NationStates Jolt Archive

"Country First" wasn't simple enough? "Drill, Baby, Drill" wasn't simple? Or maybe they were too simple even for the simpletons. :rolleyes:

But you're right on two points:

1) The Republicans were all over the map because apparently even they have no idea who they are or what they stand for; and

2) If they could find a way to matter to most people that would probably help them.

EDIT: And finding their "brand" is kind of what my question was about. If these names are being bandied about, what does that say about the brand options they are considering? What kind of brand do we think they are most likely to go for?
Neither of those was really applied as hard as the "Change" message that the Democrats used so effectively. The party really needs a standout like Reagan, but I don't know who that is. It's not anyone we've seen yet -- my personal preference would be Mike Huckabee, but he's not going to work out on the national scene. Giuliani, maybe? Maybe we can just cloud the issues surrounding Schwarzenegger's birth sufficiently and nominate him?

They only need to find a new direction if they really want to contend the next election... maybe the one after it.

If they stick with a rough version of what they are now, they'll be in contention again in 2016 or 2020, and they'll hold office for at least a term or two once they get it. American politics is swings and roundabouts - it's only a matter of time before people get sick of what they've got, even if Obama manages to fix every problem in the sphere of the US, and bring world peace and freedom from hunger.

But once they get elected, they need to govern. The Bush model of government has failed miserably, and if they try it again, it will fail again. If they don't come up with new ideas, they will either a) let the Democrats set the direction of the country and the come up with the ideas, or b) go the way of the Whigs and Federalists as a new party emerges.

but will he be a two term-inator?

har har

that one gave my funny bone a brain tumor.

As whats her face was saying on the Colbert Report - Why the hell would we want to put someone who is against govt. and doesn't think it can solve anything, in charge of our govt?

Neither of those was really applied as hard as the "Change" message that the Democrats used so effectively. The party really needs a standout like Reagan, but I don't know who that is. It's not anyone we've seen yet -- my personal preference would be Mike Huckabee, but he's not going to work out on the national scene. Giuliani, maybe? Maybe we can just cloud the issues surrounding Schwarzenegger's birth sufficiently and nominate him?

Guilie is too gay friendly. The religious zealots would never back him, they'd stay home.

i just don't know how obama won this thing, something must be screwy with the vote numbers. just look at how bright red america is:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/countymapnonlinr384.png (http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/countycartnonlin1024.png)

like the vast majority of the acres that make up the country voted republican. and that's how we measure things, right?

But once they get elected, they need to govern. The Bush model of government has failed miserably, and if they try it again, it will fail again. If they don't come up with new ideas, they will either a) let the Democrats set the direction of the country and the come up with the ideas, or b) go the way of the Whigs and Federalists as a new party emerges.

The Republicans would be okay failing again. They were allowed to fail for a decade in the opening years of this century.

Republicans have become a party of ideology, rather than politics or government. That's the base they've chosen, and one only has to look at how they campaign - immigration, gender, morality, war. Xenophobic, homophobic, theocratic militarism... or, at best, isolationism.

Those 'values' swing back into vogue periodically.

Hopefully, progressives will continue to take terms every so often - because an America without that alternative would be different from somewhere like... Iran... only in terms of flavour and degree.

Guilie is too gay friendly. The religious zealots would never back him, they'd stay home.
They are a big problem... Including the right-wing religious nuts was what solidified the party in 1980. But the party can't depend on them to carry it. It it were up to me, I'd drop them in an instant and find a message that would be more palatable to many more Americans.

I really think that that the GOP could take back the House and Senate in 2010, if they would unanimously embrace the FairTax and run on abolition of the current federal tax structure, including closing the doors on the IRS.

They've got to do it quickly, though, by the time the Democrats are through, there may not be enough taxpayers left to care about the FairTax.

They've got to do it quickly, though, by the time the Democrats are through, there may not be enough taxpayers left to care about the FairTax.

I'm not certain if you're implying an impending genocide or if you're saying that no one will have to pay taxes.

Neither of those was really applied as hard as the "Change" message that the Democrats used so effectively. The party really needs a standout like Reagan, but I don't know who that is. It's not anyone we've seen yet -- my personal preference would be Mike Huckabee, but he's not going to work out on the national scene. Giuliani, maybe? Maybe we can just cloud the issues surrounding Schwarzenegger's birth sufficiently and nominate him?

Guiliani is a fucking joke. No one takes him seriously anymore. At least no one worth listening to.

Huckster? Really? The only thing he has going for him is how socially far right he is. If youre trying to drop the religious right from being totally in control of the Republican party, he is not the one to do it.


And why Huckster? He has very Clintonian ecominic policies, and I thought everything was Clinton's fault?

I'm not certain if you're implying an impending genocide or if you're saying that no one will have to pay taxes.

I think he is implying that teh ebil black man is gunna takes all his moneyz.

Guiliani is a fucking joke. No one takes him seriously anymore. At least no one worth listening to.

Huckster? Really? The only thing he has going for him is how socially far right he is. If youre trying to drop the religious right from being totally in control of the Republican party, he is not the one to do it.


And why Huckster? He has very Clintonian ecominic policies, and I thought everything was Clinton's fault?

Doesn't matter if it is all Clinton's fault, people voted for Slick Willy. Get someone with a similar economic message, particularly in times like these, and they'll go for it.

Huckabee seems like a real nice guy, but I would never, ever vote for him. My ideological opposite, and frankly, he's more than a little crazy.

I really think that that the GOP could take back the House and Senate in 2010, if they would unanimously embrace the FairTax and run on abolition of the current federal tax structure, including closing the doors on the IRS.


Because winning elections is MORE important than bankrupting the country.

This is the kind of nonsense that should stop Republicans from even being able to run...

Because winning elections is MORE important than bankrupting the country.

This is the kind of nonsense that should stop Republicans from even being able to run...

This is the party of George W. Bush. Tax cut and spend! WEEEEEEEEEEE!

I'm not certain if you're implying an impending genocide or if you're saying that no one will have to pay taxes.

Obama's gonna put white people in camps didn't you know?

That's what they get for shutting out the conservative intellectuals. They're intellectually bankrupt.

This article from The Economist (http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?source=hptextfeature&story_id=12260881) makes a good analogy:



I'd also point out that by embracing the neocons, they've rejected realism in foreign policy. Bush's foreign policy was highly Wilsonian--making the world "safe for democracy." Didn't work so well after WWI either.

The Republican Party needs to find a completely new direction. The culture war is starting to lose its appeal. They need new ideas. It's just a matter of how long they take to figure that out. It's wholly possible they'll delude themselves into running even farther to the right in four years.
Good points, and I agree.

Obama's gonna put white people in camps didn't you know?

I work with a guy who I'm pretty sure really believes that. It's the least of his idiocy.

I really think that that the GOP could take back the House and Senate in 2010, if they would unanimously embrace the FairTax and run on abolition of the current federal tax structure, including closing the doors on the IRS.

i heartily approve of this plan and support you in your quest to become a prominent adviser to the grand old party

With emphasis on OLD.

I work with a guy who I'm pretty sure really believes that. It's the least of his idiocy.
Sometimes my Inner Liberal has problems with the principle of Equal Opportunity Employment. ;)

Sometimes my Inner Liberal has problems with the principle of Equal Opportunity Employment. ;)

He's 61, and if the gods are merciful he'll retire next year. I think we'll throw a party.

i heartily approve of this plan and support you in your quest to become a prominent adviser to the grand old party
Seriously. With a platform like that, if we can tolerate one Republican term every 8 - 12 years, we can keep progressives setting the direction of the nation for most of the century.

I'm not certain if you're implying an impending genocide or if you're saying that no one will have to pay taxes.
Not enough people taxed to care about taxes, choice #2.

Because winning elections is MORE important than bankrupting the country.

This is the kind of nonsense that should stop Republicans from even being able to run...

Sorry pal, but the FairTax would be about a 30 trillion dollar stimulus package. And revenue neutral at that.

Seriously. With a platform like that, if we can tolerate one Republican term every 8 - 12 years, we can keep progressives setting the direction of the nation for most of the century.

no way, the fairtax™ is going to lead to a permanent republican majority to end all permanent republican majorities!

Sorry pal, but the FairTax would be about a 30 trillion dollar stimulus package. And revenue neutral at that.

The apology is accepted, but I figured it was more appropriate to apply it to your nonsensical assurances about 'stimulus packages' than any offence you might have caused.

Sorry pal, but the FairTax would be about a 30 trillion dollar stimulus package. And revenue neutral at that.

Yes, that's the way to get people to spend money. By raising all revenue with one massive national sales tax.

Yes, that's the way to get people to spend money. By raising all revenue with one massive national sales tax.

what you mean to say is "oh no, don't throw the fairtax™ at us. anything but the fairtax™, please!"

should it be called the not-so-fairtax, seeing as the only thing it is sure to cause is the gap between the rich and poor to widen?

should it be called the not-so-fairtax, seeing as the only thing it is sure to cause is the gap between the rich and poor to widen?

Apperantly its fair if it helps the rich and bones the poor.

Apperantly its fair if it helps the rich and bones the poor.

This ^^

Sorry pal, but the FairTax would be about a 30 trillion dollar stimulus package. And revenue neutral at that.

...if you believe that all the criticisms of the FairTax are completely invalid.

holy fuck, nebraska
http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2835&u_sid=10481441

holy fuck, nebraska
http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2835&u_sid=10481441

Hell, yeah!

Only one... but... one!

holy fuck, nebraska
http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2835&u_sid=10481441
Heh, better late than never, I guess.

Hell, yeah!

Only one... but... one!

and nebraska is another one of those states that hasn't given any of its electoral votes to dems since lbj beat the fucking pants of that old arizona senator guy. turns out all you need is a black man with a muslim father and hussein for a middle name to start retaking the great plains.

and nebraska is another one of those states that hasn't given any of its electoral votes to dems since lbj beat the fucking pants of that old arizona senator guy. turns out all you need is a black man with a muslim father and hussein for a middle name to start retaking the great plains.

...or an Arizonan opponent, perhaps. I keep hearing references to the 1964 election (as in "the first time since 1964 [state] has voted Democratic"), where the Republican was McCain's predecessor. Could it be the rest of the country has some dislike of Arizona I don't know about?

Well, in 64 LBJ did win on continuing the assassinated Kennedy's policies. That, and Barry Goldwater was completely crazy.

should it be called the not-so-fairtax, seeing as the only thing it is sure to cause is the gap between the rich and poor to widen?

But that's redistribution of wealth. Does that mean the FairTax is...socialist!?

OMFG! Evil socialism in the "REAL AMERICAN" party!

No no, see, the fair tax will completely eliminate tax bureaucracy by making it all one, simple tax. Now, I know what you're thinking, what about the poor who can't afford taxes now, how will they afford a massive tax on everything?

Well, of course we will exclude the poor, they won't have to pay anything. But, I know what you're thinking next, won't a cut off just make it artificial? I mean, say we figure someone who makes 15,000 a year can't afford this tax, so we don't impose that tax on them, but someone making 16,000 a year suddenly is paying full tax on it. Well, trust me, the Fair Tax is on top of that too, by instituting a gradually increasing scale, where those just above the poverty line start paying a bit more, increasing as they make more, finally settling on paying the full value of the tax.

But wait, you say, how will the various merchants all know what to charge whom? Well they won't have to, what we're going to do, of course, is institute a coupon, or voucher system, possibly an ID, which will automatically show what a person is supposed to be charged, based on their income level. All they need to do is, once a year, submit a form showing their income, adjusted for things like business gains and losses, dependents, and other things that might influence their proper, overall earning capacity so we can issue them the proper tax rate ID.

So don't you see how much SIMPLER it would be? Instead of all this nonsense we have now, we can get rid of all this bureaucracy. We'll just replace it with a sales tax. A sales tax with various rates depending on your income, determined by filing a form once a year with the government.

Don't you see how much BETTER that would be then our current system?

No no, see, the fair tax will completely eliminate tax bureaucracy by making it all one, simple tax. Now, I know what you're thinking, what about the poor who can't afford taxes now, how will they afford a massive tax on everything?

Well, of course we will exclude the poor, they won't have to pay anything. But, I know what you're thinking next, won't a cut off just make it artificial? I mean, say we figure someone who makes 15,000 a year can't afford this tax, so we don't impose that tax on them, but someone making 16,000 a year suddenly is paying full tax on it. Well, trust me, the Fair Tax is on top of that too, by instituting a gradually increasing scale, where those just above the poverty line start paying a bit more, increasing as they make more, finally settling on paying the full value of the tax.

But wait, you say, how will the various merchants all know what to charge whom? Well they won't have to, what we're going to do, of course, is institute a coupon, or voucher system, possibly an ID, which will automatically show what a person is supposed to be charged, based on their income level. All they need to do is, once a year, submit a form showing their income, adjusted for things like business gains and losses, dependents, and other things that might influence their proper, overall earning capacity so we can issue them the proper tax rate ID.

So don't you see how much SIMPLER it would be? Instead of all this nonsense we have now, we can get rid of all this bureaucracy. We'll just replace it with a sales tax. A sales tax with various rates depending on your income, determined by filing a form once a year with the government.

Don't you see how much BETTER that would be then our current system?
Ooohh....aaahhhh... I get it now.


I think. ;)

No no, see, the fair tax will completely eliminate tax bureaucracy by making it all one, simple tax. Now, I know what you're thinking, what about the poor who can't afford taxes now, how will they afford a massive tax on everything?

Well, of course we will exclude the poor, they won't have to pay anything. But, I know what you're thinking next, won't a cut off just make it artificial? I mean, say we figure someone who makes 15,000 a year can't afford this tax, so we don't impose that tax on them, but someone making 16,000 a year suddenly is paying full tax on it. Well, trust me, the Fair Tax is on top of that too, by instituting a gradually increasing scale, where those just above the poverty line start paying a bit more, increasing as they make more, finally settling on paying the full value of the tax.

But wait, you say, how will the various merchants all know what to charge whom? Well they won't have to, what we're going to do, of course, is institute a coupon, or voucher system, possibly an ID, which will automatically show what a person is supposed to be charged, based on their income level. All they need to do is, once a year, submit a form showing their income, adjusted for things like business gains and losses, dependents, and other things that might influence their proper, overall earning capacity so we can issue them the proper tax rate ID.

So don't you see how much SIMPLER it would be? Instead of all this nonsense we have now, we can get rid of all this bureaucracy. We'll just replace it with a sales tax. A sales tax with various rates depending on your income, determined by filing a form once a year with the government.

Don't you see how much BETTER that would be then our current system?

Why the hell do I always think of you as a Paladin-style character when you argue?

Why the hell do I always think of you as a Paladin-style character when you argue?

Is this something to do with killing Jumpers?

[/geekmode]

Is this something to do with killing Jumpers?

[/geekmode]

Nah. Maybe it's that he delves on Law (or, more accurately, IS A LAWYER) and his arguing style is, at times, very lawyery per se...

*snip*
I don't really understand the FairTax enough to truly oppose it. It sounds like a more convoluted negative income tax. However, I think the fact that I don't understand it is in itself a reason to question its validity.

No no, see, the fair tax will completely eliminate tax bureaucracy by making it all one, simple tax. Now, I know what you're thinking, what about the poor who can't afford taxes now, how will they afford a massive tax on everything?

Well, of course we will exclude the poor, they won't have to pay anything. But, I know what you're thinking next, won't a cut off just make it artificial? I mean, say we figure someone who makes 15,000 a year can't afford this tax, so we don't impose that tax on them, but someone making 16,000 a year suddenly is paying full tax on it. Well, trust me, the Fair Tax is on top of that too, by instituting a gradually increasing scale, where those just above the poverty line start paying a bit more, increasing as they make more, finally settling on paying the full value of the tax.

Your explanation is not the same as the one FairTax website. People get "prebates," and only up to the poverty line. That means the brunt of the burden falls on the middle class. The rich no longer have to pay capital gains tax, inheritance tax, not to mention any corporate tax whatsoever. They're free to save their money and spend it in France where there is no FairTax.

I don't really understand the FairTax enough to truly oppose it. It sounds like a more convoluted negative income tax. However, I think the fact that I don't understand it is in itself a reason to question its validity.

No. It's a FAIR tax. it says so in the name.

And why Huckster? He has very Clintonian ecominic policies, and I thought everything was Clinton's fault?

I thoguht everything was Bush's fault?

I thoguht everything was Bush's fault?

No, everything's Reagan's fault.

Or Carter's.

Or Ford's.

Or Nixon's.

Or Johnson's.

Or Kennedy's...

You get the point.

Pretty soon we'll have a frothy Republican base decrying everything as Obama's fault.

Apologies if I missed this in some other thread, but Rachel Maddow just recommended it. Fun!

http://superobamaworld.com/

Apologies if I missed this in some other thread, but Rachel Maddow just recommended it. Fun!

http://superobamaworld.com/

Funfun. :D I like the bridge...

No, everything's Reagan's fault.

Or Carter's.

Or Ford's.

Or Nixon's.

Or Johnson's.

Or Kennedy's...

You get the point.

Pretty soon we'll have a frothy Republican base decrying everything as Obama's fault.

Indeed, and then when the republican party gets in another President then the Dems will be saying everything is his fault.

though I think it is truer than most with bush....

The Democrats had a simple message for simpletons,
and yet you still weren't able to get it. What does that say about your cognitive abilities?

The Democrats had a simple message for simpletons,


Yup.

Too bad Obama didn't draw pictures so you Republicans could understand.

More about the 50 state strategy. Obama and the dems gained in all but 5 states, 4 increasing for Reps, 1 staying even.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/11/6/125349/965/206/655777

More about the 50 state strategy. Obama and the dems gained in all but 5 states, 4 increasing for Reps, 1 staying even.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/11/6/125349/965/206/655777

B-b-but... the 50 state strategy didn't work. The only thing that could have worked for the Dems was having Hillary Clinton ticket. That's why they lost to McCain. Oh wait...

Your explanation is not the same as the one FairTax website. People get "prebates," and only up to the poverty line. That means the brunt of the burden falls on the middle class. The rich no longer have to pay capital gains tax, inheritance tax, not to mention any corporate tax whatsoever. They're free to save their money and spend it in France where there is no FairTax.
By changing the definition of what the FairTax is, opponents can find the one tactic that they can actually use to argue against it. If you stick to what's been introduced in the House and Senate, finding ways to oppose it are a lot more difficult.

The Democrats had a simple message for simpletons,This is factually incorrect. The Republicans have been the ones appealing to simpletons, what with their anti-elitist rhetoric. The democrats haven't been the ones that were appealing to the dumb vote.

By changing the definition of what the FairTax is, opponents can find the one tactic that they can actually use to argue against it. If you stick to what's been introduced in the House and Senate, finding ways to oppose it are a lot more difficult.

Rubbish.

The fact that Fairtax is POS, makes it DOA.

That's before any other factor is considered.

The fact that it actually increases the amount of work the tax administrators would have to do (seriously, monthly prebates?) makes it a nonsense to argue that it's either efficient or more simplistic.

The fact that it is progressive on proportional consumption, but regressive on proportional income, means that the only way in which it is 'fair' is in the spelling.

The fact that it lowers the overall tax burden (AND makes paying it optional) increases the budget deficit.



There is no shortage of complaints against Fairtax, as introduced. It's idiotic, it's not fair, and it ignores fiscal reality.

And I haven't even gone into the 'detail' problems (like tax deductible statuses, conflicts with the Constitution, how it will apply to credit, savings, and other financial services...etc).

"Fairtax" is a non-starter. No one who is actually interested in 'fairness' would possibly endorse it.

By changing the definition of what the FairTax is, opponents can find the one tactic that they can actually use to argue against it. If you stick to what's been introduced in the House and Senate, finding ways to oppose it are a lot more difficult.

Why does that tactic sound so familiar?

This is factually incorrect. The Republicans have been the ones appealing to simpletons, what with their anti-elitist rhetoric. The democrats haven't been the ones that were appealing to the dumb vote.

Oh come one Palin and Wurzelbacher aren't dum....oh I can't say it with a straight face.

You are correct. The Repubs took that tactic that being smart was a flaw. Even to the point of absurdity. Bill Bennett accused Obama of being elitist. Never mind Bill's background of:

A BA in Philosphy at Williams College
A PHD at the University of Texas.
A law degree from Harvard.
A fellow at the Claremont Institute.
Chairman of the National Endowment for Humanities
Secretary of Education

It's almost scary that someone would imply being smart is a bad thing. It did cost them some votes. It probably didn't cost them the election but it did sour some party faithful. I heard some Republicans at work complain about the elitist talk.

What the GOP needs is a strong brand identification. They're a product and people need to know what they stand for. If you ask 10 Republicans, you'll get 10 different opinions on what the GOP stands for. If you ask 10 Independents, you'll probably get 1 answer -- "We don't know".

The Democrats had a simple message for simpletons, but it was promoted so strongly and effectively, that even mistakes by a senior spokesmen didn't materially affect the message.

The GOP needs to develop a similar tactic and come out strong on issues that matter to MOST people.

I love how necessary it is for your sour grapes to ignore that those without college degrees favored the Republican ticket. Don't let the evidence stop you now, though.

I love how necessary it is for your sour grapes to ignore that those without college degrees favored the Republican ticket. Don't let the evidence stop you now, though.

Nah, nah... if the message doesn't appeal to Myrmi, the people it does appeal to MUST be stupid. Right?

B-b-but... the 50 state strategy didn't work. The only thing that could have worked for the Dems was having Hillary Clinton ticket. That's why they lost to McCain. Oh wait...

Exactly. This is what we've been saying all along. Obama worked to build more than a 2008 victory. If he is successful then he has helped build a lasting coalition for the future.

By changing the definition of what the FairTax is, opponents can find the one tactic that they can actually use to argue against it. If you stick to what's been introduced in the House and Senate, finding ways to oppose it are a lot more difficult.

Not really. Proponents argue that the "fairtax" is superior to our system in two ways. It's fair, and it's less bureaucracy. Those two things can not possibly exist simultaniously in a fairtax proposal.

Either the system does not account for relative wages (except for excluding those below a line) in which case it's in no way fair. Or it DOES account for such differences by instituting some gradual increasing system, which requires tracking, and determination of actual income, in which case it's in no way less bureaucratic.

So take whichever methodology you like, either way it's rubbish.

Please keep in mind, Myrmi, that we're not against the concept of making the tax system more efficient. The current tax system is ridiculously complex because it's been added onto in so many ways...it should probably be taken down and rebuilt from the ground up, to accomplish the same goals without so many little loopholes and crazy weird directions and so on and so forth.

The Fairtax accomplishes none of that, and is a misnomer in its name. You can keep claiming "MISREPRESENTATION!" but it's a bullshit claim and you know it.

The Fairtax accomplishes none of that, and is a misnomer in its name. You can keep claiming "MISREPRESENTATION!" but it's a bullshit claim and you know it.
Especially considering that the 'Fair'Tax is misrepresentation down to a tee. If a state legislature fiddled with method of calculation to make their sales tax rate look like 2/3 of what it really is, the FairTax crowd would scream blue murder...

http://www.balloon-juice.com/managed-images/COLMKBTWL_01.gif

http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m209/gswelcome/z140.jpg


prefered this one myself Ky. :)

No no, see, the fair tax will completely eliminate tax bureaucracy by making it all one, simple tax. Now, I know what you're thinking, what about the poor who can't afford taxes now, how will they afford a massive tax on everything?

Well, of course we will exclude the poor, they won't have to pay anything. But, I know what you're thinking next, won't a cut off just make it artificial? I mean, say we figure someone who makes 15,000 a year can't afford this tax, so we don't impose that tax on them, but someone making 16,000 a year suddenly is paying full tax on it. Well, trust me, the Fair Tax is on top of that too, by instituting a gradually increasing scale, where those just above the poverty line start paying a bit more, increasing as they make more, finally settling on paying the full value of the tax.

But wait, you say, how will the various merchants all know what to charge whom? Well they won't have to, what we're going to do, of course, is institute a coupon, or voucher system, possibly an ID, which will automatically show what a person is supposed to be charged, based on their income level. All they need to do is, once a year, submit a form showing their income, adjusted for things like business gains and losses, dependents, and other things that might influence their proper, overall earning capacity so we can issue them the proper tax rate ID.

So don't you see how much SIMPLER it would be? Instead of all this nonsense we have now, we can get rid of all this bureaucracy. We'll just replace it with a sales tax. A sales tax with various rates depending on your income, determined by filing a form once a year with the government.

Don't you see how much BETTER that would be then our current system?

This is why 'fair' tax isnt fair at all. The whole point of fair is everyone pays the tax at a low level. If fair tax was fair it would be about the same level as sales tax is currently. People who spend money pay tax. If you are broke, lazy, or unable to work your effective tax is lower by default. You exempt things from tax like food etc.

Therefore someone in a low income braket is not spending their money on big ticket items anyway so they pay abou the same as they pay now in sales tax.

This sliding scale BS is one of the main problems. If EVERYONE pays the same percentage, the politicians cannot raise it without screwing their constituency. Therefore taxes remain low.

You have to gut the federal budget and get the government out of welfare, redistribution, propping up programs. That is NOT the duty of government.

Police, Fire, Military, Roads, Bridges, etc is just about all a government should do for you.

This is why 'fair' tax isnt fair at all. The whole point of fair is everyone pays the tax at a low level. If fair tax was fair it would be about the same level as sales tax is currently. People who spend money pay tax. If you are broke, lazy, or unable to work your effective tax is lower by default. You exempt things from tax like food etc.

Therefore someone in a low income braket is not spending their money on big ticket items anyway so they pay abou the same as they pay now in sales tax.

This sliding scale BS is one of the main problems. If EVERYONE pays the same percentage, the politicians cannot raise it without screwing their constituency. Therefore taxes remain low.

You have to gut the federal budget and get the government out of welfare, redistribution, propping up programs. That is NOT the duty of government.

Police, Fire, Military, Roads, Bridges, etc is just about all a government should do for you.

Bad Necropost! Bad!

yes.

He had to pretend he mattered. Megalomania does that.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/Forum%20Pictures/threadnecro.jpg

Bad Necropost! Bad!

http://www.zombieism.com/photos/Zombies/Break%20glass.jpg