McSame picked a women VP

[Dr Newton]

McCain suspends campaign, does job as Senator:

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/mccain-suspend-campaign-join-bailout/story.aspx?guid={64CBC327-308D-4EB3-B082-8D292B4E1A60}&dist=msr_1

[Sleazy]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

I'm about as swing as you get when it comes to voters so making your case will mean more wind in your parties sail. I'm asking this not just because I want to hear your opinions on his policies, it's also because I have no idea about MCCains policies. I've tried researching it but they didn't have his policies on their site or anywhere that I could find them on the web last time I looked. (edit: I just looked and they have a new site that talks to his policies a bit. I read through them a bit but only in energy. I'll review them more as I have time).

[close]

HAHA, you're a "swing voter".... have you voted for one non-DNC candidate in your life? I've heard nothing from you but liberal positions on ever issue you've discussed.

[close]

I voted for bush on his first term and I was planning too vote republican this time because I wanted to ensure that neither party had too much power before I found out who the candidates were, which are both things I've talked about on here in the past. As far as "nothing but liberal positions from me" goes, you'd know better than I would, I don't keep up with political, idelogical classification as I feel it is for non-thinkers but I'm fairly certain that I'm not liberal on issues like capital punishment, imigration, rascism, etc...

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Here's the big issues that concern me and how I feel Obama's stated policies address them:

Corporations Gone Wild
They've been shitting all over us for a long time, taking all they can and not putting anything back.
- Obama's tax plan calls for higher taxes for companys that do things that go against working Americans like outsourcing jobs. I personally have been laid off on average once a year from corporate jobs since graduating college. And I wasn't one of a few. Each time about 50% of the staff went and shops were setup overseas to lower cost.

[close]

Corporations are going overseas.... and you think raising taxes is going to cause them to want to come back? Barack Obama cannot tax corporation's incomes that are made overseas to begin with. This punitive measure would probably just drive them from doing business within the United States at all. The top 10% of earners Barack Obama wants to raise taxes on provide about 80% of the US job market in the form of small to mid sized businesses. Only a tiny portion of these people are "fat cat CEOs" drawing huge corporate bonuses. Raising the costs of these businesses will lead to cutbacks in terms of the employment opportunities that they provide. I personally am in favor of implementing the FairTax to solve this problem, so I disagree with John McCain.

[close]

There not going overseas, there just shipping the jobs there. The C managers and board don't want to move overseas. American corporations will stay in America but the jobs they create wont unless we make it more profitable to do so.

Expand Quote

Economy
Our current economic recession is very heavy in retail, manufacturing, transportation, etc... (consumer spending type industries)
- Obama's tax plan is the opposite of trickle down which is geared not only to give citizens who make under 250 tax breaks just for fun, this will also increase the disposable incomes of the majority of Americans who will turn around and spend that money on clothes, travel, applances, ect... which will revitalize those industries and help strengthen the economy. If you give more tax relief or even just continue the Bush tax relief to the super rich, then this will have no effect on consumer spending. I know this may be bad for your family out in the Hills but for 94% of Americans, it's a bad thing and eventhough my wife and I could realistically be effected by this tax increase one day, I fully back it. I actually support a movement called the FairTax, which John McCain does not support.

http:http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=mfg_home/www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=mfg_home

[close]

There's more than one way to analyze equality and precentage of wealth is more fair in my opinion than a flat tax. I actually prefer a progressive tax. If your making over 250 a year then you need to give a little love back to the country that made that possible. Also, Barack's tax policies only restore the rich tax back to what it was under Regan, so he's not exactly raping them, just correcting the wrong that was done by Bush.

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

- Obama has a time table for withdraw on the table. If you think he's not thinking about reelection your crazy so he will have to have troups out before the next election. Whether he's able to hit 16 month goal or if it ends up being 6 months before the next election, at least with him I know it'll be in the next four years. MCCain would just be more of the bush horizon and lies.
- He's willing to not "politicize" diplomacy, by not playing the good guys, bad guys game with other countrys like Iran, Venasula, etc... and to actually sit down and talk with these people.

[close]

Troop with drawl has already started as of February of 2009. John McCain has expressed strong interest in troop with drawl from Iraq and the idea that he wouldn't have the troops out in four years is pretty absurd. He says he wants the troops out. If you're taking Obama's word for it, why not McCain's?

[close]

Him not being willing to commit to a timetable makes me prefer and trust Obama's position more.

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Energy
He's put forth a detailed plan for taking us away from foriegn Oil dependence and is commited to preserving our coast lines and wildlife for future generations. I'd like to think I could take my grand kids to a nice beach without having to go to Asia and by that time we will surely be back in the same boat if we don't change to a different source of energy. While you may dissagree about what the next energy source should be, I think you'd be foolish to think that we don't need to move away from oil and Obama is the only candidate that has a policy that addresses this on the table.

Mccain is not only not moving us away from Oil, he's discouraging domestic production of ethonal and encouraging importing of it. He's actually creataing a situation we're we'd also be more likely to be dependent on foriegn ethanol if we made the switch but really he's just keeping the oil on top as would be expected.

Expand Quote

John McCain will repeal the 54 cents per gallon tax on imported sugar-based ethanol, increasing competition, and lowering prices of at the pump.


John McCain will roll back corn-based ethanol mandates, which are contributing to the rising cost of food.

http://www.johnmccain.com/Issues/JobsforAmerica/relief.htm

[close]

[close]

In case you haven't noticed, ethanol has caused a crisis throughout the world.... food prices are soaring thanks to these idiotic mandates, and people across the world are literally starving to death. The government should not be controlling the factors of production to begin with, and if you disagree with that you need to vote for Barack Obama. The fact is that transitioning away from oil is not going to happen in five, ten, fifteen, or even twenty years -- most Americans need relief NOW. Hell, if cars ran on air tomorrow, there would still be oil dependence in America. How is every single person in the United States going to afford a new car? How is every single industry going to convert to new energy in just a few years? Investment in alternative energy does not solve these problems.

[close]

It's long term planning over short term. Take any intro economics class and you'll learn the virtues of long term planning and why it should be prefered.

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Why would he do this? Surely his plan includes some way of addressing the oil situation and the inflation, recession and lower standard of living that accompanies it. Well here's his plan.

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

John McCain believes we should send a strong message to world markets. Under his plan, the United States will be telling oil producing countries and oil speculators that our dependence on foreign oil will come to an end - and the impact will be lower prices at the pump.

http://www.johnmccain.com/Issues/JobsforAmerica/relief.htm

[close]

Wow, who would of thought that would work. To bad Obama didn't think of simply telling them to lower prices, maybe he's not as smart as his degrees would suggest.

[close]

[close]

Clear straw man argument....

[close]

OK so then correctly interpret it for me. I pasted the text off his site, there's nothing missing there but if you think I missrepresented how shallow and absent his plan is, then please enlighten me.

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Mccain's answer to cheaper, cleaner energy

Expand Quote

Nuclear power is a proven, reliable, zero-emission source of energy, and it is time to recommit to advancing our use of nuclear power.

[close]

I guess radoactive waste is technically clean???

[close]

Obama is extremely vague, but he says he would like to explore nuclear energy also. They're using it in Europe now, so to me it doesn't sound like much of a problem.

[close]

Obama also has a real clean energy plan on the table. He's not just a continuation of the current energy priorites and technologies, he wants to try something different. He's just open to more options than Mccain.

[close]

Okay, well then vote for Barack Obama.

By the way, the FairTax is not a flat tax. You are commenting on a subject you know absolutely nothing about, once again.

Giving up so soon? Come on now, you can do better than that to support the polices that you back.

Answer me this. Under "Fair" tax, if there are two people from opposite ends of the socioeconomic spectrum and they purchase the same item, do they pay the same tax or a different tax? If it's the same then I'm claiming it's a flat tax.

And note that excluding people under a certain income bracket is part of flat tax.

Flat taxes, implemented as well as proposed, usually exempt household income below a statutorily determined level that is a function of the type and size of the household.

Why is it that conservative types love to play semantic games...

[Gatoraids]

source?

http://liberaljournal.blogspot.com/2008/09/have-they-just-dumbed-down-debate-for.html

Saturday, September 20, 2008
Have They Just Dumbed Down the Debate for Palin?

From the NYTimes:

    The Obama and McCain campaigns have agreed to an unusual free-flowing format for the three televised presidential debates, which begin on Friday, but the McCain camp fought for and won a much more structured approach for the questioning at the vice-presidential debate, advisers to both campaigns said Saturday.

    At the insistence of the McCain campaign, the Oct. 2 debate between the Republican nominee for vice president, Gov. Sarah Palin, and her Democratic rival, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., will have shorter question-and-answer segments than those for the presidential nominees, the advisers said. There will also be much less opportunity for free-wheeling, direct exchanges between the running mates.

    McCain advisers said they had been concerned that a loose format could leave Ms. Palin, a relatively inexperienced debater, at a disadvantage and largely on the defensive.

    The wrangling was chiefly between the McCain-Palin camp and the nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates, which is sponsoring the forums.

    Commission members wanted a relaxed format that included time for unpredictable questioning and challenges between the vice-presidential candidates. Last week, it rejected a proposal from advisers to Ms. Palin and Senator John McCain of Arizona, the Republican presidential nominee, for few if any unfettered exchanges. Advisers to Mr. Biden say they were comfortable with either format.

There used to be a time where the burden of proving you were ready to be President was on the candidate him/herself. It seems now the burden is on the opposing candidate to do so while playing to the novice's rules.

Palin only talks in bullet points and repetitive phrases because she's cramming like a college student to be Vice President. This debate format allows her to continue to get away with a superficial knowledge of the world. Joe Biden, meanwhile, will not be allowed to show the full depth of his experience and knowledge on issues, foreign and domestic.

A lot of Americans like canned direct answers, even if it's bullshit and the candidate can't explain anything beyond them. The media loves them even more. Chris Matthews--the supposed "liberal"--was all smitten after Palin's RNC speech. All the talking heads will rave about Palin "exceeding expectations" by answering questions "directly" and "with conviction" (as if a projecting an air of false certitude is a good thing) while Biden "droned on and on" "like a professor" and "couldn't stay within the time format."

I'm not sure what the Obama-Biden people are doing by not protesting more to this more. Do they want to not show concern? Please. No one is paying attention to the rules right now. What matters is when the lights go on. I'd almost them rather pull out of the debate entirely than accept this.

I hope I'm wrong. But it seems Teh Stupid wins big in a format that rewards slogans for answers. Which means Quaylin may have just "won" the debate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/us/politics/21debate.html?_r=2&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1221944424-M80ol3HyyXHv4YOA0dtK0w&oref=slogin

By PATRICK HEALY
Published: September 20, 2008

The Obama and McCain campaigns have agreed to an unusual free-flowing format for the three televised presidential debates, which begin Friday, but the McCain camp fought for and won a much more structured approach for the questioning at the vice-presidential debate, advisers to both campaigns said Saturday.
Skip to next paragraph
Multimedia
The DebatesGraphic
The Debates
Related
Times Topics: Presidential Debates
Blog
The Caucus

The CaucusThe latest political news from around the nation. Join the discussion.

    * Election Guide | More Politics News

Enlarge This Image
Damon Winter/The New York Times

Mr. Obama, shown in Florida on Friday, won an agreement for the first debates to be about foreign policy and national security.

At the insistence of the McCain campaign, the Oct. 2 debate between the Republican nominee for vice president, Gov. Sarah Palin, and her Democratic rival, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., will have shorter question-and-answer segments than those for the presidential nominees, the advisers said. There will also be much less opportunity for free-wheeling, direct exchanges between the running mates.

McCain advisers said they had been concerned that a loose format could leave Ms. Palin, a relatively inexperienced debater, at a disadvantage and largely on the defensive.

The wrangling was chiefly between the McCain-Palin camp and the nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates, which is sponsoring the forums.

Commission members wanted a relaxed format that included time for unpredictable questioning and challenges between the two vice-presidential candidates. On Wednesday, the commission unanimously rejected a proposal sought by advisers to Ms. Palin and Senator John McCain of Arizona, the Republican presidential nominee, to have the moderator ask questions and the candidates answer, with no time for unfettered exchanges. Advisers to Mr. Biden say they were comfortable with either format.

Both campaigns see the four debates as pivotal moments in a presidential race that is not only extraordinarily close but also drawing intense interest from voters; roughly 40 million viewers watched the major speeches at the two parties’ conventions. The upheaval in the financial markets has recast the race in recent days, moreover, which both sides believe will only heighten attention for the debates.

A commission member said that the new agreement on the vice-presidential debate was reached late Saturday morning. It calls for shorter blocks of candidate statements and open discussion than at the presidential debates.

McCain advisers said they were only somewhat concerned about Ms. Palin’s debating skills compared with those of Mr. Biden, who has served six terms in the Senate, or about his chances of tripping her up. Instead, they say, they wanted Ms. Palin to have opportunities to present Mr. McCain’s positions, rather than spending time talking about her experience or playing defense.

While the debates between presidential nominees are traditionally the main events in the fall election season, the public interest in Ms. Palin has proved extraordinary, and a large audience is expected for her national debate debut.

Indeed, both the McCain and Obama campaigns have similar concerns about the vice-presidential matchup in St. Louis: that Ms. Palin, of Alaska, as a new player in national politics, or Mr. Biden, of Delaware, as a loquacious and gaffe-prone speaker, could commit a momentum-changing misstep in their debate.

The negotiations for the three 90-minute debates between the men at the top of the tickets were largely free of brinksmanship. Neither side threatened to pull out, and concerns about camera angles and stagecraft were minor.

Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, the Democratic nominee for president, and Mr. McCain did not intercede personally to settle any disputes. They agreed to one substantive change to the format originally proposed by the debate commission, giving them two minutes apiece to make a statement at the beginning of each segment on a new topic.

Mr. Obama successfully sought to flip the proposed topics for the first and third debates, so foreign policy is now coming first and economic and other domestic issues come last. There is a second debate, in the format of a town hall meeting, in which the candidates will sit on director’s chairs and take questions from the audience and Internet users on any topic.

The debate commission had proposed that the first debate be on economic issues and the third on foreign policy — in part, people involved in the process said, because the first debate is usually the most watched, and many voters rank the economy as their top concern.

Mr. Obama wanted foreign policy first to show viewers that he could provide depth, strength and intelligence on those issues, his advisers said, given that Mr. McCain consistently wins higher ratings in opinion polls as a potential commander in chief.

Mr. Obama wanted domestic issues to come last; advisers said that they believed even before the start of the financial crisis that the election was most likely to turn on the state of the economy and that he wanted the final televised exchange to focus on those concerns. He has argued that Mr. McCain would continue the economic policies of President Bush.

Mr. McCain also wanted foreign policy topics to come first in the debates, his aides said, in the hope of capitalizing on his positive reputation on national security issues across party lines.

He wanted limits on the original format for the first and third debates, which had been nine topics with nine minutes of free-flowing debate on each one. Mr. Obama went along, though his aides did insist that at least several minutes of open-ended debate occur in each block of questioning, because they believe he does well in that format.
Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image
Todd Heisler/The New York Times

Senator John McCain, at a speech in Wisconsin on Friday, will go to Mississippi this week for the first of three debates with Senator Barack Obama.
Multimedia
The DebatesGraphic
The Debates
Related
Times Topics: Presidential Debates
Blog
The Caucus

The CaucusThe latest political news from around the nation. Join the discussion.

    * Election Guide | More Politics News

Now the candidates will be asked a question, each will give an answer of two minutes or less, and then they will mix it up for five additional minutes before moving on to the next question in the same format.

Obama aides also agreed to use lecterns at the first event, which Mr. McCain preferred; at the third debate, the two men will be seated at a round table, in the 10 o’clock and 2 o’clock positions, with the moderator at 6 o’clock.

McCain aides said that they were conscious of the fact that Mr. McCain has a prominent scar on one side of his face, and that they could not predict how prominent it would appear with the camera angles, lighting and make-up.

The debate formats were negotiated by Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, representing the McCain campaign, and Representative Rahm Emanuel, Democrat of Illinois, for the Obama camp. A handful of aides from both camps were also involved, hammering out issues between themselves and then holding conference calls with members of the commission to reach final agreements, people involved in the process said.

Mr. Obama plans to begin debate camp on Tuesday with a tight circle of advisers at a site in the Tampa Bay area of Florida, his aides say, with a prominent Democratic lawyer, Greg Craig, playing the part of Mr. McCain in mock debates.

The Obama campaign has been studying Mr. McCain’s debate performances from the Republican primary as well as in his 2000 race for president. Each debate has been rated and scored, with briefing points and highlights sent to Mr. Obama.

Mr. Obama’s advisers have been studying in particular Mr. McCain’s temperament and mood and looking for potential flash points of anger.

Mr. McCain, his advisers say, has yet to spend much time watching the dozens of primary debate performances of Mr. Obama over the last two years. But they said that a small staff of aides had been reviewing them and that Mr. McCain would see some highlights next week.

McCain aides refused to say when his debate camp would be or where, or who was playing Mr. Obama or Mr. Biden. (Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm, Democrat of Michigan, is playing Ms. Palin for Mr. Biden’s preparations.)

Mr. Obama plans to sequester himself and a few advisers at his debate camp. The attendance is limited to a small group of foreign policy advisers, each rotating in for separate sessions with Mr. Obama and Mr. Craig.

The choice of Florida, particularly the politically critical region near Tampa, was selected with a dual purpose in mind. While Mr. Obama will have few public events from Tuesday through Friday, aides said, his presence could draw considerable local news media attention in a state where he hopes to fiercely challenge Mr. McCain.

While the intense portion of debate training begins on Tuesday, Mr. Obama has been preparing for weeks, in part by drawing upon his experience debating Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York in the Democratic primaries. His aides have been studying those debate performances to address one of his biggest shortcomings: his ability to deliver a tight answer. Already, his campaign is trying to diminish expectations for Mr. Obama’s performance.

“Despite the fact that we got the chance to do this a lot during the primaries, these debates are not by any stretch of the imagination his strong suit,” said Robert Gibbs, a senior strategist to Mr. Obama. “He likes to talk about a problem, give some examples that addresses some solutions and oftentimes that doesn’t fit into the moderator’s allotted time.”

The campaigns had no say over the choice of moderators — Jim Lehrer of PBS, Tom Brokaw of NBC and Bob Schieffer of CBS for the presidential debates, and Gwen Ifill of PBS for the vice-presidential debate.

“Everything matters and issues can always come up, such as the size of podiums — like for Carter and Ford in 1976 — to the timer lights if the candidate doesn’t like them,” said Tad Devine, a Democratic strategist who advised Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004. “There hasn’t really been a ‘debate about the debates’ this year, but that can change in a minute.”

[Dr Newton]

Answer me this. Under "Fair" tax, if there are two people from opposite ends of the socioeconomic spectrum and they purchase the same item, do they pay the same tax or a different tax? If it's the same then I'm claiming it's a flat tax.

And note that excluding people under a certain income bracket is part of flat tax.

Expand Quote

Flat taxes, implemented as well as proposed, usually exempt household income below a statutorily determined level that is a function of the type and size of the household.

[close]

Why is it that conservative types love to play semantic games...

"Giving up"? I stated pages back that I didn't have the time or the willpower to constantly debate within this thread you stupid asshole. There are about 500 liberals on this website, but there is only one Dr. Newton.

Your comparison is invalid. The FairTax is a progressive tax on consumption, and is far different from the burdensome tax code of today. Under the FairTax, the bottom end of the socioeconomic spectrum -- those living in poverty, do not pay taxes. Everyone gets a rebate check for taxes paid up to the poverty level. Since these people are making below this level, they actually directly benefit from the FairTax. You know absolutely nothing about this subject, so please just stop trying to debate it. The FairTax is very progressive.

http://people.bu.edu/kotlikoff/WSJ%20Op%20Ed%203-7-05.pdf

[NickDagger]

[Gomez]

Anyone notice that Bush's speeches sound like Sheckler's narration on his show?

[spungo]

There are about 500 liberals on this website, but there is only one Dr. Newton.

Thank god.  I think there is a website though with more Dr. Newtons and less liberals.  Maybe you should go there.  Google NAMBLA or something and take it from there.  Use your imagination Newton to find some other website more fitting of a boy like you and hang out there instead.

[Sleazy]

Expand Quote

Answer me this. Under "Fair" tax, if there are two people from opposite ends of the socioeconomic spectrum and they purchase the same item, do they pay the same tax or a different tax? If it's the same then I'm claiming it's a flat tax.

And note that excluding people under a certain income bracket is part of flat tax.

Expand Quote

Flat taxes, implemented as well as proposed, usually exempt household income below a statutorily determined level that is a function of the type and size of the household.

[close]

Why is it that conservative types love to play semantic games...

[close]

"Giving up"? I stated pages back that I didn't have the time or the willpower to constantly debate within this thread you stupid asshole. There are about 500 liberals on this website, but there is only one Dr. Newton.

Your comparison is invalid. The FairTax is a progressive tax on consumption, and is far different from the burdensome tax code of today. Under the FairTax, the bottom end of the socioeconomic spectrum -- those living in poverty, do not pay taxes. Everyone gets a rebate check for taxes paid up to the poverty level. Since these people are making below this level, they actually directly benefit from the FairTax. You know absolutely nothing about this subject, so please just stop trying to debate it. The FairTax is very progressive.

http://people.bu.edu/kotlikoff/WSJ%20Op%20Ed%203-7-05.pdf

You didn't read the quote I posted, excluding lower income people doesn't make it not a flat tax, what makes something a flat tax is when everyone pays the same amout of tax outside of that low income exclusion. This "fair tax" isn't fair and it's definitely flat.

Notice how I did that without calling you any names...

[Dr Newton]

You didn't read the quote I posted, excluding lower income people doesn't make it not a flat tax, what makes something a flat tax is when everyone pays the same amout of tax outside of that low income exclusion. This "fair tax" isn't fair and it's definitely flat.

Notice how I did that without calling you any names...

No, you just condescendingly entered that little footnote about how "conservatives love to play semantic games." Don't try to hide behind that self-righteous bullshit.

RICH PEOPLE AND POOR PEOPLE DO NOT PAY THE SAME AMOUNT OF TAX UNDER THE FAIRTAX. This is absolutely incorrect. Under a flat tax, everyone pays x-amount or x-percentage in taxes each year. Under the FairTax, people are taxed based on consumption. If you make $250,000 a year, you are paying more in taxes than a person making $25,000 a year, any way you slice it. In fact, a person making $25,000 a year is probably paying nothing in taxes. Your logic is fundamentally flawed. This is a consumption tax, yet you are treating it as an income tax.

Here are just a few differences between the two:
http://www.pafairtax.org/resrcs/FlatTaxFairTaxComparison.pdf

Here's a nice little quote I found that explains the matter pretty well, also:

So why do so many Democrats think the FairTax is regressive? Because they consider taxes relative to annual income rather than resources, and the former is a terrible proxy for the later. Bill Gates's income this year may be zero given what's happening to stocks. If so, a man with over $47 billion in resources will be classified, based on income, as no better off than the homeless. And since Gates's consumption is based on his resources, not his current income, the ratio of this "poor" person's FairTax payments to his income would be sky high. Measuring taxes relative to income will thus suggest regressivity with respect to consumption taxation where none exists.

Again, you know absolutely nothing about the FairTax. The world's greatest economic minds, millions of dollars, and decades worth of work have gone into developing an idea that eliminates the burdensome tax code, protects the privacy of millions of Americans who are victimized by the IRS each year, and does away with the tax burden altogether for the poorest Americans. It is an idea that is environmentally friendly, encourages the purchase of second-hand goods, and will also help to bring manufacturing and industrial jobs back to our country. There's nothing partisan about it -- I'm positive that even Shawn would get behind it if he fully understood it; that is, if he wanted America to be successful in the global landscape that is the economy of the 21st century.

[crunk juice]

**attention - a post that actually explaines something**

Fair Tax:

Looks like a retail sales tax (23%* rate) that is supposed to replace the corporate tax, income tax, estate tax (2% of americans ever pay any estate tax), etc., but looks can be deceptive...here's how it works:

Assume an item costs $100 and government collects $30 in tax.  What is the tax rate?  Obviously, it's 30% right?  Not so under magical Fair Tax math, which uses a tax-inclusive base i.e., Fair Tax retards (see Newton, Huckabee, other obese people that suck at life) include the $30 in taxes in the base, so $30 tax = 23% of $130 ($100 cost of item + $30 tax).  So, the rate is really 30% under the Fair Tax even though all its proponents claim the rate is 23%.

Furthermore, you would need at least a 40% income tax to collect enough revenue to make up for income and corporate tax.  No sales tax in any country is that high and it would lead to massive evasion. 

[Sleazy]

Expand Quote

You didn't read the quote I posted, excluding lower income people doesn't make it not a flat tax, what makes something a flat tax is when everyone pays the same amout of tax outside of that low income exclusion. This "fair tax" isn't fair and it's definitely flat.

Notice how I did that without calling you any names...

[close]

No, you just condescendingly entered that little footnote about how "conservatives love to play semantic games." Don't try to hide behind that self-righteous bullshit.

RICH PEOPLE AND POOR PEOPLE DO NOT PAY THE SAME AMOUNT OF TAX UNDER THE FAIRTAX. This is absolutely incorrect. Under a flat tax, everyone pays x-amount or x-percentage in taxes each year. Under the FairTax, people are taxed based on consumption. If you make $250,000 a year, you are paying more in taxes than a person making $25,000 a year, any way you slice it. In fact, a person making $25,000 a year is probably paying nothing in taxes. Your logic is fundamentally flawed. This is a consumption tax, yet you are treating it as an income tax.

Here are just a few differences between the two:
http://www.pafairtax.org/resrcs/FlatTaxFairTaxComparison.pdf

Here's a nice little quote I found that explains the matter pretty well, also:

Expand Quote

So why do so many Democrats think the FairTax is regressive? Because they consider taxes relative to annual income rather than resources, and the former is a terrible proxy for the later. Bill Gates's income this year may be zero given what's happening to stocks. If so, a man with over $47 billion in resources will be classified, based on income, as no better off than the homeless. And since Gates's consumption is based on his resources, not his current income, the ratio of this "poor" person's FairTax payments to his income would be sky high. Measuring taxes relative to income will thus suggest regressivity with respect to consumption taxation where none exists.

[close]

Again, you know absolutely nothing about the FairTax. The world's greatest economic minds, millions of dollars, and decades worth of work have gone into developing an idea that eliminates the burdensome tax code, protects the privacy of millions of Americans who are victimized by the IRS each year, and does away with the tax burden altogether for the poorest Americans. It is an idea that is environmentally friendly, encourages the purchase of second-hand goods, and will also help to bring manufacturing and industrial jobs back to our country. There's nothing partisan about it -- I'm positive that even Shawn would get behind it if he fully understood it; that is, if he wanted America to be successful in the global landscape that is the economy of the 21st century.

More semantic bullshit, do you really think changing words to words without negative connotations has an effect on the under lying concepts? I mean do you really fall for that or are you just getting behind the propoganda?

If person A who's above poverty but on the lower end of the spectrum and person B who's wealthy have the same spending habbits they would pay the same tax and that's because the tax rate is the same for everyone and if you made a graph of what the tax rate was for all income levels it would infact be flat which regardless of what semantic bullshit you've been ingesting from conservative talk shows, that is a flat tax rate.

Flat graph = Flat rate

You think they call it flat because it's some kind of business slang or something? It's in reference to the flat graph that results from everyone paying the same percentage in tax. And it's always calcuated based on the precentage not the resulting total of income paid in taxes when applying that precentage. And if the tax rate is progressive based on spending but flat based on demographics, which this "fair" tax is, it's still flat because if you graph the rate accross demographics at each level, it's still flat.

That being said, if your idea is a good one then it doesn't matter if it's called flat, fair, or fubu tax rate. But it's definitely flat and I believe that flat tax is unfair.

[NickDagger]

McCain suspends campaign, does job as Senator:

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/mccain-suspend-campaign-join-bailout/story.aspx?guid={64CBC327-308D-4EB3-B082-8D292B4E1A60}&dist=msr_1

Do not ever post again.

Ever.

[Sleazy]

Expand Quote

McCain suspends campaign, does job as Senator:

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/mccain-suspend-campaign-join-bailout/story.aspx?guid={64CBC327-308D-4EB3-B082-8D292B4E1A60}&dist=msr_1

[close]

Do not ever post again.

Ever.

it's amazing that people really fall for this shit


guys a fucking pussy who knows that him and palin will get their asses handed to them in the debate. it just amazes me that no matter how little integrity these people show, people will still get behind them and regurgitate whatever the party speaking points are.

this is obviously a foreshadowing of the kind of shady, lies and bullshitting that we can expect to be continued by the republicans if we put them back in the office. they need to learn a lesson and i hope the american public is smart enough to deliver it.

[NickDagger]

Popular anger puts fat cat CEOs on the run

An angry US public and Congress are pushing to snip the rip cord on golden parachutes used by fat cat CEOs to escape Wall Street's mayhem.

Democrats in Congress -- set to resume emergency talks Friday with their Republican counterparts on a 700-billion-dollar (478-billion-euro) bailout for the financial industry -- insisted that any agreed package include restrictions on executive pay.

They caught the mood of a nation sickened at watching the titans of finance walk away from Wall Street disasters not only unscathed, but enriched.

"The wealthiest people, those... in the best position to pay, are being asked for no sacrifice at all," read a petition to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, which by Thursday, after three days, had 32,600 signatures.

The petition, organized by independent Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont, attacked what it described as the Treasury's attempt to let bungling executives "continue to make exorbitant salaries and bonuses."

Those gigantic pay checks, bonuses, and Midas-like farewells encapsulate what the public sees as Wall Street's greed-is-good philosophy.

For example, the CEO of bankrupt Lehman Brothers, Richard Fuld, received total compensation of 71.9 million dollars in 2007, including stock, bonuses and other pay, according to a survey published by Forbes magazine.

Martin Sullivan, the chief executive of AIG, who left the insurance giant before it was rescued this month by the federal government, received 14 million dollars, a survey in USA Today said. He also quit with a severance package worth 47 million dollars.

Even punishment for those at the center of the chaos comes with a gold lining.

When the government took over collapsed mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, ousted bosses Daniel Mudd and Richard Syron were not allowed 12.59 million dollars worth in severance payments.

Yet they still got out the door with 9.43 million dollars in retirement benefits.

Public anger at such figures underlies skepticism about the entire government rescue.

"We'll never see that money again," said Mathew May, a 24-year-old economics student attending a small demonstration near the New York Stock Exchange. "They deregulated the markets and ran wild. Now we're bailing them out."

Arun Gupta, an editor of alternative New York newspaper The Indypendent, said there was "socialism for the rich and dog-eat-dog capitalism for the rest of us."

"Think about it," Gupta wrote in an email that quickly circulated to thousands of activists and inspired the New York street protest. "They said providing healthcare for nine million children, perhaps costing six billion dollars a year, was too expensive, but there's evidently no sum of money large enough that will sate the Wall Street pigs."

And left-wingers are not the only ones speaking out.

Newt Gingrich, the fiercely conservative former speaker in the House of Representatives, wrote in the National Review that the bailouts, likely to top a trillion dollars, smack of "crony capitalism."

"Doesn't that mean that we're using the taxpayers' money to hire people to save their friends with even more taxpayer money?" he asked.

Forbes, the magazine for and about the rich, also said enough was enough.

"The compensation schemes for Wall Street CEOs should be capped to a small fixed amount," wrote national editor Robert Lenzner.

"The rest should be dependent on performance in a way that does not reward taking greater risk than is prudent. If CEOs don't perform, they should get nothing."

One worker in the New York finance sector, who asked not to be named, said his colleagues were as angry as the general public.

"A lot of people are very upset that managers in their own companies and captains of industry in other areas made some really, really bad decisions," he said.

"The most insulting thing is the golden parachutes where these jackals from Fannie and Freddie, having destroyed the company, walked away with millions.... It all comes down to greed."

[Dr Newton]

**attention - a post that actually explaines something**

Fair Tax:

Looks like a retail sales tax (23%* rate) that is supposed to replace the corporate tax, income tax, estate tax (2% of americans ever pay any estate tax), etc., but looks can be deceptive...here's how it works:

Assume an item costs $100 and government collects $30 in tax.  What is the tax rate?  Obviously, it's 30% right?  Not so under magical Fair Tax math, which uses a tax-inclusive base i.e., Fair Tax retards (see Newton, Huckabee, other obese people that suck at life) include the $30 in taxes in the base, so $30 tax = 23% of $130 ($100 cost of item + $30 tax).  So, the rate is really 30% under the Fair Tax even though all its proponents claim the rate is 23%.

Furthermore, you would need at least a 40% income tax to collect enough revenue to make up for income and corporate tax.  No sales tax in any country is that high and it would lead to massive evasion. 

You've been reading a lot of misinformation and/or propaganda. Under the FairTax plan, payroll taxes, capital gains taxes, and all other hidden fees and taxes on consumer goods associated with the income tax are abolished. This naturally drives the prices of goods down for the consumer, before the inclusive 23% FairTax is tacked onto the good. This means prices will remain stable on consumer goods -- nothing will "rise in prices 32%." American's buying power will actually increase -- they will get to keep ALL of their paychecks, while prices will remain at the levels they are at today.

Sleazy -- the tax rate is not "the same for everyone" under the FairTax. As I have pointed out several times, you are taking the standards of the illegal income tax of today, and incorrectly applying it to the totally new idea of a tax on consumption. Taxing consumption is naturally progressive because of the lifestyles and the standards of living among the rich versus those of the poor. There is nothing flat about this. I'd consider it to be more regressive to count people living off of past-earned wealth as having $0 as an income.  The rate is further made progressive by completely untaxing the poor, and lowering the tax burden on most with the pre-bate check that would be paid to every American to avoid taxing citizens up to the federal poverty level. It is YOU that is playing semantic games.

[Gatoraids]

Newton you sure know a lot about taxes for someone who doesn't have to worry about them while living at home. Holla at me when you have worked a day in your lousy life and had to worry about taxes.

[Dr Newton]

Newton you sure know a lot about taxes for someone who doesn't have to worry about them while living at home. Holla at me when you have worked a day in your lousy life and had to worry about taxes.

I have a job and do pay taxes, you fucking person. Why don't you 'holla' at me when you can be a responsible parent to your children, or at least when you get off your ass and finally get a real job at 36 years old.

[Gatoraids]

Expand Quote

Newton you sure know a lot about taxes for someone who doesn't have to worry about them while living at home. Holla at me when you have worked a day in your lousy life and had to worry about taxes.

[close]

I have a job and do pay taxes, you fucking person. Why don't you 'holla' at me when you can be a responsible parent to your children, or at least when you get off your ass and finally get a real job at 36 years old.

McDonald's doesn't count.

[Dr Newton]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Newton you sure know a lot about taxes for someone who doesn't have to worry about them while living at home. Holla at me when you have worked a day in your lousy life and had to worry about taxes.

[close]

I have a job and do pay taxes, you fucking person. Why don't you 'holla' at me when you can be a responsible parent to your children, or at least when you get off your ass and finally get a real job at 36 years old.

[close]

McDonald's doesn't count.

Oh? And where the fuck is it that you are working?

[NickDagger]

Hey Newton, those corporations that you love would never allow for any kind of a better tax system, so even discussing the issue is pointless until you admit how shitty corporations are and how they've got a stranglehold on our government.

[Dr Newton]

Hey Newton, those corporations that you love would never allow for any kind of a better tax system, so even discussing the issue is pointless until you admit how shitty corporations are and how they've got a stranglehold on our government.

I fully agree that the government is controlled primarily by special interests -- some of this control is held by corporations, along with voting blocks, the good "old boys network" within government, etc. Some policies are just a result of politicians pandering to the masses. But whose fault is that? The special interests for buying the votes, or the politicians for selling them? I blame the government. It was never intended to be so large that it could actually sell votes like it is doing now in the first place. The federal government was only intended to be about 5% of all government during times of peace originally.

I don't have any special love for corporations, but I do see them as having a legitimate niche within a capitalist society. It's true that Adam Smith was against joint-stock companies, but he did see some government intervention within the economy as being necessary (as I do to a very limited extent.) I believe that one of those functions is to shield the average citizen from liability when they invest a small amount of money into a business. Corporations are important because of the vast amounts of capital needed to support some of America's largest and most vital institutions. Today's reality is that we cannot shut this infrastructure down and rebuild it. It's too late in the game for that. If every investor is faced with unlimited liability for investing in a corporation, capital to support these institutions would be impossible to generate.

I'm not naive. Corporate greed is real. That's life. If you eliminate corporations, some of society's most vital infrastructure is gone, and still, nothing is solved. Other special interests will take the corporation's place -- organized religions, non-profit organizations, foreign countries, etc. There is a never-ending supply of people who want to control America. Hell, if you theoretically did away with the profit-motive altogether, there would just be inter-government greed and power hungry folks ready to take the money-seeker's place. This is why the only government that can be consistently successful is a small government limited by the Constitution. If there is nothing there, then it can't be sold, can it?

[crunk juice]

Expand Quote

**attention - a post that actually explaines something**

Fair Tax:

Looks like a retail sales tax (23%* rate) that is supposed to replace the corporate tax, income tax, estate tax (2% of americans ever pay any estate tax), etc., but looks can be deceptive...here's how it works:

Assume an item costs $100 and government collects $30 in tax.  What is the tax rate?  Obviously, it's 30% right?  Not so under magical Fair Tax math, which uses a tax-inclusive base i.e., Fair Tax retards (see Newton, Huckabee, other obese people that suck at life) include the $30 in taxes in the base, so $30 tax = 23% of $130 ($100 cost of item + $30 tax).  So, the rate is really 30% under the Fair Tax even though all its proponents claim the rate is 23%.

Furthermore, you would need at least a 40% income tax to collect enough revenue to make up for income and corporate tax.  No sales tax in any country is that high and it would lead to massive evasion. 

[close]

You've been reading a lot of misinformation and/or propaganda. Under the FairTax plan, payroll taxes, capital gains taxes, and all other hidden fees and taxes on consumer goods associated with the income tax are abolished. This naturally drives the prices of goods down for the consumer, before the inclusive 23% FairTax is tacked onto the good. This means prices will remain stable on consumer goods -- nothing will "rise in prices 32%." American's buying power will actually increase -- they will get to keep ALL of their paychecks, while prices will remain at the levels they are at today.

Sleazy -- the tax rate is not "the same for everyone" under the FairTax. As I have pointed out several times, you are taking the standards of the illegal income tax of today, and incorrectly applying it to the totally new idea of a tax on consumption. Taxing consumption is naturally progressive because of the lifestyles and the standards of living among the rich versus those of the poor. There is nothing flat about this. I'd consider it to be more regressive to count people living off of past-earned wealth as having $0 as an income.  The rate is further made progressive by completely untaxing the poor, and lowering the tax burden on most with the pre-bate check that would be paid to every American to avoid taxing citizens up to the federal poverty level. It is YOU that is playing semantic games.

everything in my post is accurate.  did you read it?  why did you put "rise in prices 32%" in quotes?  where did i say that?  i merely pointed out that the retail sales tax under the Fair Tax is really 30%, not 23%, and that to make up for the lost revenue from the income tax, corporate tax, etc., it would have to be higher. 
(Note: the last line in previous post should read "40% retail sales tax...".

[Dr Newton]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

**attention - a post that actually explaines something**

Fair Tax:

Looks like a retail sales tax (23%* rate) that is supposed to replace the corporate tax, income tax, estate tax (2% of americans ever pay any estate tax), etc., but looks can be deceptive...here's how it works:

Assume an item costs $100 and government collects $30 in tax.  What is the tax rate?  Obviously, it's 30% right?  Not so under magical Fair Tax math, which uses a tax-inclusive base i.e., Fair Tax retards (see Newton, Huckabee, other obese people that suck at life) include the $30 in taxes in the base, so $30 tax = 23% of $130 ($100 cost of item + $30 tax).  So, the rate is really 30% under the Fair Tax even though all its proponents claim the rate is 23%.

Furthermore, you would need at least a 40% income tax to collect enough revenue to make up for income and corporate tax.  No sales tax in any country is that high and it would lead to massive evasion. 

[close]

You've been reading a lot of misinformation and/or propaganda. Under the FairTax plan, payroll taxes, capital gains taxes, and all other hidden fees and taxes on consumer goods associated with the income tax are abolished. This naturally drives the prices of goods down for the consumer, before the inclusive 23% FairTax is tacked onto the good. This means prices will remain stable on consumer goods -- nothing will "rise in prices 32%." American's buying power will actually increase -- they will get to keep ALL of their paychecks, while prices will remain at the levels they are at today.

Sleazy -- the tax rate is not "the same for everyone" under the FairTax. As I have pointed out several times, you are taking the standards of the illegal income tax of today, and incorrectly applying it to the totally new idea of a tax on consumption. Taxing consumption is naturally progressive because of the lifestyles and the standards of living among the rich versus those of the poor. There is nothing flat about this. I'd consider it to be more regressive to count people living off of past-earned wealth as having $0 as an income.  The rate is further made progressive by completely untaxing the poor, and lowering the tax burden on most with the pre-bate check that would be paid to every American to avoid taxing citizens up to the federal poverty level. It is YOU that is playing semantic games.

[close]

everything in my post is accurate.  did you read it?  why did you put "rise in prices 32%" in quotes?  where did i say that?  i merely pointed out that the retail sales tax under the Fair Tax is really 30%, not 23%, and that to make up for the lost revenue from the income tax, corporate tax, etc., it would have to be higher. 
(Note: the last line in previous post should read "40% retail sales tax...".

No you didn't. You claimed that the price of a $100 good would be $130 under the "magical FairTax math." There is nothing magical about it. The hidden fees associated with the income tax are eliminated, dropping the price of the good considerably, and then the FairTax is added to it. Voila. The $100 good ends up still being about $100. The difference is that now workers have all of their paychecks, and people have a clear, very transparent view of what they are paying in taxes each and every day.

You can speculate all that you want. Again, several of the world's leading economists, decades of research, and millions of dollars have gone into building this thing, and working out it's kinks. One of it's major goals is to be a revenue neutral tax -- meaning the government collects the same amount of money that it would from collecting an illegal income tax. A lot has gone into determining what that 23% inclusive rate would be. You pulled this "40%" figure straight out of your asshole, not realizing that the 23% is revenue neutral and takes into account the elimination of all hidden income taxes that are factored into the prices of goods. As much as you want it to be, nothing you are saying is accurate here. I will send you a free audio copy of the FairTax Book if you would like. I'm up for any debate on the FairTax because it's an issue that is important to me, but I would at least like you for to have a clear understanding of what is being proposed before you keep propagating these myths about it.

[Gatoraids]

http://blog.blowfish.com/culture/greta-christina-why-i-do-care-about-john-mccains-gay-chief-of-staff/851

[Greta Christina] Why I DO Care about John McCain’s Gay Chief of Staff

After last week’s Sarah Palin hullaballoo (thanks to everyone who commented!), you’d think I’d be sticking like glue to the “I don’t care about the sex lives of people who are attached to Presidential campaigns” line.

But this story, I care about.

Sort of.

Let me explain.

First, in case you haven’t seen the story yet: John McCain’s Chief of Staff, Mark Buse, is gay.

With a reported penchant for multiple partners, and a sling in his home to boot. (In, of all places, his closet. Sometimes the irony is just too obvious.) The story broke on the BlogActive site of the legendary Mike Rogers, who has given Buse the not so coveted Roy Cohn award “for working against the interests of the lesbian and gay community while living as a gay man.” And it’s corroborated by Michelangelo Signorile.

And I do, in fact, care. But I don’t care about Buse per se, or his ex life, or what it says about him and his character.

I care about what it says about McCain.

Because the point of this story is not, “McCain’s Chief of Staff is gay.”

The point is about McCain. It’s about McCain’s hypocrisy, and lack of integrity, and willingness to suck up to the hatefully homophobic far-right wing of the Republican party — in direct contradiction to what seem to be his own personal beliefs.

John McCain’s policy positions and voting records have been dismally homophobic. He has opposed every single gay rights measure of recent years. He opposes same-sex marriage, supports the Defense of Marriage Act, and — contrary to the “let the states decide” mantra of more moderate Republicans — has endorsed the California ballot initiative that would overturn the existing right for same-sex couples to marry. In fact, he’s even more extreme than that — he opposes any sort of recognition for same-sex partnerships, actively campaigning for a ban on them in his home state of Arizona. He is opposed to gays serving in the military — even in wartime, when recruiting is down and the military is desperately understaffed — and supports the discriminatory “don’t ask/ don’t tell” policy. He fought and voted against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would have protected gays and lesbians from being fired for their sexual orientation.

And his campaign was heavily involved in writing the Republican Party platform — a right- wing extremist platform that, among other things, supports keeping gays out of the military, a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, and the right of federally- funded faith- based initiatives to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. His record on gay rights issues has been consistently pathetic.

Plus, let’s not forget the Sarah Palin nomination. His pick for Vice-President is a far- right- tip- of- the- right- wing extremist wackaloon, who not only opposes same- sex marriage, but supported banning gay books from a public library, and is an active member in a far- right- wing apocalyptic evangelical church that not only believes in demons and witchcraft, but believes you can pray the gay away.

And yet apparently, John McCain doesn’t have any actual problem with gay people in his personal and professional life.

According to the best information that we have at this time, McCain knows that his Chief of Staff is gay. Has known for some time. Buse was apparently only semi-closeted, in that special “all the insiders know but we just don’t talk about it in public” way that used to be standard in Hollywood and is now standard among D.C. Republicans. And according to reports, McCain definitely knows — either overtly, or in an “I’m not a complete idiot” way.

Yet Buse is John McCain’s chief of staff. And has been closely and loyally affiliated with McCain for many, many years.

So apparently, John McCain doesn’t have any actual problem with gay people in his personal and professional life.

So. Now. Let me sum up.

Either John McCain is genuinely opposed to gay rights in all its forms, but is willing to tolerate the presence of gay people in his life if they can help him in his career . . .

 . . . or, as seems far more likely, he doesn’t have any real problems with gay people. He has a close, long-standing professional connection with at least one, a man who is one of his most trusted and high-ranking staffers. And yet he is perfectly happy to sell out the queers to the far right wing of the Republican Party, in a pattern of homophobic bigotry that is relentlessly consistent, in order to gain political advantage.

If you have any remaining illusions about John McCain as an independent, straight-talking maverick with deep personal integrity who’s willing to buck the political system, I suggest that you abandon them here and now. McCain’s “maverick” schtick is, as I have written elsewhere, one of the biggest snow jobs in the history of American politics. And the hypocrisy that is crawling all over the Mark Buse story is just one more shiny, snowy example of it.

If it weren’t for McCain’s hypocrisy, the Buse story would be no more than a mildly interesting bit of “Famous Person (X) Is Gay” gossip. Which is getting less and less interesting every day. (Was there anybody on this planet who was surprised by Clay Aiken?) And I have now seen so many stories about the gay Republican mafia in D.C. that I can’t even pretend to be shocked by them. I care almost not at all about Mark Buse’s sex life, and I care only marginally about Mark Buse’s hypocrisy, and lack of integrity, and willingness to gain personal political advantage by sucking up to the hatefully homophobic far-right wing of the Republican party.

But I do care — a great deal — about John McCain’s.

[crunk juice]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

**attention - a post that actually explaines something**

Fair Tax:

Looks like a retail sales tax (23%* rate) that is supposed to replace the corporate tax, income tax, estate tax (2% of americans ever pay any estate tax), etc., but looks can be deceptive...here's how it works:

Assume an item costs $100 and government collects $30 in tax.  What is the tax rate?  Obviously, it's 30% right?  Not so under magical Fair Tax math, which uses a tax-inclusive base i.e., Fair Tax retards (see Newton, Huckabee, other obese people that suck at life) include the $30 in taxes in the base, so $30 tax = 23% of $130 ($100 cost of item + $30 tax).  So, the rate is really 30% under the Fair Tax even though all its proponents claim the rate is 23%.

Furthermore, you would need at least a 40% income tax to collect enough revenue to make up for income and corporate tax.  No sales tax in any country is that high and it would lead to massive evasion. 

[close]

You've been reading a lot of misinformation and/or propaganda. Under the FairTax plan, payroll taxes, capital gains taxes, and all other hidden fees and taxes on consumer goods associated with the income tax are abolished. This naturally drives the prices of goods down for the consumer, before the inclusive 23% FairTax is tacked onto the good. This means prices will remain stable on consumer goods -- nothing will "rise in prices 32%." American's buying power will actually increase -- they will get to keep ALL of their paychecks, while prices will remain at the levels they are at today.

Sleazy -- the tax rate is not "the same for everyone" under the FairTax. As I have pointed out several times, you are taking the standards of the illegal income tax of today, and incorrectly applying it to the totally new idea of a tax on consumption. Taxing consumption is naturally progressive because of the lifestyles and the standards of living among the rich versus those of the poor. There is nothing flat about this. I'd consider it to be more regressive to count people living off of past-earned wealth as having $0 as an income.  The rate is further made progressive by completely untaxing the poor, and lowering the tax burden on most with the pre-bate check that would be paid to every American to avoid taxing citizens up to the federal poverty level. It is YOU that is playing semantic games.

[close]

everything in my post is accurate.  did you read it?  why did you put "rise in prices 32%" in quotes?  where did i say that?  i merely pointed out that the retail sales tax under the Fair Tax is really 30%, not 23%, and that to make up for the lost revenue from the income tax, corporate tax, etc., it would have to be higher. 
(Note: the last line in previous post should read "40% retail sales tax...".

[close]

No you didn't. You claimed that the price of a $100 good would be $130 under the "magical FairTax math." There is nothing magical about it. The hidden fees associated with the income tax are eliminated, dropping the price of the good considerably, and then the FairTax is added to it. Voila. The $100 good ends up still being about $100. The difference is that now workers have all of their paychecks, and people have a clear, very transparent view of what they are paying in taxes each and every day.

You can speculate all that you want. Again, several of the world's leading economists, decades of research, and millions of dollars have gone into building this thing, and working out it's kinks. One of it's major goals is to be a revenue neutral tax -- meaning the government collects the same amount of money that it would from collecting an illegal income tax. A lot has gone into determining what that 23% inclusive rate would be. You pulled this "40%" figure straight out of your asshole, not realizing that the 23% is revenue neutral and takes into account the elimination of all hidden income taxes that are factored into the prices of goods. As much as you want it to be, nothing you are saying is accurate here. I will send you a free audio copy of the FairTax Book if you would like. I'm up for any debate on the FairTax because it's an issue that is important to me, but I would at least like you for to have a clear understanding of what is being proposed before you keep propagating these myths about it.

lol - i can see that you're very slow, so i'll try to explain it again.  i never said that a good that costs $100 would cost $130 under the Fair Tax.  i was explaining how they come up w/ that 23% number you like to throw around.  i thought i was very clear, but you obviously don't know the first thing about tax law.  do you understand what a tax-inclusive base means?  it means they include the tax in the base before calculating the tax rate..  i don't know how to spell it out any more clearly for you.  it is a very basic concept.  here's essentially what i wrote in the previous post.  read it again and i'm sure you'll figure it out:

Assume an item costs $100 and the government collects $30 in tax.  What is the tax rate?  Obviously, it's 30% (30$ is 30% of $100).  Not so under magical Fair Tax math, which uses a tax-inclusive base i.e., Fair Tax retards (see Newton, Huckabee, other obese people that suck at life) include the $30 in taxes in the base (formerly $100) when calculating the tax rate.  So, under the Fair Tax, that $30 tax = 23% of $130 ($100 cost of item + $30 tax).  So, the rate is really 30% under the Fair Tax even though all its proponents claim the rate is 23%.

[Dr Newton]

  i never said that a good that costs $100 would cost $130 under the Fair Tax.

that $30 tax = 23% of $130.

....I guess I am just incredibly slow then. If you don't think that prices will increase, then what is the problem with the way the rate is calculated?

That $30 tax is actually 23% of $100 under a tax inclusive rate. You are completely talking out of your ass. That calculation is fully explained here:

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_faq_answers#47

[you took to much]

* Palin Supported Penalties for Using Skateboards on Public or Private Property in Wasilla.
'Beginning Oct. 15 - after the expected opening of the $233,000 Wasilla Skate Park - skaters will be breaking the law if they use their skateboards, in-line skates, bicycles, scooters (or any other recreational, non-motorized wheeled device) on public or private property where signs are posted forbidding their use.'

The Frontiersman added, 'In the ordinance approved Monday, the penalty for first-time violators of the ordinance is a written warning and the skate device may be confiscated for 10 calendar days. For a second offense, a $50 fine shall be paid and the skate device may be confiscated for 30 calendar days. A third-time offender will have to pay a $100 fine and will lose his or her skate device permanently.' [Frontiersman, 9/18/98]

[sebastian toombs]

"skate device"!


chortle

[crunk juice]

Expand Quote

  i never said that a good that costs $100 would cost $130 under the Fair Tax.

[close]

Expand Quote

that $30 tax = 23% of $130.

[close]

....I guess I am just incredibly slow then. If you don't think that prices will increase, then what is the problem with the way the rate is calculated?

That $30 tax is actually 23% of $100 under a tax inclusive rate. You are completely talking out of your ass. That calculation is fully explained here:

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_faq_answers#47

30 = 30% of 100.

23 = 23% of 100.

30 ≠ 23% of 100.
/
FairTax uses magical math, and tax-inclusive base = bullshit trick to give politicians a way to fool slow americans into buying the Fair Tax plan.

[Gatoraids]

Crunk Juice I like your math.