Thursday, January 31, 2008

Sifting Through the GOP Debate, Part I

Taking a short break from school to note something interesting from the Republican debate:
Ron Paul made up a word.
Unless, of course, "malinvestment" is in your dictionary. He used it twice, within the space of a few breaths!
DEVELOPING...

CORRECTION: I spoke with my Latin teacher and my Academic Team coach, who is an English teacher. My Latin teacher says it is a word, and my coach concurs, but both agree that it really was a rather inapt word. So, to summarize: Ron Paul said "malinvestment." I laughed at him for making up a word. It turned out that it actually was a word, except that it sucks. I think that's a fair summary.

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

It's Worked Well for Rudy, Hasn't It?

I had a little run-in with a Paulian on The Caucus (NYTimes Politics blog), who claimed that "Dr." Paul's strategy is to target delegates.  Oh really?
 
/*WARNING! Following content contains slight profanity!  You've been warned!*/
 
He also claimed that Rep. Paul was winning in "states that don't get as much attention," or something like that.  Oh really?  Which states has he won...let me think...?  Iowa?  Nope.  New Hampshire?  Uh-uh.  Michigan?  Negative.  South Carolina?  No.  The best he has done is 2nd place in Nevada.  According to CNN, Rep. Paul has 6 delegates so far.  NYT says that he has none.  (Of course, we all know about how the NYTimes is so liberal.  Courtesy of Rudy.)
 
This does not sound like the strategy of a healthy campaign to me.  This sounds like a campaign that's saying, "We're screwed.  We can't get out because our candidate has made such a commitment to this.  Let's just whitewash the walls to cover up the fact that they're going to come down sooner or later."
 

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Colonel Ron Blimp

I enjoy reading the posts of people courageous enough to actually stand against the fanatical Paulians. That's why I found this very funny. Also, since I am a huge Monty Python fan, I liked this, too.

Saturday, January 12, 2008

When Paulians Attack!, Part II

This is just plain ridiculous. Ron Paul needs to rope in his supporters- they are simply out of control. To me, "Dr." Paul is an "NIMC" candidate- "Not In My Country." I would sooner vote for Duncan Hunter than Ron Paul, just because of his supporters. They are incredibly intense, and their intensity is rather freaky. Go ahead and spam me, Paulians! I can take it! You lot are full of so much bull that you cover it up by screaming at people who dare question your Ron Paul gospel. Enough is enough! People make mistakes, and it generally isn't due to grand conspiracies. We are completely over your yelling and screaming and voter intimidation.

Saturday, January 5, 2008

A Fair Tax?

I read this column in the New York Times, and I thought a bit. I like Mike Huckabee; he seems like a pretty darn nice guy. But would his tax ideas work? It doesn't seem to make sense, that the FairTax would be taking the tax burden off of those who are able to support it and who don't need to spend such a large percentage of their money to live, and putting it on the people least able to support it. Their math also seems a little weird, too. The article quotes one of the major sponsors of the FairTax saying, "Liberals should love it: it lowers taxes on wages and imposes a tax on wealth." Let me spell out the likely reason why liberals don't seem to be too impressed. The great majority of American people live from paycheck to paycheck, spending most of what they take in each month, whereas people who get more money don't have so much of a problem with that. If they cut back on some luxury expenditures, rich people could get a hell of a lot better off on this. A single man taking in $1,000,000 a year, with no mortgage, 50% investment rate, and good personal habits spend about a percentage point extra, and receive a boost to actual usable income of about 300%. Whereas a 3-person family earning $40,000 per year, with no mortgage, no investment, fairly low charitable-giving and gift-giving rates, public school education for the tyke, and an overall low profile results in an increase in taxes paid, decrease in purchasing power, and a decrease in spendable income. That's very interesting, isn't it. The "progressive" tax would hurt the people who can afford it the least, and help the people who don't need the help.

P.S. This was done practically on a whim, so any FairTax supporters who think I did my research wrong should keep in mind that this was very rushed. I want to do a more detailed look into it, but time has not permitted.