybe I should have provided links to articles discussing sexual assaults on Chinese college campuses or during Oktoberfest in 2012 before the refugees arrived. Maybe then your reflexive partitiotism would not have kicked in and you may have read what I was actually saying.

Also your country is covering up the violence, refusing to report rape as rape.
Click to expand...
Did you read anything but the headline? I often get the impression you do not when you post links here. The article claims that some bureaucrat, likely a minister, requested the word "rape" to not be used in a report and the police did not care and used it anyway. How does this qualify as proof for "an entire country is covering up violence"?

yes rape is jihad.
Click to expand...
So, just to confirm: Any person that is either a self-identified Muslim or immigrated from a predominantly Muslim country and inappropriately touches another person is automatically a terrorist. That is your argument, isn´t it?
 
Why Ron Paul and the Liberty Movement don’t support the Johnson/Weld ticket

I could write a very lengthy article on all of the instances Johnson and Weld have rejected libertarian principles. They do it almost as often as Donald Trump insults someone on Twitter. At best, Gary Johnson is a centrist (but moving left every day) with some libertarian leanings. He has close to zero intellectual understanding of the libertarian philosophy. Bill Weld is even worse, a classic Rockefeller Republican who wouldn't surprise anybody if he became a Democrat tomorrow.
 
Maybe he should have consumed some of those edibles he wants to legalize before those two interviews. On the other hand, he might have been more likely to have another "Aleppo" or "name any foreign leader" moment then. Damned if you do, damned if you don't :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top