Mediaboss Marketing

What Republicans are trying to do is make sure that the Iran deal, if it cannot be stopped, is a "one-off" -- that it doesn't lead to broader conclusions about what we can accomplish by pursuing diplomacy and preventing war.

Setting aside the ability of the cannabis industry to have some degree of impact on the current presidential race, what are the positions of some of the more interesting candidates?

Rob Kampia

Executive director, Marijuana Policy Project

A year ago, the script for 2016 was sealed -- Clinton II versus Bush III: advantage Clinton. But Jeb Bush's nomination is far from certain and Bernie Sanders is giving Clinton a run for her money. Indeed, her money is more liability than asset. If Rubio can win over the Republican base, he'd likely be the most trouble for Democrats.

The so-called religious freedom laws Republican wannabees seek are fig leafs for discrimination against gay couples. But should such laws become reality, they would go far beyond the ability of a Christian business to refuse to cater a gay wedding.

Martha Burk

Money Editor, Ms. magazine; director, Corporate Accountability Project, National Council of Women's Organizations

When it comes down to the freakiest of the freaky in the whole Republican field, Donald Trump is very hard to top. Trump not only is running for president, he's apparently on a mission to singlehandedly destroy his own Trump brand, forevermore.

Steve King Wants to Impeach Supreme Court Justices; Rush Limbaugh's Butthurt Balm; Crazy Christian Facebook Lady is Crazy; and much more.

Originally posted here:
Rand Paul: Pictures, Videos, Breaking News

Paul said in April that he would 'keep an open mind' about the nuclear talks. | Getty

The most dovish member of the 2016 Republican presidential field Sen. Rand Paul says hes against President Obamas nuclear deal with Iran.

Paul, who said in April that he would keep an open mind about the nuclear talks, registered three objections to the agreement unveiled on Tuesday.

Story Continued Below

In a Facebook post, the Kentucky senator said his three concerns were: 1) sanctions relief precedes evidence of compliance, 2) Iran is left with significant nuclear capacity, 3) it lifts the ban on selling advanced weapons to Iran.

I will, therefore, vote against the agreement, he said.

While I continue to believe that negotiations are preferable to war, I would prefer to keep the interim agreement in place instead of accepting a bad deal, Paul added.

In April, Paul slammed others in his party whom he said had been beating the drums for war and said he supported legislation from Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) that would give Congress the chance to approve or reject Iranian relief from sanctions.

Go here to read the rest:
Rand Paul 2016: Against Iran deal - POLITICO

Republican presidential candidate Rand Paul has proposed a 14.5 percent flat tax on all American individuals and businesses. He repeatedly claims his plan would "blow up the tax code" and "pull America out of the slow-growth rut of the past decade," underscoring the audacity of such a policy.

He concludes with an assurance that the plan's execution will see the American economy roar. But the key to fiscal growth is not as easy as implementing a flat tax.

Paul's tax plan, as with many flat tax proposals, is not a pure flat tax. He includes a tax exemption for the first $50,000 of family income and the maintenance of mortgage and charity write-offs.

In addition, Paul proposes a 14.5 percent "business activity tax" that would operate much like a European Value Added Tax or VAT. Despite its widespread popularity among OECD nations, VATs serve as a pernicious form of taxation, harming American consumers through increased prices and broader tax bases.

Unlike a conventional sales tax that is only charged at final sale, VATs are charged in small amounts along the entire supply chain. Ironically, the "business activity" component of Paul's proposal will be primarily borne by consumers, as corporations charge higher prices to customers in order to shoulder increased costs. Furthermore, due to their subtle nature, VATs tend to grow over time, as 20 of the 29 OECD nations with VATs haveraised their rates.

Paul's policy has deep roots in American history. The government has twice flirted with the flat tax, both in the 19th century. Due to the rapid evolution of the American economy however, there is not much to glean from a single digit flat tax rate forincomes over $4,000.

A flat tax would simplify a system characterized by convoluted loopholes and incomprehensible deductions. In a given year, U.S. taxpayers and businesses devote7.6 billion hoursto comply with the IRS's 3.7 million-word code.

To analyze the feasibility of Paul's tax proposal, one could look at tax cuts enacted by previous administrations. Granted, comparing a simple tax reduction with an entirely new flat tax plan seems like a gross conflation of fiscal policy.

Yet, on a certain level, Paul's tax plan is achieving the same ends as previous tax reductions, just with a reduction in the corporate tax rate and the outright elimination of the payroll tax.

Consider the tax cuts enacted under the Coolidge administration during the 1920s. Dubbed the Mellon tax cuts, these reductionsslashed federal income taxesfrom 73 percent (for income over $200,000) in 1921 to 50 percent in 1923. Simultaneously, taxes paid by the top income earners rose from $300 million to $700 million. Rather than decrease government revenue, lower taxes bolstered federal earnings by an additional $1.2 billion.

Read more:
Rand Paul's flat tax proposal is an economy killer ...

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) went after Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) Monday, accusing him of making the country "weaker" on national security.

In town hall meetings, people are really worried about ISIS, they're really worried about the threat of terrorism," said Christie during an appearance on MSNBC's "Morning Joe." "And thats why what Rand Paul has done to make this country weaker and more vulnerable is a terrible thing. And for him to raise money off of it is disgraceful."

He added that if the country is ever attacked, Paul should be hauled in front of Congress and made to testify.

"He should be in front of hearings and in front of Congress if there is another attack, not the director of the FBI or the CIA," said Christie.

Christie has frequently criticized Paul on national security issues. In June, he called Paul's opposition to the Patriot Act "shortsighted." He has also compared the senator's views to those of Edward Snowden, the contractor who leaked classified National Security Agency information.

Hes [Snowden is] a criminal and hes hiding in Russia, and hes lecturing to us about the evils of authoritarian government while he lives under the protective umbrella of Vladimir Putin? Thats who [Sens.] Mike Lee and Rand Paul are siding with? With Edward Snowden? Hey, come on," said Christie in May.

Paul has also gone after Christie, saying his "bully demeanor" -- his tendency to yell at voters -- isn't what the country needs.

"I grew up in the South," said Paul in 2014. "And we're 'yes, ma'am' and 'no, sir' and a little bit more polite."

For more from The Huffington Post, download our app for iOS or Android.

Read more from the original source:
Chris Christie Slams Rand Paul For Making The Country 'Weaker'

Presidential candidate Sen. Rand Paul has a tax plan hed like to sell you on. The plan, which would put in place a 14.5 percent flat tax, was crafted with the input of some of the wrongest people in the conservative economic policy world, and it would redistribute wealth up the economic ladder while tossing a bone or two to the people at the bottom. But Rand is proud of it nonetheless, mainly because he thinks its less slavery-like than your average tax scheme.

Heres what Paul said last week about taxation and freedom, as reported by BuzzFeed:

Now you can have some government, we all need government, the Kentucky senator said while discussing Thomas Paine and the role of government at the local public library. Thomas Paine said that government is a necessary evil. What did he mean by that?

Paul said he believes that you have to give up some of your liberty to have government, saying he was for some government.

Im for paying some taxes, continued Paul. But if we tax you at 100% then youve got zero percent liberty. If we tax you at 50% you are half slave, half free. I frankly would like to see you a little freer and a little more money remaining in your communities so you can create jobs. Its a debate we need to have.

That was his big pitch The Rand Paul tax plan: Only 14.5 percent slavery!

This is a dumb argument. And its upsetting to hear this dumb argument coming from someone who is trying to be president, but will go back to writing and approving legislation if/when that doesnt work out. Taxation is not tantamount to slavery. The only thing thats comparable to slavery is actual slavery. You might not like it that a portion of your paycheck is sent to the feds and your state government, and you may disagree with how your tax dollars are spent, but that is in no way comparable to being kept in bondage and having the fruits of your labor stolen from you.

Any way you look at this argument, its bad. When youve staked out the position that your effective tax rate is how you measure ones slave status, then youre arguing that a progressive tax structure means rich people are less free than the lucky poor folks who would see a smaller percentage of their income go to the government. By this reading, a hedge fund billionaire who moves his assets offshore to avoid paying taxes is basically Frederick Douglass. And when you refer to something as slavery, how can you then make the case that there is an acceptable threshold for it? Why should 14.5 percent slavery be any more tolerable than 100 percent slavery?

It gets even worse when you remember that Rand Paul is trying to make inroads with black voters and repair his partys abysmally bad reputation with African-Americans. Rand obviously understands at a certain level that slavery was a uniquely horrific crime, the memory of which still haunts our politics. After the shootings in Charleston last month, Paul called for the Confederate flag to be removed from grounds of the South Carolina Capitol because to every African-American in the country its a symbolism of slavery to them and now its a symbol of murder to this young man. Here we are, just a couple of weeks later, and hes comparing the grotesque human rights violations represented by that flag to the banal act of filing your annual tax return.

And this isnt Rand Pauls first foray into comparing policies he disagrees with to slavery. In 2011, during a Senate hearing, he said that a right to healthcare would, in effect, make slavesout of doctors such as himself:

More:
Rand Paul, dorm room philosopher: Why his "slavery ...