There is certainly no shortage of things to complain about when it comes to the Republican Party. There is very little, if any, resemblance of the congressional Republicans of 2006 as compared to the Republicans who took control of the House of Representatives in 1994. Gone is the revolutionary zeal to reduce the power, influence and size of government and to return power and responsibility to the people. The Republicans of 1994 have been largely replaced by a party of big government and big spending.

Some are suggesting that the Republicans may lose their control of the House of Representatives in this year's mid-term elections. That would be absolutely fine with me. They have done little to deserve the majority position they hold. If it weren't for tax cuts and their support of the war on Islamic radicalism there would be not much to say in their favor. I say that it would be fine with me if the Republicans were unseated --- except for one small matter. They would be replaced by Democrats.

Some of you might have lost track of this fact, but this country, our culture, our very Western civilization is at war. There are people out there -- a lot of people -- who are dedicated to our destruction. They have the determination to carry their plans forward, and the means to do terrible damage to all that we hold dear. Right now, as you're reading this, there are some very bright minds that are darkened by the culture of hate and violence that is radical Islam who are spending every waking hour, and every resource available to them, planning for further attacks on America and the West. We know that they want their next attack to be a real extravaganza. They want thousands -- tens of thousands -- hundreds of thousands dead if they can find a way to make it happen. In one corner of the Muslim world they may be working on a dirty radiation bomb; in another they're trying to acquire an actual thermonuclear device. Somewhere else these Muslim maniacs are trying to develop delivery systems for the chemical and biological weapons that are already within their grasp. Somewhere, most likely in Syria, there are stockpiles of the chemicals and equipment necessary to manufacture these weapons -- brought there from Iraq and hidden when Saddam's days appeared to be numbered.

Whatever else you say about George Bush, he gets absolute credit for his determination to fight the Islamic jihad. Bush was the one occupying the Oval Office when word came of the 9/11 attacks. At that moment he knew that if anyone was to lead a battle against these fanatic Islamic murderers it would have to be him. This turned out to be the most important task he would face as president, and he has more than measured up.

Others may disagree, but there is not one ounce of doubt in my mind that if Saddam Hussein had been left to his own devices by now he would have reconstituted his chemical and biological weapons program and would present an even graver threat to our national security. There is and was more than ample evidence of Saddam's quest for nuclear weapons. How far along would he be with that goal today? And, though the left absolutely hates to hear this, there was and is proof of Saddam's connections to Al Qaeda and to Osama bin Laden. Saddam is no longer a threat. Would that be true today if Al Gore had been in the White House?

http://boortz.com/images/stabenow_incompetent.jpgWe're at war. George Bush is our Commander in Chief. To the people of other nations George Bush is the face of our war against Islamic terrorism. In large part how the world views our efforts to contain Islamic terrorism depends on how the world views George Bush. In this regard the Democrats have been anything but helpful. In fact, it can be said that they have been damaging, if not dangerous. Yesterday Michigan's ditzy Senator Debbie Stabenow took to the floor of the Senate to rail on George Bush. Next to her she had aides place a sign which said "Dangerously Incompetent." (http://www.townhall.com/blogs/capitolreport/TimChapman/story/2006/03/14/189892.html)
http://www.townhall.com/blogs/capitolreport/TimChapman/story/2006/03/14/189892.html We're at war, and this Senator labels our Commander in Chief as "dangerously incompetent" before the world, and before our enemies. Tell me there weren't smiles and giggles in the caves of Afghanistan and the terrorist insurgent strongholds of Iraq. Tell me that the Mad Mullahs of Iran didn't just love the show. All of this because Stabenow doesn't think that Bush is spending enough money on "first responders." That, by the way, is another way of saying that Bush isn't doing enough to (a) support policemen and firemen's unions and (b) to shift the burden of funding for police and firefighters from local governments to federal taxpayers.
We can add Stabenow's silly stunt to Russ Feingold's useless call for a presidential censure (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=1721636&page=1) in the Senate.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=1721636&page=1 Desperate for a little attention to get his presidential campaign off the ground, Feingold evidently thought this might give him some gas. No such luck. By the way, it was President George W. Bush that signed the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. Nice little payback to the president for his support for that hideous law.
If you vote for Democrats in the mid-term elections you are voting for the party that has clearly given aid and comfort to those who want to destroy us. It's not that the Democrats have no agenda. Indeed, they do have an agenda, but it's not one they want to put in front of the American voters. It's an agenda of bigger government, the end of political free speech, higher taxes, more income redistribution, a continuation of the war on individuality and the weakening of America. It's a pity that the Republicans won't identify the Democratic agenda for what it is, and stand up to fight it instead of seemingly playing along.
http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html

Another thoughtless, fear-mongering fruitbat posting at Townhall. Nothing new, and nothing new about your drooling over it. *shrug*

Except that Neal Boortz Doesn't post at Townhall.
He's a Libertarian, not to be confused with Liberal. Also not to be confused with Conservative.

http://www.theadvocates.org/library/libertarian-faq.html

Also, I'd like to see the presentation proving Bush is competent. If you've got time to put it together.

The Republicans have proven that they are incompetent. It is enlightening to see that they are campaigning on the idea that although they suck, the others are worse than they are. You have to be fucking kidding me. THAT is nothing short than defeatism.

One thing I am tired of hearing from people like Rumsfeld and Bush is that Iraq isnt in a Civil War.
HEL-FUCKING-LO
The entire goddamn region is in the middle of a civil war with the core issue not a national one but a religious one. The battle has been for the soul of and direction of Islam, and we have allowed ourselves to be sucked into Someone Else's Civil War (http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20020101faessay6555/michael-scott-doran/somebody-else-s-civil-war.html) since the moment we injected ourselves into the region. We can thrash about in Iraq and whatever but the region will NEVER become the pre Iraq invasion Neo-Con vision of a democratic bastion with cheap oil for all until the direction of this confict is resolved BY MUSLIMS.
The incompetence of the Bush administration is startling on all levels.

Bin Ladens plan all along was to drag the US into this Islamic civil war. Pre 9/11 the Radicals of Islam were losing the struggle. The Middle East was slowly becoming less enamored with the false promises of the Islamic Radicals. The vision of one Caliphate as dictated in sharia law was falling aside and being dismissed in the face of more local visions of nationalism and the yearnings of independence from oppressive regimes and brutal dictators.
Bin Laden declares war on the United States because it was the great symbol that he felt all Muslim people could unify and come together against, like they did in the 6th Century vs. the Mongol invaders.

Picture, if you will the image of a man holding a slingshot, firing a stone against a giant wall.
This metaphor I think can explain the plan of Bin Laden.
The Man holding the slingshot is Al-Queda and Radical Islam, the Slingshot is 9/11, the Stone is Islamic peoples and the Wall is the United States.

It was his hope not to defeat the US with 9/11, but to use the attack to divide the middle east by drawing in a foreign invader and forcing people to choose sides. Either Islam or the Infidel.
Bin laden most likely thought the conflict was going to happen in Afganistan, and the US would suffer the same fate as the Russians as all of the Middle East rose up and came together to fight there.
He was amazingly wrong.
But even more amazingly this Administration fucks up a wet dream. Bin Laden is in ruins, his plans dashed and his hopes in tatters. He is on the run, almost caught in Tora Bora, he power base gone and the majority of the Islam distancing themselves from him.
What does Bush do? He gives Bin Laden a "do over". The Invasion of Iraq and its occupation is exactally what he had hoped the invasion of Afganistan would be. We, in a sense, prolong this Civil War when we could have taken significant strides to end it.

When we talk about the level of incompetence of this administration, we are talking not small things, but incredible failures of vision and execution that have in a very real sense caused the needless loss of life and the entrance into of our Country into a conflict in which whos resolution duration or cost we hold no control over.

Made us safer since 9/11? Bullshit.

although they suck, the others are worse than they are.

Thing is, they watched it not work for Kerry. So you'd think it would be obvious.

L2 made a much more clear response than I could to this thread, and I would just like to say a big fat ditto!

But, I am also curious about the comment that Bush signed "that hideous law", speaking of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill; what exactly was "hideous" about that law? It seems a fairly harsh description, so I am just looking to be enlightened on how and/or why that law affects you so.

Defeatism or obstructist are just two sides of the same coin.

The coin I have in mind is "Get nothing done, and be proud of it".

Fandros

That's why a lot of people like the "one party holds Congress, the other holds Executive Office" idea. If you can't get stuff done, you can't make it worse.

I'd have less trouble with that idea Mir if folks would quit electing nutters like Nancy Pelosi/Howard Dean and that murderer Ted "I'm the blacksheep left alive" Kennedy.

As much as I realize that the two party system is what we have there's a huge part of me that wishes we could make a 3 party system work.

Fandros

There are plenty of fiscally conservative, non-radical christian, states rights, strong on defense republican candidates out there. The people just need to be more informed about who they are and what the important issues are. Unfortunately come election time, with the 5% attention people pay to elections, the jackasses that use attack ads, scare tactics and swift boating get the votes and we get shit on. That or the "real" republican candidate gets elected and then gets assimilated into the status quo.

hmmmmm so only the last two elections bear weight here with ya.

These tactics have been the mainline since I was a young ranger. Even I admit it's hard to sort through the chaff.

Else Clinton would've never been elected...

Fandros

if folks would quit electing nutters like Nancy Pelosi/Howard Dean

Well, here's the thing. How are they really nuts? I mean, all Dean really did was yell at a political rally. Yeah, it was hilarious. He's generally a good speaker, though he's a little left for me. Of course, he didn't start a civil war in Iraq......

Pelosi and Dean are also pretty low key compared to Santorum, Delay, Frist, Coburn, Mehlman, Brownback and the current President, among others.

hah. Man. You watch. DeLay will win re-election. He already won the primary.

Wow? Really?

Imagine an incumbant winning his own primary with a 1.4 million dollar war chest in a district that he personally jerimandered which is in a heavily red state. What a political wunderkind! What an amazing upset in spite of the fact of his massive already established organization.

I appreciate your sarcasm. But you'd think being walked into court twice would have some kind of effect.

It's not quite a sure thing, as Delay's approval rating in the district has fallen sharply, but it wouldn't surprise me if he won re-election.

But you'd think being walked into court twice would have some kind of effect.

Nah...standard operating procedure for republican politicians...especially those from the great? state of Texas. :)

That's the 1 of things about the greatest politicians, they are made of Teflon, and nothing sticks.
Sadly, the public quickly forgets...

Speaking of fiscal responsibility...

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/16/congress.debt.ap/index.html

"The debt limit will increase by $781 billion. It's the fourth such move -- increasing the debt limit by a total of $3 trillion -- since Bush took office five years ago."

Ugh, this is bad.
There should be some constraints put on spending. Some pork needs to be trimmed, somewhere, I'm sure.

The vote isn't that big of a deal, in all honesty. What got us to this point, whether you agree or disagree with some of the actions, are the recession, the War, and natural disasters. It is just a matter of fact that we have to pay for these things. The Democrats used the vote for some posturing for certain, as they should have after bearing the label of "tax and spend" for so long, which, if you haven't figured it out, is just a Madison Avenue generated slogan.

The real worry isn't the deficit or the debt, but this:

Before approving the bill, Republicans rejected by a 55-44 vote an amendment by Max Baucus, D-Montana, to mandate a Treasury study on the economic consequences of foreigners holding an increasing portion of the U.S. debt.

At present, foreign countries, central banks and other institutions hold more than one-fourth of the debt, but that percentage is growing rapidly.



This is as large a concern as Iran with a nuclear bomb. Maybe not as sexy, and certainly not as easy to resolve. But this is the biggest challenge that faces the United States in the coming decades. Being in debt has some upsides on the international scale, but we are still in debt. And while China might be less inclined to provoke a war with us, we are much more beholden to what China wants because of this.

Fil

What got us to this point

At what point is the massive hudge revenue from the tax breaks supposed to start rolling in again?

The Tax breaks were never supposed to kill the deficit, as I understood it. It was so people could have more $$$ to put back into the Economy, and pull us out of the recession.
It seems that part worked., But when you reduce your income, you should reduce your spending. It works in personal finances, and it works as far as the government is concerned.
Someone should tell GW the 2nd part of that equasion.

The Tax breaks were never supposed to kill the deficit, as I understood it. It was so people could have more $$$ to put back into the Economy, and pull us out of the recession.
It seems that part worked., But when you reduce your income, you should reduce your spending. It works in personal finances, and it works as far as the government is concerned.
Someone should tell GW the 2nd part of that equasion.

Reagan called the theory "trickle-down economics". After the enormous deficit Reagan left us, we are actually seeing in a few small sectors some of that Reagan era money trickling in here and there.

Now King George is applying the same philosophy. I guess he figures the rich folk have changed somehow since Reagan's presidency, and now really will put the tax break monies back into the economy to benefit the lower classes, and cure our recessionist woes.

/shrug Hey, it could happen.

/shrug Hey, it could happen.

...and monkeys could fly out my ass.


Sorry couldn't resist. :)

Trickle-down was and is nothing more than the rich justifying making the rich richer at the expense of this country's future.

In most circles trickle down economics is known by its other name...bullshit.

"At what point is the massive hudge revenue from the tax breaks supposed to start rolling in again?"

They've been rolling in.

Last year, for example, revenues reached the highest ever recorded -- $2,153 billion. The previous high was in 2000 at the peak of the "bubble" and right before the recession of 2001.

2006 is estimated to reach another all time high again -- current estimates are $2,313 billion.

This is as large a concern as Iran with a nuclear bomb

Ok. So, first, debt isn't a problem. Then, debt IS a problem because foreigners hold it. I'm a little confused.


In most circles trickle down economics is known by its other name...bullshit.

I know that making fun of Reagan is a great pastime for many, but "trickle down" or supply side economics is a very valid and accepted economic theory. Also, in the particular case of Bush's tax cuts, it had a measurable impact on the recession at that time.

But, it's a short term thing. And, in the long run, the tax cuts at that particular time are now doing more harm than good, as is pretty obvious now.

They've been rolling in.

Last year, for example, revenues reached the highest ever recorded -- $2,153 billion. The previous high was in 2000 at the peak of the "bubble" and right before the recession of 2001.

2006 is estimated to reach another all time high again -- current estimates are $2,313 billion.

No, sorry, you dont get to lie. You dont get to try to manipulate facts to further your ideological pinnings.

REVENUE -- Federal revenue peaked at $2.03 trillion in 2000, and then declined for three years, bottoming in 2003 at $1.78 trillion. That's never happened before. Revenue typically declines during a recession, but the most it has ever declined before was two years in a row, during the severe recession of 1958 and 1959. Revenue has rebounded the last two years and reached $2.15 trillion in 2005, but in constant 2000-dollars (i.e., adjusted for inflation), revenue remains 6.3% below that received in 2000.

"Revenue has rebounded the last two years and reached $2.15 trillion in 2005"

Wow holy shit that was exactly what I said. Is there an echo in here?

Wait, I see now. I said 2.153 and you said 2.15. Quibbling over a few million now?

"Revenue has rebounded the last two years and reached $2.15 trillion in 2005"

Wow holy shit that was exactly what I said. Is there an echo in here?

Wait, I see now. I said 2.153 and you said 2.15. Quibbling over a few million now?


I think you missed this: revenue remains 6.3% below that received in 2000.

Oh bullshit, you know exactly what you were trying to pull. To say that we are earning "more than ever" is an attempt to make the numbers say something that they do not.

In terms of real dollars we are earning more than 6% less than what we were in 2000. To look at the numbers even more closely you would find that while corperate profits rose somewhat, individual revenue fell even further than 6%. One clear way to see this is by looking at the state tax revenue numbers which are dropping very fast every quarter as people are spending less on the products that states make the bulk of their money from.

There has been no increase. So basically we are earning less and the government is spending more.

So the tax cuts dont have the promised effect, but we deficit spend like, well... like a bunch of Republicans.

Regardless of whether or not the revenues are increasing, the fact remains that the national debt has increased 50% in the 5 years that Bush has been in office. There is no excuse considering the president is republican and the congress is controlled by republicans. Yes, I know you will throw your hands in the air and claim its "war time." Well an elective war with massive overspending/gouging is no excuse either. I hope you all have learned your lesson and do your homework this november and elect some fiscally responsible people, liberal or conservative. I am tired of all the harping the government figures do about people not being smart and saving and having to rely on social security and what not. This all comes from a government whos motto is "smoke em if you got em."

Regardless of whether or not the revenues are increasing, the fact remains that the national debt has increased 50% in the 5 years that Bush has been in office. There is no excuse considering the president is republican and the congress is controlled by republicans. Yes, I know you will throw your hands in the air and claim its "war time." Well an elective war with massive overspending/gouging is no excuse either. I hope you all have learned your lesson and do your homework this november and elect some fiscally responsible people, liberal or conservative. I am tired of all the harping the government figures do about people not being smart and saving and having to rely on social security and what not. This all comes from a government whos motto is "smoke em if you got em."

Yes, I don't really care who has the best Ideas, Liberal or Conservative. If it works, as far as getting the National Debt under control, I'm for it.
Has anyone heard of the National Sales Tax, or the Fair Tax as it's called by Neal Boortz?
It would replace the Internal Revenue Service, and place the burden of collecting the National Consumprion Tax on the infrastructure all ready in place, the State Governments.
All of the embedded taxes that manufacturers place in thier goods would be eliminated, because there would be no reason for them to add it into the price.
The projections indicate that there would actually be in INCREASE in the amount the federal government would take in, and it would go that much further to paying off the national debt.
But because a Conservative came up with this plan, I'm sure it will be unpopular here.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060875410/qid=1122253455/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-0036137-9324739?n=507846&s=books&v=glance

http://boortz.com/nuze/200508/08222005.html

http://boortz.com

But because a Conservative came up with this plan, I'm sure it will be unpopular here.



You see, this is where you have it wrong. It depends on who is being defined as conservative.

Very familiar with the Fairtax.org drive. Read up on it, studied as much as I could and have been following it's progress.

I think it's a great idea.

Top that off with Utah going to a flat tax and I'm becoming a happier American.

Fandros

You see, this is where you have it wrong. It depends on who is being defined as conservative.

Neal Bortz is a Conservative Libertarian, that's who.

But because a Conservative came up with this plan, I'm sure it will be unpopular here.
Another brainless generalization, but you're consistent.

My initial reaction to the idea was "interesting, perhaps promising." Since then, my impression of the "Fair Tax" has soured, but I've not written it off. Has nothing to do with who proposed it (honestly, I have no idea who first came up with the idea), but the level of revenue it would draw and its impact on society. I have no intrinsic opposition to the idea (and, really, need to look into it more).

Another brainless generalization, but you're consistent.

My initial reaction to the idea was "interesting, perhaps promising." Since then, my impression of the "Fair Tax" has soured, but I've not written it off. Has nothing to do with who proposed it (honestly, I have no idea who first came up with the idea), but the level of revenue it would draw and its impact on society. I have no intrinsic opposition to the idea (and, really, need to look into it more).

Well, you are just guilty of Ignorance, then and not Stupidity.
Once again, you attack me personally, and not my idea.
Weakness abounds.

WEAKNESS ABOUNDS!

Where does anyone get the idea that a conservative came up with the idea of a VAT tax? I don't think the current political parties existed in the same form when the idea of a VAT tax was created. Which was what, hundreds of years ago?

Furthermore, what has kept the U.S. economy going the last 6 years? The consumer. Why would we change our entire tax structure to something that punishes the consumer? And for that matter, is repressive unless you add a lot of rules to it - which makes it just like income tax law?

Rep Linder of Georgia is a big proponent of it Thor. It's on the table infront of the Tax committe that Pres Bush set up.

Sadly I think with his loss of political capital it'll not happen for atleast two years. And that's assuming McCain or someother forward thinking individual wants to take up the very heavy yolk ( read not Hillary, she's already carrying Bill's past).

Fandros

Mirr? I suggest you read up on the FairTax idea before you lob out such gems as "Why change the tax system to one that punishes the consumer?".

Fairtax.org is your link and it's HR-25 and S-25 in house/senate.

It'll absolutely not punish the consumer, the main concern with it is how the monies will be collected and if it'll generate the appropriate amount of revenue.

First before we change the tax system I think we outta perhaps force our Govt spending to reign itself in.

Rid ourselves of divisions of our government that do nothing....Yanno like the Dept of Agriculture/business and some would argue Education.

Doubt we need the heavy revenue we have today if we didn't allow the pork projects that are part and parcel of every bill package.

Fandros

Mirr? I suggest you read up on the FairTax idea before you lob out such gems as "Why change the tax system to one that punishes the consumer?".


Because he is guilty of what I have been accused of, responding, and not reading.
And people tend to be afraid of change. Although some people claim to be "enlightened" and "forward thinking", the reality is, the IRS is just another way that the Government can control you.
That's the Liberal Mantra, Big government is good, freedom from us taking away 22% of your paycheck is bad.
And By the way, George Bush isn't a true Conservative. If he were, the Budget wouldn't look like the crap it is today.

That's the Liberal Mantra, Big government is good, freedom from us taking away 22% of your paycheck is bad.

..and yet the budget was balanced under a democrat...and has the worst deficit ever under a Republican. If there was ever "big" government, its now, and it's not under a "liberal".

And By the way, George Bush isn't a true Conservative. If he were, the Budget wouldn't look like the crap it is today.

Reading Comprehension is your friend.
Incidentally, I wasn't making this a Democratic/Republican issue.
I was making this a Liberal/Conservative issue.
There is a bit of a difference.

Reading Comprehension is your friend.
Incidentally, I wasn't making this a Democratic/Republican issue.
I was making this a Liberal/Conservative issue.
There is a bit of a difference.

hehe...that's right...George Bush isn't a true conservative...now. :rolleyes:

Okay, I'll rephrase...

The budget was balanced under what many consider to be a liberal, and now it's at a record deficit under what supporters used to consider a conservative regime. LOL

Bush certainly isn't the poster boy of traditional conservatism, but the Republican Congress that holds the purse strings must shoulder considerable blame. One of the heralds of movement conservatism paints a bleak picture of the road down which we're headed in his new book (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/books/review/19brink.html?ex=1300424400&en=b41804555786248d&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss).Although Phillips is scathingly critical of what he considers the dangerous policies of the Bush administration, he does not spend much time examining the ideas and behavior of the president and his advisers. Instead, he identifies three broad and related trends — none of them new to the Bush years but all of them, he believes, exacerbated by this administration's policies — that together threaten the future of the United States and the world. One is the role of oil in defining and, as Phillips sees it, distorting American foreign and domestic policy. The second is the ominous intrusion of radical Christianity into politics and government. And the third is the astonishing levels of debt — current and prospective — that both the government and the American people have been heedlessly accumulating.

The budget was balanced under what many consider to be a liberal, and now it's at a record deficit under what supporters used to consider a conservative regime. LOL

There you go. You got to be Precise in your scathing comments, or they are meaningless.

Because he is guilty of what I have been accused of, responding, and not reading.
And people tend to be afraid of change.

do the 2 of you understand how a VAT tax works?

Fairtax.org has been around for a while. It's nothing new. Look....

1. By definition, a value tax is regressive. You have to add rules to it to make it progressive. So, you immediately start heading in the direction of convoluted VAT code. It's not income-tax bad as of yet, of course, but give it time. You can see it in the first page of hte FAQ.

2. How is this good for the consumer? At a fair tax rate of 23%, that new car doesn't cost $25k. It costs over $30k. The $60 or more I spent on infant formula a month becomes $73.80. I mean, I'm gonna get a rebate, IN THEORY, of $300/month. Who the heck cares, if my house costs 23% more? And my mortgage deduction is gone?

As I've always said, run the numbers (especially those of you who like to claim how "the government takes x% of your paycheck).

+ fed taxes from paycheck
+ monthly rebate from fairtax.org tables
- all your monthly expenses * 1.23
- mortgage interest deduction (which is a percentage of your mortgage interest)

And fairtax.org thinks mortgage interest rates are going to magically go down by 25%? How does this affect health insurance? Will this destroy my flex spending account? Will this destroy the future of the Roth IRA?

I'll spend less. Everyone will. And that's bad for a consumer driven economy.

You are negating the Imbedded taxes that are passed along ON TOP of the all ready existing taxes.
You don't get the embedded taxes when there is no longer a reason for the manufacturer to add them in. The $25K Car actually becomes $22K when the Embedded taxes of all the suppliers, and Manufacturer are no longer collected. After tax is added in, it actually only costs $24K
Food would not be considered taxable, so you'd get a rebate check each month based on your income spent on those items. (if you had read the bill you'd know this). At the beginning of each month, the cost of the tax on the food would be negated.
You'll only spend less, if you can afford to.

If you've got numbers for these *embedded* taxes, pony them up. THe suppliers add value when they buy raw materials and make them into something to sell to a manufacturer. Hence the term "value added tax." The manufacturer would have to pay that tax, which would be passed on to the consumer just like any other tax.

Quick question. How does a $22k car, after a 23% VAT tax, become a $24k car?

The FAQ at the website specifically says that food would not be exempt from the tax. Furthermore, if it WERE, you wouldn't get a rebate check. The VAT most likely simply wouldn't be added on at point of sale.

Also, you would NOT get a rebate check based on your income spent on a particular item. You would get a rebate check based on numbers from the VAT tax tables. That rebate would not vary based on your month to month spending. If you spend more on it than average, tough cookies. Your "prebate" as the website calls it remains the same.

That's the VAT way of being progressive, since wealthy people spend more on goods and services.

If you've got numbers for these *embedded* taxes, pony them up. THe suppliers add value when they buy raw materials and make them into something to sell to a manufacturer. Hence the term "value added tax." The manufacturer would have to pay that tax, which would be passed on to the consumer just like any other tax.

Quick question. How does a $22k car, after a 23% VAT tax, become a $24k car?

The FAQ at the website specifically says that food would not be exempt from the tax. Furthermore, if it WERE, you wouldn't get a rebate check. The VAT most likely simply wouldn't be added on at point of sale.

Also, you would NOT get a rebate check based on your income spent on a particular item. You would get a rebate check based on numbers from the VAT tax tables. That rebate would not vary based on your month to month spending. If you spend more on it than average, tough cookies. Your "prebate" as the website calls it remains the same.

That's the VAT way of being progressive, since wealthy people spend more on goods and services.

Sorry, Math was my weak subject. It becomes a 27K car. But I still think that's less than 30 K.

The final prices of all goods and services (commodities) can be split into production costs (such as wages and the cost of materials), distribution margins (such as transport costs and wholesale and retail margins), capital costs (such as rent, interest and a profit margin) and indirect taxes (Column A).

However, the distribution margins and cost of materials, along with some capital costs, may include an indirect tax component (Column B). The industries in Column B may also have paid indirect taxes on their inputs or their distribution margins and so on (Column C,...). Since all of these `hidden' taxes (denoted by the shaded boxes) are embedded in the final price of the item shown in Column A they are appropriately described as `embedded'.

http://www.budget.gov.au/2000-01/papers/bp1/graphics/bs3-1.gif

The prices of most goods and services contain at least some element of embedded taxes. Under Fair Tax Law cascading taxes will be abolished. This will reduce the cost of producing these items, regardless of whether the final item is currently taxed or not. Competition will ensure that these savings are passed on to consumers.

Congratulations. You posted a nice picture that has zero numbers on it. You appear to be arbitrarily saying "I swear, they all contain some element of embedded taxes." Sure they do. But without numbers, what does that mean? The fairtax.org site doesn't have numbers either ,as they apply to the consumer.

Now, let's ask a question. Which, really, should be obvious but isn't.

GM is losing their butts. They have a chance to, in theory, cut their costs but without cutting the price to the consumer. What do you think is gonna happen?


It becomes a 27K car. But I still think that's less than 30 K.

So, you're admitting consumer prices will go up. Thanks.

Btw, are you single? Let's look at an actual number. That jacked-up price just sucked up your whole "prebate" for the year. Oh, but you don't have that money yet - it'll take you 12 months to get that money back. But that's not regressive at all, right?

So let's keep things the same, with no end in sight.
http://economics.about.com/od/lettersonthefairtax/a/fairtax_embed.htm

Since you are Fascinated by Numbers, here's a site that has some.
Maybe that'll keep you satisfied?

So let's keep things the same, with no end in sight.
http://economics.about.com/od/lettersonthefairtax/a/fairtax_embed.htm

Since you are Fascinated by Numbers, here's a site that has some.
Maybe that'll keep you satisfied?

Pie charts and graphs or it never happened!

So you read

Approximately $10 to 12 of the price of the shoes is embedded corporate income tax and tax compliance costs,

with no data to back it up and you think "yeah, awesome"?


The tourists from other countries who will now help fund the US government rather that merely stopping by to enjoy this system that they treat with so much contempt and disdain in their home countries.

Wow. I had no idea tourists were avoiding existing sales taxes that support the local governments.

Btw, if you read the article he links to (which he wrote) he freely admits consumer spending would go down.

Oh hey, sweet:

"Economist William G. Gale at the Brookings Institute has determined that most low income families will pay more taxes. "Under the Americans for Fair Taxation proposal, taxes would rise for households in the bottom 90 percent of the income distribution, while households in the top 1 percent would receive an average tax cut of over $75,000."

and

"Gale states that the "enactment of a broad-based, flat-rate consumption tax like the sales tax ... would hurt families with incomes less than $200,000, because of the loss of tax preferences, but would help families with income above $200,000, due to the dramatic reduction in the top tax rate." Given that the rebates are given based on the poverty line, and the poverty line does not dramatically increase between a one-person and two-person family, this is not surprising."

ANd under the "Who Wins" category:

"The wealthiest one percent. As stated they will see an average tax cut of $75,000 per person. "

And in the "Flaws" section:

"The 23 percent tax rate quoted is a tax-inclusive rate. However tax rates are normally quoted as a tax-exclusive rate. The FairTax plan has a tax-exclusive rate of over 30 percent, which may be difficult to sell to voters."

Have to ask you a question there Mir.

Have you studied this proposal of a National Sales tax? Or are you offering your opinion on a VAT study you learned about in school?

I'm assuming it's the latter, and it's a common perception by the opponents of HR-25. It's also the push by those that love a flipping tax code that most could never understand that's rife with loopholes for special interest groups.

btw, I didn't sign on to help fund a flipping tax system that pays folks money to have kids/special exemptions.....

Pay for what you buy, don't make me cover your need to spill your seed.

Fandros

Both a national sales tax and a VAT tax have been proposed several times over the last decade, so people have had a chance to has out good and bad about both.

THe article he is referring to, and the article it links to, refer to the Fair Tax Act of 2003 which, I believe, is a national sales tax.


Pay for what you buy, don't make me cover your need to spill your seed.

The numbers I've put up have specifically referred to this. And why, as my last post points out, it's regressive for the poor and for families.

Pay for what you buy, don't make me cover your need to spill your seed.

:eek:

Now see that runs counter to what I'm hearing recognized Economists , one was a prof from Harvard if I recall properly, say.

Infact, used or second hand items are not taxed at all. Right now those items are taxed during initial purchase and then again during resale.

The rebate is substantially larger for lower income families and it's not sent to you a year later.....;P

I'm a supporter of the Fairtax drive it's true. Right now at my current wages with few to almost no exemptions Uncle Sam is sticking it to me so you can have your own special needs.

Tax me on what I spend, not what I earn. It actually hurts me in the tax wallet to work overtime to help offset the taxes I pay for many to have more children....not my blasted concern....

Fandros

Infact, used or second hand items are not taxed at all. Right now those items are taxed during initial purchase and then again during resale.

Used or second hand items are taxed via local taxes - and I've yet to see any proposal saying that will change. Remember, this is Federal tax. This does not affect State income tax, state sales tax, nor county/city sales tax. I'd also wager that 99% of more of the stuff you buy is new. Of course, much of the seconhand items are sold via cash right now, so they really AREN'T taxed.......... except via your income tax, which is a very roundabout argument and would, in theory, be covered by your "prebate."


The rebate is substantially larger for lower income families and it's not sent to you a year later.....;P

Numbers, please. First - the rebate would NOT be larger for lower income families - they make less so they SPEND less, so the "prebate" is smaller. Second, the rebate IS sent to you "a year later." You're getting a monthly rebate. If you buy a car, that sales tax rebate comes to you via your monthly rebate over the next X months. The government doesn't say "oh, you bought a car, let me write you a larger check." Remember, this is a consumption based tax. More consumption = more "punishment" via taxes.


Right now at my current wages with few to almost no exemptions Uncle Sam is sticking it to me so you can have your own special needs.

What's your current REAL tax rate? In other words, tax owed from your 1040 divided by adjusted gross income? EVen when I was single, mine was well under 25%. Yes, working overtime "hurts you in the tax wallet" but you still make more money. With a national sales tax, that pint of beer after work would "hurt you in the tax wallet." Ignoring the "23% might really be 30%" idea in the article Sixee posted, that $4 pint would go up to almost $5.

I linked you to the site to get said info Mir.

Lower income of said family + numbers of said family = the amount of rebate you get.

What you spend means nothing, it's not figured in.

It's a set amount given to you to help offset spending on required items. It's a chart set up by locale/numbers/income. For example at 60K and single I'd see very lil rebate, and I'm okay with that. But a family of under 20K with 5 in the house would see almost 500 dollars monthly.

What they spend means naught and it's how I know you haven't looked into the Fairtax of 2003, because that's a major staple.

Yes, VAT and Sales taxes of the past didn't incorporate the changes in HR 25 you are correct. But if you read up and give a peek you'll see this one walks a bit different than those of the past.

Fandros

Hmmm Fed taxes last year was a bit over 10k on 53k earned. So yeah about 25% ish. Thing is to figure that out took a fair amount of time and to be honest I'm sure there's more I could've received back....if I wanted to delve into the gajillion or so pages of illegible taxcodes.


Fandros

I've gotta agree with Fandros on this.


The current tax system completely blows...this would be a very welcomed thing.

Hmmm Fed taxes last year was a bit over 10k on 53k earned. So yeah about 25% ish

18.8%. Do you track expenses, so you know how much you spend?

http://fairtax.org/pdfs/SampleTaxReturns.pdf

Here ya go, this is a chart to compare how the current system hits various taxbrackets and how it would affect you with Fairtax inplace.

Can get you better numbers once I'm at home Mir. Sorry wasn't prepared to discuss this today while at work. ;)

Fandros

I linked you to the site to get said info Mir.

I looked back several pages and didn't see it. Can I assume you mean fairtax.org?


For example at 60K and single I'd see very lil rebate, and I'm okay with that. But a family of under 20K with 5 in the house would see almost 500 dollars monthly.

I don't know if I'd refer to $178/month as very little.

I think you're just miss-stating what you mean to say. You don't mean

The rebate is substantially larger for lower income families

You mean the rebate is substantially larger for LARGER families. The rebate is not based on family income. Per the equation you posted, which is from the website, it's based in theory on the spending needed to support a family of size X.


What they spend means naught and it's how I know you haven't looked into the Fairtax of 2003, because that's a major staple.

How in the world can you say this when the tax itself is a tax on spending? From the website:

The size of the rebate is determined by the Department of Health & Human Services’ poverty level multiplied by the tax rate. This is a well-accepted, long-used poverty-level calculation that includes food, clothing, shelter, transportation, medical care, etc.

so the calculation very OBVIOUSLY is based on spending - spending for food, clothing, shelter, transportation, medical care, etc. That is what the 3rd column, "consumption allowance" is.

Why do you keep telling me I don't understand it and then say stuff like this?

Because Mir, while you glanced through and found a quote that supports your arguement you missed a major point.

It's a chart based on income and family size. It's paid before hand and doesn't change as long as those two items remain the same.

Yes it's meant to replace the monies spent on the items you mentioned. But it's been figured out before hand, there's no filing of expenditures ...no paperwork...no hidden laws meant to bennie folks like who you love paperwork...

So no you don't get it, aren't trying to get it and infact are rather inlove far too much with our painfully inept tax system to want to change it.

Rock on Garth rock on.

It won't change under the current regime, he screwed the pooch on this item imho....but one day I certainly hope it does change.

Fandros

Here's a letter endorsed by a long list of noted economists supporting this proposal.....oh and Greenspan himself joined the supporters after this letter....

http://fairtax.org/pdfs/Open_Letter.pdf

It's in adobe format, unsure if you have that handy but it's what I have atm.

Fandros

Here ya go, this is a chart to compare how the current system hits various taxbrackets and how it would affect you with Fairtax inplace.

That chart, pardon me, is AN ABSOLUTE JOKE. a married couple with 2 kids and a mortgage paying 29% tax rate? I'm just about there. Guess what? I pay less than 20%. I'd guess that they're assuming you make zero 401k contributions (thereby affecting your AGI), but that wouldn't make enough difference to cover what I believe the numbers should be.

I love the "cost of hidden taxes due to the income tax system" entries. Plus the "assumes consumption spending at 100% of income." WOW. There's a flaw. At first you think "hey, that means if I spend less than my total income I'll get taxed less." But what it really means is that there are massive errors here in determining what the national sales tax rate needs to be in order to maintain current federal government income levels.

It looks like they're calculating income tax on total income and not adjusted gross income. hahah.

edit - removed "payroll tax" from last sentence.

IIRC, Greenspan said a combination of income tax and national sales tax *might* be a good way to go.

It's a chart based on income and family size. It's paid before hand and doesn't change as long as those two items remain the same.

Yes it's meant to replace the monies spent on the items you mentioned. But it's been figured out before hand, there's no filing of expenditures ...no paperwork...no hidden laws meant to bennie folks like who you love paperwork...

Dude, I have shown you concrete numbers and specific flaws in the idea of a national sales tax. Not only are you avoiding disputing those numbers - you don't seem to have any fact-based reasons for LIKING the national sales tax. Are you saying you'd like to risk paying more money each year in taxes in order to get "no filing of expenditures ...no paperwork...no hidden laws"?

What if we had a national sales tax of 5 cents on every dollar spent, regardless of whether for gas, liquor, clothes, food, or a haircut. Every time you make a purchase there is 5 cents per dollar added in for tax for Uncle Sam. 5 cents is just an abstract amount to make the suggestion, btw.

Some say the poor would be hit harder by this, and maybe so in some ways. But, they spend less. The rich would be paying big time for their luxury yachts and mansions and buying new businesses, etc.

Or, I may be all screwed up here.:p

That's essentially what this is. To make it truly progressive, for instance, you could say "hey, if you make less than the poverty line you either have some sort of ID saying you don't pay it or you get it refunded at the end of the year or via a monthly stipend" (like this thing does).

Only two types of folks fight for the current tax system. IRS agents and accountants who get paid to enjoy raping folks for the money to kinda figure out the tax system.

Fandros

Actually Mir I've told you , shown you and explained why I want the fairtax system. You , in your infinite wisdom, continue to tell me my reasons are wrong.

I say to thee nay nay...I like it and after considerable research I'll continue to support it...

You ...haven't researched it and I have all but proven it.

Don't like what I like? Fine, but don't tell me I don't have reasons to like it. heh

The current system is corrupt, cumbersome and far too rife with contridictions to ever support. Hell it has an even lower approval rating than our current President and you jumped all over him....

Fandros

Only two types of folks fight for the current tax system. IRS agents and accountants who get paid to enjoy raping folks for the money to kinda figure out the tax system.

Heh. Your data is overwhelming.

So you're against a tax system in which you only currently pay 18.8% in income tax. Just keep in that in mind.

Hell it has an even lower approval rating than our current President

Link please. Also, back that up with data showing those same people would prefer to replace it with a national sales tax.

C'mon now Mir, just because you pull you man thong clear up in a twist around your dinglies about the inherent fun with the 1040 form doesn't mean the rest of us don't live in a world where we'd like to have a lil more control.

Yes , that was a sad sad run on sentence...\

I pay more than 18% when it's all said and done...I still have to pay 4k in taxes after I filed...ugh

Oh, as for itemizing and keeping track of all such? It's why I say you're in love with paperwork. I work too dern many hours and have lil enough time in the day for my son and gal to want to get all tingly about such bullshit.

No paperwork, no endless reams of taxcode and keep my taxrate close? I'm yours.

Fandros

As for making up the poll info that I did....

Hell we all know that 85% of all polls are just numbers made up to please the sheep....

Been sheered lately? ;P

Fandros

You have too little time? Dude, I'm married with a kid. If you want to understand what your money situation really is, you make time. It's why I rarely have time to play EQ. There is no need to be in love with paperwork. My credit card bill plus her credit card bill plus ATM withdrawals = total expenses.

Fyi, I did ask you what your "taxes owed" on your 1040 was. You said $10k. That would have included the $4k that you had to write a check for.

My point is simply this. I'm not insulting your reasons for not liking the current tax code. I don't like it either. But, in reality, I only spend 3 hours on it a year. 3 hours and $25 on Turbotax. And I fill out 4 pages, including 1040, schedule A, B, and C. That's not a lot of paperwork.

I will make 1 more point. And it's very important.

Fairtax.org goes on quite a bit about how they are eliminating the embedded taxes. They're eliminating the corporate income tax that gets passed on to the consumer. That's their whole basis for how prices will be lower for you.

Tax revenue for the government comes from 2 places. Corporations. And you. Individuals.

The government isn't just going to say "Cool, now we can run on 35% less revenue." If you eliminate the tax revenue that comes from corporations, what will replace that revenue?

Taxes on you.

ahhh didn't mean to mislead ya on that Mir. I'm numerically challenged when it comes down to it, can't balance a checkbook because I switch flipping numbers around in my head.

So maybe that's a prime reason for me, I have to simplify when it comes to money and digits. I'll work harder to make more money just so it all comes out in the wash...

Perhaps your opinion has merit here on Fairtax. I'll give it some more thought

Fandros

The government isn't just going to say "Cool, now we can run on 35% less revenue." If you eliminate the tax revenue that comes from corporations, what will replace that revenue?

There would still be tax revenue from corporations.

There would actually be taxes levied on things that were previously exempt for corporations. Corporations currently only pay taxes on their pre-tax profits (after all write-offs but before taxes) it is not difficult to expense the crap out of things with supplies, bonuses etc, remember there is a lesser percentage taxed on personal earnings than on corporate profits. Hence the schedule C.

A flat tax is simple, straight forward and would most certainly have an impact on under reporting and most certainly have a positive impact on government revenue.

Heh, I'd love to be back in an 18.8% effective bracket (I'm single and in the 28% federal bracket with an additional 8% state income tax, for an effective total of roughly 32% unless I can find some new shelters, which is unlikely because my money comes from salary and not investments, which the Bush Republicans have reduced taxes on by an alarming amount). In as much as I hate to reply to people with a clear (and possibly intentional) misunderstanding of mathematics and basic economics, I do feel the need to come in on Mirdorr's side here since despite any disagreements I may have with him on policy, he is nearly 100% factually correct.

While I'm personally in favor of consumption taxes (like sales tax or use taxes) versus income, nobody in their right mind has considered a non-progressive tax system to be a good idea in hundreds of years. In fact, the first ever mention of an income tax, by Adam Smith himself, included verbiage about making it progressive. Any sort of flat tax is by definition regressive. Fairtax.org, for whatever high minded anti-big-government values, is simply not a good idea. The American tax system is hugely (and intentionally) overcomplicated, and has been used against its constitutional basis as an instrument of policy since inception. Citizens taking back the IRS from the interests of Presidents and corporate puppeteers would be great, right along with cutting federal spending by lopping off about 75% of our corpulent "defense" and foreign "aid" budget, which has been a wholesale theft of public funds since the 1960s. The Fairtax.org stuff is so complicated in its own right that it would likely be abused even worse.

About the simplest practical system I have seen is the "negative income tax" concept (ho-ho, wikipedia has an article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax). This is progressive where it matters but still simple enough for idiots, and also addresses one of the big complaints against welfare by at least making people show some income to receive the tax credit. I suspect any implementation thereof would likely end up as convoluted as the Fairtax.org, though. The main problem with the tax code, however, isn't what kind of tax it is, but who is writing it and what we're letting them get away with while screaming at each other about gay marriage, Intelligent Design, and supporting the troops.

Wow, I'm glad to see something I brought to the table being debated here.

Fascinating stuff, really.
If the Numbers are as you say, then the Fair Tax is no better than the Income Tax we pay now.
It boils down to the old fashioned attage, if you don't bring in enough, you have to stop spending.

I'm single and in the 28% federal bracket with an additional 8% state income tax, for an effective total of roughly 32% unless I can find some new shelters

Have a kid! Hah. Seriously, though, food for thought: Maxing your 401k and owning a house for the interest deduction would most likely get you down to 20% effective federal tax (total taxes owed/AGI).

8% state tax. Good lord. don't forget to try to itemize and deduct what you can of that on your Fed taxes.

A flat tax is simple, straight forward and would most certainly have an impact on under reporting and most certainly have a positive impact on government revenue.

Agreed. however, this is not a flat tax. This is a sales tax. The FAQ at fairtax.org is somewhat unclear, but does seem to state that corporations will not be taxed (I would agree that that's nuts, and they'll have to be taxed somehow).

Perhaps your opinion has merit here on Fairtax. I'll give it some more thought

Thanks!

Maybe a bit late to mention at this point, but one can equally deplore the current tax code and find the FairTax solution insufficient. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Good discussion!

8% state tax. Good lord. don't forget to try to itemize and deduct what you can of that on your Fed taxes.

Yeah, it's a doozie, but from my understanding most of it ends up creditable and I don't list any exemptions for payroll on the Federal tax level so I'm hoping to end up even with the gubmint at the end of day. We've all got to do our part to stop big government at the source!