Democrats & Liberals Archives

Do You Know McCain?

According to conventional wisdom, Senator John McCain is a hero, a man with principles and a straight shooter. After what he went through as a prisoner of war there’s no doubt he is a hero. But principles? Straight shooter? No Way. No way. He changes principles with his audience. Maybe he once was a straight shooter. But the presidential bug changed that.

McCain is known as a man of principle. Let's look at a few of his principles. He favors integrity in government and the control of special interests. Yet his campaign manager and top advisers are lobbyists. The government watchdog group Public Citizen says McCain has 59 lobbyists raising money for his campaign, more than any of the other presidential candidates. He co-authored the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. Now he is trying to avoid using it.

Because of his terrible experience being tortured by the enemy, McCain favored the abolishment of torture. He worked hard to pass the anti-torture bill. Yet later he voted against a bill to ban waterboarding, and then applauded President Bush for vetoing that ban.

Back in 2000 McCain called Jerry Falwell an "agent of intolerance." Now he thinks Falwell is a nice guy. He also cozies up to Rod Parsley, a pastor who believes America's founding mission is to destroy Islam, which he calls a "false religion"; and to preacher John Hagee, who called the Catholic Church "the Antichrist" and a "false cult."

Here is what McCain did as a straight shooter. He voted against establishing a national holiday in honor of Martin Luther King. Yet now he spoke on the anniversay of King's assassination telling everybody he was wrong. He claims he is pro-environment. Yet he scored a 0 from the League of Conservation Voters last year.

The only thing McCain has been consistent about has been the Iraq War. Even there he says he previously criticized Bush but now he praises him. As a matter of fact, McCain is a bigger hawk than Bush. He talks about keeping our troops in Iraq for 100 years!

Yes, McCain is a war hero. But this is not enough to elect him president. Contrary to the rest of us, war seems to be what he likes most. On most other issues Americans care about, he may be with you today and against you tomorrow. It all depends upon where the votes are.

Posted by Paul Siegel at April 8, 2008 6:26 PM
Comments
Comment #250077

As compared to Billary or Barry Obama, both of whom has surronded themselves with questionable characters. Straight shooters? Integrity? Truthfulness? I think not. The two Junior Senators exude none of the above, and I would rather take someone who I feel would stand on his word as Executive. It is hard to shoot straight when you are trying to see how the wind blows. If this post is an attempt to drag down Mcain to HRC or BHO’s level, then I find that an extremely weak argument.

-b0mbay

Posted by: b0mbay at April 8, 2008 7:52 PM
Comment #250078

Paul

You have laid out the scenario for what will most likely be the arguments used against McCain once we have a dem nominee and the campaign takes full force. It should also be mentioned that he has voted in lockstep with the republican party 90% of the time. He also supported Bush 95% of the time over the last year. These numbers in no way present the image of a maverick republican. They do however indicate a candidate who represents a continuation of what is wrong in government today.

Posted by: RickIL at April 8, 2008 8:14 PM
Comment #250084

Paul, I think that McCain is far from being above criticism. Don’t get me wrong. But saying that he doesn’t have principles?

Instead of disagreeing with a political opponent, why is it necessary to trash him with such an outlandish accusation? There’s no reason except that he’s running against your candidate.

Can a fair-minded person really look at John McCain’s life and say that it exhibits the character of a man with no principles? Disagree with his positions. That’s your right. But saying that he is a man without a moral center is trash politics.

What’s so ironic is that Obama goes around saying that he wants to get beyond the old kind of divisive politics and unify America, but his followers are out there saying things like that.

What’s worse is that your laundry list of complaints against McCain do not show a lack of principles of all. And some of them look flat wrong. What is McCain’s position on Falwell, anyway? Falwell is dead. When and why is anybody talking about Falwell? And having lobbyists on your campaign doesn’t mean there’s any violation of McCain-Feingold. That’s not what McCain-Feingold is about. And his positions on environmental issues deserve to be discussed on their merits or lack thereof. The rating given to him by a group of environmental activists (more lobbyists) says nothing about what his positions are and isn’t even an argument.

Your remarks are divisive, unfair, and innacurate.

Posted by: Liam at April 8, 2008 11:24 PM
Comment #250091

I’m finding Paul’s blogs of late less and less relevant to constructive discussion. I’m struggling to say that without unleashing the watchblog hounds on me (attack the message and not the messenger - I get that). Suffice to say that I’ve been somewhat engaged cerebrally in the past and less so recently. This blog as well as his last are blatantly transparent with respect to his (not so hidden) agenda.


-b0mbay

Posted by: b0mbay at April 9, 2008 2:25 AM
Comment #250092

By the way, how dare you say that “war seems to be what he likes most”! I find that statement utterly dispicable and can only make the obvious conclusion that you haven’t heard or read his thoughts on war in general and are obviously taking Mcain’s words out of context. In his most recent speech to the Veterns of Foreign Wars Mcain told the listeners that “War is a terrible thing. You know that better than most; you who have borne the heartache and deprivations of war so that our country might be secure in its freedom. I hold my position on Iraq not because I am indifferent to the suffering caused by this war but because I detest war, and believe sincerely that should we fail in Iraq we will face an even sterner test in the very near future, an even harder war, with even greater sacrifice and heartbreaking loss than we have suffered over the last five years” That doesn’t sound like your run of the mill, bang bang, war hawk to me.

Your other point “McCain is a bigger hawk than Bush. He talks about keeping our troops in Iraq for 100 years!” is equally naive. We’ve been in Germany for the last 60+ years - so what. We haven’t been fighting an active war in Germany since WWII. We have been in South Korea for almost that long. Nope - no war there. Do we have an active military presence in both countries (and others around the world?) There is something called strategic military presence. That is completely different from waging war for the next 100 years. Guess which airbase critically injured combantants get flown to out of Afganistan and Iraq? DING DING - we have a winner - you guessed it - Ramstein Air Base in Germany. And the strategic importance isn’t just for the mean ole USA - Germany gets our military protection right under its own flag. That must be worth something to them or else why would they spend over 1 billion dollars a year to maintain our own bases there?!? Do you think that there might be some strategic reasons for maintaining a presence in Iraq “for the next 100 years”? Before you answer - put your pragmatist hat on… OK go ahead now.

Alot of the libs don’t agree with the conservative posters like Jack, SE and others, but at least they attempt to show some common courtesy in their honest attempt to engage the responders with active dialog. I would love a similar response from Paul.

-b0mbay

Posted by: b0mbay at April 9, 2008 3:26 AM
Comment #250094

Paul

Re Jerry Falwell - isn’t he dead? If McCain can talk to him he has greater power than I thought.

Re connections with racists and bigots, Barack Obama has a 23-year old close relationship with a guy who said God d@mn America, who thinks we created the AIDS virus to kill blacks and who went to Libya along with Louis Farrakhan to visit Khadaffi.

Sorry about the Obama trash, but I promise to bring up Obama’s bad associates every time somebody makes the unfair connection to McCain. It is my deterrence policy. If you stop, so will I.

Re your 100 year in Iraq – this is part of the lies that Obama has been telling about McCain. Factcheck.org has called him on it. We should avoid these kinds of deceptions.

Re the war monger - that is a charge leveled by those who never experienced war. Anybody who has seen it does not love or “monger it”. That talk show host who brought it up first is just a fool. Nobody here should follow is uniformed and cowardly example.

Obama has promised a higher level campaign. Let’s hold him to his promise. And let’s all of us avoid the low road.

Let’s stipulate now that neither McCain, nor Hilary Clinton nor Obama is a racist bigot and none of them are corrupt. I will not bring up such things are Wright or Rezko independently, but I will use them in defense of McCain. In other words, I promise no first use of the destruction weapon, but I will deploy them massively in defense.

McCain will win on the issues. I don’t want to make this about personalities, inuendo or guilt by assocication. I will lay off it you will. Otherwise I will regretfully trash Obama to the extent you trash McCain and I can do it in very clever ways. It is your move.

Posted by: Jack at April 9, 2008 4:04 AM
Comment #250099

Well Paul

I don’t have much to say as I agree with everything you wrote. I guess you can always tell when you have hit a nerve when your primary posters aren’t democrats or liberals.

Keep up the good work-you are right on the mark I’d say based on the responses you have gotten so far.

At one point in time I thought that if a democrat did not win the white house this november, I could live with McCain but no longer. He has sold his soul to the devil for the presidency. It is sad to watch a man who was once a good example of a maverick sink so low.

As for Obama, I would suggest that those of you who keep bringing up Rev. Wright go to youtube and listen to his complete sermons and the textual frame of reference for the remarks that were pulled out of context.

I will say that I think democrats and liberals need to not use the staying in Iraq for 100 years remark by McCain as I feel that is also something that was taken out of context.

Posted by: Carolina at April 9, 2008 8:33 AM
Comment #250109

BOmbay said: “As compared to Billary or Barry Obama, both of whom has surronded themselves with questionable characters.”

You mean like McCain himself being a Keating 5, or Phil Gramm as his advisor, others in the McCain team who played a part in this mortgage debacle crippling our economy (see UBS Vice President for a recognizable name on the McCain team) or religious extremists for campaign photo ops.

Yeah, that must be what you mean, that its tough to make a choice based on any of the candidates relationships with others.

I would prefer an educated president this time around. McCain’s US Naval Academy graduation many many decades ago, just doesn’t cut the mustard in my book, and McCain seems unable to stop demonstrating his slow learning ability, since after being corrected, he still can’t seem to get AQI and Shiites out of bed together in McCain’s own mind, as demonstrated yesterday in the Petraeus hearings.

Someone with top of the class honors in Constitutional Law is a vastly better prepared person for the White House educationally, than a degree in naval piloting and aviation technology.

McCain is better suited as an FAA airplane inspector, though many consider him better than many as a US Senator. But, that’s not saying much these days considering the poll ratings for Congress this year.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 9, 2008 9:35 AM
Comment #250111

Carolina said: “I will say that I think democrats and liberals need to not use the staying in Iraq for 100 years remark by McCain as I feel that is also something that was taken out of context.”

But, Carolina, in context his remark still denotes his view of U.S. world hegemony and global military aggressive posturing as a means to insuring we can take what we need from other peoples and nations.

It is in context, that his remark is even more damning. He truly believes in maintaining 780 military bases, stations, and occupation zones around the globe is a viable and sustainable posture for the U.S. Which of course, highlights his complete and abject ignorance of America’s economic problems going forward and the appropriate priorities that can help meet our future economic challenges which are threatening, to say the least.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 9, 2008 9:42 AM
Comment #250112

John McCain, please tell me MoveOn is incorrect in reporting the following about your history:

1. John McCain voted against establishing a national holiday in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Now he says his position has “evolved,” yet he’s continued to oppose key civil rights laws.

2. According to Bloomberg News, McCain is more hawkish than Bush on Iraq, Russia and China. Conservative columnist Pat Buchanan says McCain “will make Cheney look like Gandhi.”

3. His reputation is built on his opposition to torture, but McCain voted against a bill to ban waterboarding, and then applauded President Bush for vetoing that ban.

4. McCain opposes a woman’s right to choose. He said, “I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned.”

5. The Children’s Defense Fund rated McCain as the worst senator in Congress for children. He voted against the children’s health care bill last year, then defended Bush’s veto of the bill.

6. He’s one of the richest people in a Senate filled with millionaires. The Associated Press reports he and his wife own at least eight homes! Yet McCain says the solution to the housing crisis is for people facing foreclosure to get a “second job” and skip their vacations.

7. Many of McCain’s fellow Republican senators say he’s too reckless to be commander in chief. One Republican senator said: “The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He’s erratic. He’s hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me.”

8. McCain talks a lot about taking on special interests, but his campaign manager and top advisers are actually lobbyists. The government watchdog group Public Citizen says McCain has 59 lobbyists raising money for his campaign, more than any of the other presidential candidates.

9. McCain has sought closer ties to the extreme religious right in recent years. The pastor McCain calls his “spiritual guide,” Rod Parsley, believes America’s founding mission is to destroy Islam, which he calls a “false religion.” McCain sought the political support of right-wing preacher John Hagee, who believes Hurricane Katrina was God’s punishment for gay rights and called the Catholic Church “the Antichrist” and a “false cult.”

10. He positions himself as pro-environment, but he scored a 0—yes, zero—from the League of Conservation Voters last year.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 9, 2008 9:48 AM
Comment #250115

Jack said: McCain will win on the issues. I don’t want to make this about personalities, inuendo or guilt by assocication. I will lay off it you will. Otherwise I will regretfully trash Obama to the extent you trash McCain and I can do it in very clever ways. It is your move.

So Jack it seems you have officially anointed yourself as the official McCain campaign manager here on watchblog. It should be interesting to see how many ways you can manipulate your explanations to support your ever changing analogies.

I honestly see nothing particularly low handed in Paul’s approach to McCain issues. They are all valid concerns which one should take into consideration just the same as the red column was so happy to do with regards to Obama and Wright, Obama and experience etc.

McCain supports war in Iraq. A war most of us do not support. It is only natural and responsible to consider his character with regards to his stance on war. I will concede the 100 year issue. It is being used out of context just the same as the Obama, Wright sermons were used out of context. I think such falsities have no valid place in a campaign where people are trying to determine the realities of a persons character.

He has admitted his weaknesses with regards to the economy. But that issue is more a republican issue in general than an individual one. After all it is republican policy that has led to much of todays economic woes. And it is fact that McCain does and has supported republican policy 90% of the time. A simple analysis of the latter leads to the conclusion that he is part of the problem, not part of the answer.

He does have high powered lobbyists running his campaign. Lobbyists are generally viewed as much less than honorable scum and are seen as a large part of what is wrong with government today. At this point I have not given them much of my attention or concern. I would imagine that a little time will reveal to all the character of their personalities, be it good or bad. But never the less that association is there, can not be denied, and raises valid concern.

It can not be denied that he has changed his views on many occasions. And it seems that when he does it is generally beneficial to his needs.

I read yesterday that he has been accused of literally being involved in scuffles with fellow senators in the past. I am not saying that the reports are accurate at this point. But past temperament issues do warrant concern. I will not hold judgment with regards to the latter until more credible evidence is presented.

All of these things are out there and they all demand serious consideration when attempting to determine the true character of McCain. Yet you act as though they should be off limits and have no real bearing on determining the makeup of this person. I fail to see how people can make a fair determination if they do not have all the facts. Cherry picking the truth or half truths does none of us any good when attempting to make fair assessments of character.

I am wondering, if information turns out to be the truth and detrimental to a candidates personality, is it by your definition trash? Is not the stability and character of an individuals personality an important factor in making determinations? Are a persons associations only important when they are good associations? Shouldn’t it be left to the individual to make an honest assessment and judgment of character when presented with the facts? Are most of us in your opinion not capable of making an intelligent evaluation of the worth of questionable claims?

Posted by: RickIL at April 9, 2008 10:59 AM
Comment #250118

RickIl

The things I object to are attacks on personalities, guilt by association and outright lies.

That is why I went after the things I did and brought up the corresponding Obama ties to racists etc.

Re my ever changing analogies – I am good at this sort of thing. You must have noticed by now. I usually avoid the personalities and guilt by association. I do not think McCain, Obama or Clinton is a bigot, racist or corrupt. But if people attack McCain on these sort of issues, I will use by considerable talent to take the fight to Obama.

You must understand the goal in all this. I can reveal it w/o diminishing the power. Every time I hear a lie about McCain, I will twist the similar situation about Obama. I don’t have to lie, but I can ridicule very well. After awhile neutral readers will proclaim a plague on both our houses. It is a scorched earth strategy, which I prefer not to use, but if you guys try to take McCain down in those unfair ways, I will ensure that Obama goes with him.

BTW – I am NOT talking about legitimate issues. David posted some things from moveon.org. I think they are spun, as everything from moveon.org is spun, but they are not the things I am talking about. As I said, the unfair attacks include personalities, guilt by association and outright lies. I saw those things here and I countered them.

This is a new experience for Dems. They have been able to attack Republicans w/o exposing themselves to counter attack. Now they have provided a target that I can hit if needs be.

Posted by: Jack at April 9, 2008 11:46 AM
Comment #250122

Wow, I could fry eggs with some of the heat in these posts. Frankly, we know much about both McCain and Clinton and little about Obama. I believe more focus should be on him so we can more accurately judge for ourselves what his character and beliefs are.

Many are now supporting Obama solely on the basis of what he is saying and that is very dangerous. Words backed up by actions are needed to truly understand the person.

Posted by: Jim M at April 9, 2008 12:40 PM
Comment #250123

McCain has been in the Senate for 21 years. Honestly if you can’t pick his record apart better than this then he’s done better than most. Old Senators make lousy Presidential candidates; that’s just the nature of the Senate and its nature of compromise.

Posted by: George in SC at April 9, 2008 12:53 PM
Comment #250126

“Re my ever changing analogies”

“You must understand the goal in all this.”

“I am NOT talking about legitimate issues.”

“This is a new experience for Dems. They have been able to attack Republicans w/o exposing themselves to counter attack. Now they have provided a target that I can hit if needs be.”

“perhaps us moderates who stand between these two”: from a previous post


Not very “moderate of you.”

Posted by: Cube at April 9, 2008 1:21 PM
Comment #250128

Jim
The “heat” is because the polls do not show the almighty O with a huge lead. People are seeing how liberal he really is and are questioning and the left cannot have that. That is why the left and the media are keeping issues such as the 2nd Amendment, taxes and marriage quiet.

Posted by: kctim at April 9, 2008 1:23 PM
Comment #250131

Jack:

I thought you pride yourself on your logic. Do you think that badmouthing my candidate is a logical reply to what you perceive as my badmouthing your candidate?

If you think I’m wrong just tell me why as logically as you can. Leave the bluster aside.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at April 9, 2008 2:18 PM
Comment #250134

McCain does scare me. he thinks like a lot of America, that the answer to foreign problems is the military. We haven’t had a real war since we dropped two bombs on Japan. Through out the “cold war” we fought Russia and china in third world countries, because our weapons are too big to use. But this idea that the answer to terrorism is the military is crazy! Like I’ve said in these blogs before, after Oklahoma City all the militias and survivalists said that’s not what we’re about. If Clinton Said ” We’ll never be safe until all the militias are disarmed.” We’d still be at war with ourselves. After 9/11 the Iranians were laying flowers at our embassy in Tehran. $trillion worth of war later the average Arab hates our guts. Terrorists are nothing more than a small group of people with an idea if you drop bombs on innocent people you prove the terrorists right. We need a new direction.

We missed a perfectly good chance to win Pakistan a few years ago. They had a really bad earthquake in the very hills where Bin Laden is hiding. If we’d had gone in there with 40,000 Peace Corp workers to pull them out of the rubble, and give them water and blankets. And (very important) stick around just long enough to help them get started then get out. I can hear the conversation a year later. “ What’s that you say you hate Americans? You can’t live in this village! Americans pulled our families out of the rubble. I still communicate with my friend Charley in Cleveland. No, if you want to hurt Americans you need to go on down the road.
Unfortunately, now I’m afraid all the peasants living around Ben Laden think he’s protecting them from the evil Americans. I can not stress this enough. THE BATTLE GROUND FOR THE WAR ON TERROR IS IN THE HEARTS AND MINDS OF THE PEOPLE, NOT THE STREETS OF BAGDAD. Why do you think Hamas and Hezbollah build schools and hospitals, because they’re nice people? They know without the good will of the people their game is over.
If we’re going to win the war of terror we need to be much smarter about how we act in the world. That cowboy diplomacy “ I don’t care if they like us or not as long as they’re afraid of us.” has emboldened our enemies more than talking about getting out of Iraq ever could. It’s hard to stop a suicide bomber with fears of what will happen after he blows up his bomb. But if your not careful about how you go door to door looking for that bomber, you just might be creating more suicide bombers.
We need to be the leader of the free world, not acting like some spoiled kid who is just a big bully. For years I’ve heard how Arafat should stop the violence in Palestine. Now they’ve elected people who actually have the ability to stop the violence (Hamas), but we’re not even willing to talk to them. Instead we blockade the country so they can watch their people starve to death. That will not stop the violence. For almost sixty years I’ve watched Israel fight terrorism with the military. All it causes is more bloodshed. We need a different way.
As far as McCain being a war hero I STILL HAVE THE TASTE OF BILE IN MY MOUTH FROM THE LAST TIME A WAR HERO RAN FOR PRESIDENT.
In John’s defense he used to have a favorable LVC rating. Of course he used to be against torture too.
Also Obama has rejected and disowned Wright’s comments. But McCain hasn’t rejected Haggee’s outrageous comments. The idea that Israel’s enemies will annihilate Israel is just plain stupid. Israel has dozens of nuclear bombs. The only reason we’re so pro Israel is the strength of their lobby. You will notice every time the tanks roll into Palestine there’re more terrorist attacks. You can’t fight an idea with force. It never works. No, when it comes to the military and war McCain is dead wrong. If we have amphibious boats landing on the east coast with solders jumping out shooting people we have a need for the military. But I don’t see that happing .


Posted by: Mike the Cynic at April 9, 2008 2:35 PM
Comment #250135

I consider myself pro-environment, anti-global warming, and I’m fairly comfortable with McCain. I’m not the least bit concerned (or even suprised) that some Democratic-leaning environmentalist organization gives hims a score of zero on the environment which is then trumpted by a radical left-wing group like Moveon.org.

Zero? Come on! Such a rating has no credibility if he gets no credit at all for any of his pro-environmental votes and policy proposals. A low score would be one thing, but zero is ridiculous and shows the political agenda and bias of the group giving it.

Regarding lobbyists? So what? The right to lobby and petition the government is explicity guaranteed by the US Constitution. There are lobbyists on every single issue of importance to our government and our lives. There are lobbyists that are pro-Nafta, for example, just as there anti-Nafta lobbyists. It’s true for everything.

The problem is when a candidate has a corrupt relationship with lobbyists. But the mere fact that those lobbyists exist and are involved in representing their interests, which are also the interests of voters, through perfectly legal and aboveboard association with candidates is not itself corruption. Having no ties or associations with lobbyists is no badge of distintion whatsoever. What does that even mean? That people who care about specific issues have no enthusiasm or stake in your campaign? That you don’t listen to or allow the participation of people who working on issues of relevance to the American public? If there are corrupt things going on and you have proof of them, talk about that. But don’t just count lobbyists and allege guilt by association because you think “lobbyist” is a bad word.

The other things, like being anti-abortion, a staunch supporter of the war on terror, and being against torture but not considering “waterboarding” an example of torture simply means that McCain shares the views of not only Republicans but a great many others. Those are legitimate stands on policy, and the fact that McCain doesn’t share the stands on policy that are embraced by the hard-core radical political left-wing will actually be a mark in his favor when it comes to the general election.

The hard left likes to think that everybody agrees with them on everything because of the unpopularity of George Bush. Keep on believing that and you could be in for a rude awakening.

Posted by: Liam at April 9, 2008 2:37 PM
Comment #250137

Based on all of their voting records, none of the candidates for Presidente are too hot.

And all three should read Jack’s article about “Misplaced Compassion”.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 9, 2008 2:59 PM
Comment #250138

Paul

I think you are wrong to bring up McCain’s association with Falwell (it is analogous to Obama and Wright)

I think it is wrong to use the 100 of war and say that he likes war. Any thinking man who has seen war hates it, but the more perceptive among us realize that mere revulsion will probably provoke even greater violence. McCain hates war because he knows more about it than any other candidate.

Mine is a deterrence strategy. I am getting a little sick of letting liberals swear with impunity. My logical analysis and study of strategy tells me that a tit-for-tat approach is the most logical course in these sorts of situations.

There are some things that I think you are “wrong” about but not in the sense I am talking about above. For example, McCain has offered to abide by public funding of elections. The ball is in Obama’s court. McCain is not trying to avoid it; Obama just has to say yes and keep his word.

Re torture – McCain is the only candidate to understand this subject first hand. He thinks about it clearly and deeply. In comparison, Obama and Clinton have a child’s understanding of these sorts of things. They can pretend to take the high ground w/o thinking through the consequences. McCain has spoken against torture more strongly and with more moral integrity than any candidate of either party.

Re Martin Luther King – McCain has acted with extreme integrity. He admitted he was wrong and changed his position. That is very hard to do. Has Hilary or Obama admitted they are wrong about anything important? McCain understand that his change on MLK will not win him many votes. Blacks are voting for Obama, period. So McCain clearly acted out of conviction.

Your characterization of McCain on Iraq is misleading. McCain criticized Bush when the Bush policy was different. Bush changed his policy radically in late 2006. It became much more like what McCain had advocated. McCain was consistent and acted with integrity. He supported the policy before Bush did. Naturally he will praise it when the president changes policy to be more in line with McCain’s. And BTW the new policy is producing astonishing results. If only we followed McCain’s advice sooner.

Posted by: Jack at April 9, 2008 3:42 PM
Comment #250139

Cube

Please see above. I am deploying that in defense. If you guys attack McCain, I will bring the same sort of things to bear on Obama. I prefer to stick to the issues because McCain will win on the issues. But if the opposition wants to get down into the mud … well I had a course in soil science back in college and I understand the use of biosolids.

Posted by: Jack at April 9, 2008 3:51 PM
Comment #250143

We know a lot about McCain and Clinton but very little about Obama and that to me is a real problem. You all go around bashing McCain, but what do we know about Obama, he can give a good speach but good talkers don’t make good presidents. We will all see after the conventions. Maybe then Obama’s true colors come out.

Posted by: KAP at April 9, 2008 4:23 PM
Comment #250148

Jack,
“I think you are wrong to bring up McCain’s association with Falwell (it is analogous to Obama and Wright)”

Obama didn’t say bad things about Wright, and then when it’s in his interest come along and kiss up to him. I still say Haggee scares me a lot more, and McCain never came out against the things Haggee said.

Posted by: Mike the Cynic at April 9, 2008 5:27 PM
Comment #250151

Mike

Re Wright the racist & bigoted God d@mn America man - I don’t see how you can not be scared by a man who thinks his government created AIDS to kill black folks (showing both general hatred and scientific ignorance) and hates America.

Posted by: Jack at April 9, 2008 5:42 PM
Comment #250152

It’s because of the ignorance I’m not worried. With a line like that you’ll never get anyone to do your bidding. But Haggee and his misuse of the Bible has a lot of followers.

Posted by: Mike the Cynic at April 9, 2008 5:46 PM
Comment #250154

Jack said: You must understand the goal in all this. I can reveal it w/o diminishing the power. Every time I hear a lie about McCain, I will twist the similar situation about Obama. I don’t have to lie, but I can ridicule very well. After awhile neutral readers will proclaim a plague on both our houses. It is a scorched earth strategy, which I prefer not to use, but if you guys try to take McCain down in those unfair ways, I will ensure that Obama goes with him.

Yes Jack I understand that you would like a race run solely on the issues. You do not want to see your candidate lose because of perceptions of personality traits. Unfortunately for McCain, Obama, and Clinton they each have traits which are of some concern and which must be analyzed to determine stability of character. Your logic is frayed in that it allows for no individual circumspection of character. I personally will reserve the right to inquire about and to make determinations of character on my own. Myself, Paul, or anyone who frequents these blogs should not be bullied into debating these issues as you see fit simply to avoid the wrath of Jack. If your candidate can not stand up to and overcome such close investigation then he surely is not the right man for the job. Each individual has to make the decision on their own as to what claims are or are not credible. You may play a small or even large part in that decision process but you certainly are not the last word on any issue.

Posted by: RickIL at April 9, 2008 6:33 PM
Comment #250155

“You can’t fight an idea with force.”
Posted by: Mike the Cynic at April 9, 2008 02:35 PM

How silly Mike. It took force to make the American idea of Independence come true and there are many other examples of force backing up an idea. We and our allies have an idea that all men are created equal and should be free. Sometimes we back up that idea with force.

When ideas compete it’s not war, it’s a dialog. Your assessment of the Israeli conflict is, let’s say foolish, to be polite.

Posted by: Jim M at April 9, 2008 7:28 PM
Comment #250158

Jack said: “Re Wright the racist & bigoted God d@mn America man - I don’t see how you can not be scared by a man who thinks his government created AIDS to kill black folks (showing both general hatred and scientific ignorance) and hates America.”

Simple, Jack, Wright is a leader of a local congregation, and has not sought national leadership nor voice in the United States. You seem to think he is running for president along with Obama’s shoe repair person, baker, babysitter, yardman, and auto mechanic, all of whom I am sure have views that would not win a presidential election, as well.

Some of Sen. McCain’s associations however do seek national voice and leadership, and influence in the White House. There is a substantial difference.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 9, 2008 7:52 PM
Comment #250159

KAP said: “he can give a good speach but good talkers don’t make good presidents.”

Must explain why Reagan was such a poor president. NOT!!!

Logic fails the Right again.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 9, 2008 7:53 PM
Comment #250160

Jim M, When we fought the English for independence we were fighting a nation, not a small number of people hiding in a large group. After five years of “the war on terror” Bin Laden is still free. But between 100,000 to 1,000,000 people are dead. These deaths make Bin La den’s hand that much stronger. As far as all men being created equal—- the slave labor from Nepal working for Haliburton are not very equal to the suits in the boardroom of Haliburton.

Posted by: Mike the Cynic at April 9, 2008 8:29 PM
Comment #250162

Get a copy of the book, “Conservatives Without Conscience” put out by John Dean in 2006. Go to page 59 and there will be a title in bold, “Double High Authoritarian.” Go to pages 68 and 69 where there will be a list of criteria.
If this isn’t proof that John McCain is the classic text-book example of a D.H.A. then I’m St. John the Baptist.

Posted by: Stephen Hines at April 9, 2008 8:56 PM
Comment #250165
You must understand the goal in all this. I can reveal it w/o diminishing the power. Every time I hear a lie about McCain, I will twist the similar situation about Obama. I don’t have to lie, but I can ridicule very well. After awhile neutral readers will proclaim a plague on both our houses. It is a scorched earth strategy, which I prefer not to use, but if you guys try to take McCain down in those unfair ways, I will ensure that Obama goes with him.
OOOOOOOOOOOHHhhhhhhh … . the Democrats must now be shakin’ in their boots.

And how does one plan to take Obama down with McCain?
Does anyone here really believe that they have that much influence?

The fact is, none of the candidates voting records are very good.
Who ever loses will probably have themselves mostly to thank for it.
And it really is not necessary to spin anything, when all of the candidates are providing so much ammunition to shoot themselves in the foot.

Let’s look at the issues (www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/):

  • (01) 42% - Economy, Economic stimulus

  • (02) 21% - War in Iraq

  • (03) 18% - Health care
  • (04) 10% - Terrorism
  • (05) 07% - Illegal Immigration
  • (06) 02% - Other:
    • Abortion

    • Education

    • Energy

    • Environment

    • Free trade

    • Guns

    • Homeland Security

    • Housing

    • Iran

    • Same-sex marriage

    • Social Security

    • Stem cell research

    • Taxes

Now, select the candidate that would do best on each issue (here’s my choices):

  • (01) Clinton[_] , McCain[_] , Obama[_] , None[X] , All[_] , NoDifference[_] : (01) 42% - Economy

  • (02) Clinton[_] , McCain[_] , Obama[X] , None[_] , All[_] , NoDifference[_] : 21% - War in Iraq

  • (03) Clinton[_] , McCain[_] , Obama[_] , None[X] , All[_] , NoDifference[_] : 18% - Health care

  • (04) Clinton[_] , McCain[X] , Obama[_] , None[_] , All[_] , NoDifference[_] : 10% - Terrorism

  • (05) Clinton[_] , McCain[_] , Obama[_] , None[X] , All[_] , NoDifference[X] : 07% - Illegal Immigration

  • (06) Clinton[_] , McCain[_] , Obama[_] , None[X] , All[_] , NoDifference[_] : 02% - Other: (see list above)

HHHHMMMmmmmm … that’s not very encouraging.

Therefore, voters should make certain they don’t forget about Congress.
After all, repeatedly rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians in Congress with 93%-to-99% re-election rates isn’t working, is it?

P.S. # 1: I picked Obama for (02) (i.e. War in Iraq), since he said it’s time for the troops to come home. The argument that we must stay in Iraq to make the U.S. safer is very weak … especially when the borders are near-wide-open, and more people have been killed (VictimsOfIllegalAliens.com) in 3 years by illegal aliens, then all 4023 U.S. troops killed in Iraq in over 5 years. Unfortunately, none of the candidates have any credibility on the subject of illegal immigration. But the main point is this: It isn’t fair to force our troops to risk life and limb for nation-building. That is not their job. If security is truly the issue, and fear that terrorists will follow us from Iraq, put our troops on our own borders.

P.S. # 2: I picked McCain for (04) (i.e. Terrorism), because he seems the most likely to pursue terrorists. Unfortunately, he thinks that is primarily in Iraq, and fails to understand that there are smarter ways to fight terrorism; but nation-building and policing Iraq’s civil war is not one of them.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 9, 2008 9:10 PM
Comment #250173

So David all because a guy can talk pretty he will make a good President? Obama talks change, but what kind of change? If we don’t have a good independent running I’d rather have McCain. All I see out of the Dems is a lot of nonsencical bicering and a lot of people I talk to are very disappointed with the Dems right now. I much rather have seen Edwards running than the two BOZO’s that are trying to get nominated.

Posted by: KAP at April 9, 2008 9:52 PM
Comment #250174

Yep, I know him well. He accepted the mic today from an idiot that couldn’t even speak well after saying, “you can have your Tiger woods”, and he never even blinked!

McCrazy is running on the pro-war, not-black, not-a woman ticket!

And he’ll probably win because the electorate has their heads up their asses1

Posted by: KansasDem at April 9, 2008 9:56 PM
Comment #250175

Sorry, that was sloppy, I’m just angry.

Mostly because we have no great options!

Posted by: KansasDem at April 9, 2008 9:58 PM
Comment #250184

Is McCain even aware that Reagan signed three tax hikes into law during his tenure?

Maybe it’s too much to ask of Republicans to find the last Republican president who actually kept a budget balanced. I think it was Eisenhower.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 9, 2008 11:21 PM
Comment #250187

Jack-
He said we would leave a sizable force in Iraq for the next 100 years. Now it one thing to say that of some place where our military and our government successfully stabilized or even made an Ally of the parties we were fighting with.

But we’ve nowhere near done that with Iraq. It is neither stable, nor responding well to our influence. This is the blind addiction to Iraq that marks the supporters of indefinite occupation. How do get to McCain’s idealized state, and will the population there even let us do that? I don’t think our presence there has brought a single moment’s peace to the country in the last half-decade.

McCain says he hates war, but when he makes a joke on a Beach Boys song that goes “bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran”, you have to wonder.

As for deterrence? Man, I’ve tried that kind of deterrence. Doesn’t work. If you want to get us afraid of challenging Saint McCain’s canonization, you’ve got to do better than warmed over talking points which many of us Democrats, especially Obama supporters, have already faced and figured out.

My policy on deterring criticism is that I don’t. I take it as it comes, and I try nailing these arguments and the people who make them on well researched, contextualized facts. The drawback is that you can’t handle these things as casually as the talking points. But then that’s why people like me loathe talking points.

As for McCain and torture? He would have lost little of his reputation for not backing down and casting his vote against Waterboarding, against torture of any kind.

Nine-tenths of the flip-flops McCain is doing seem to be predicated on apology for the Bush policy, with the aim of uniting your fractured party under the banner of Bush groupthink. The irony is, he might have maintained his maverick image better had he stuck to his guns. But then, he wouldn’t be the nominee to be, then.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 9, 2008 11:40 PM
Comment #250189

Stephen Daugherty,

Don’t forget that Reagan pulled off the slickest transfer of taxation onto the middle class ever devised!

Yes - He - DID!

Of course it’s all in the Social Security trust fund! Oh, but darn it, we used that to help finance more tax cuts for the wealthy so we could get trickled on!

And we’re still getting trickled on. And that smell of urine is finally becoming obvious to even the most dense Americans.

And what percent of Americans are personally vested in the war?

Posted by: KansasDem at April 9, 2008 11:45 PM
Comment #250192
He said we would leave a sizable force in Iraq for the next 100 years.

No, he didn’t.

Do we have a ‘sizable’ force in Korea? Germany?

What was the quote again?

Take a look at what McCain actually said in Derry, N.H., back in January. Cutting off a questioner who talked about the Bush administration’s willingness to keep troops in Iraq for 50 years, McCain said “Make it a hundred.” He then mentioned that U.S. troops had been in Germany for 60 years and in Korea for 50 years, and added, “That’s fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed.”

Kind of hard to have a war without anyone being injured or harmed or wounded or killed…

So it appears, to me at least, that Obama’s attempt to say … oh what was his quote…

You know, John McCain wants to continue a war in Iraq perhaps as long as 100 years.

Oh yeah, his statement is not only false and misleading, but beneath the type of politics his supporters say he wants to bring to us.

It’s hard to have it both ways… There’s a word for that, starts with an H and ends with an ypocrisy.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 10, 2008 12:35 AM
Comment #250193

Rick Il

I am sorry that I want to decide elections on issues instead of personalities. I always thought that was a good thing.

Let me emphasis the difference between personality and character. Character allows you to anticipate a person’s behavior. It is consistent (or not), honest (or not) etc. Personality is the outward manifestation of an individual. It is related to character, but not closely. We all know some really bad guys who have sparkling personalities and some really good and competent people who are not so dazzling.

You may recall that most people in 2004 thought George Bush had a much more attractive personality than John Kerry.

I will argue logically and calmly with those who talk about manifestations of character or issues supported. I will not tolerate the personal attacks, innuendo or guilt by association.

David

It depends on how much influence you think they will HAVE not how much they might want. It is almost like a spy movie. What if I told you that I would be talking to a future president every week for 23 years and that he would consider me a personal mentor? How much influence do you think I might have over his development and ideas?

Compare that to me saying I support a candidate. I support John McCain. I did so in 2000 too. How much influence do you think I will have in the McCain administration. Or more precisely, do you think I would have more or less influence than someone who had talked to him and been his mentor for 23 years?

Many of Wright’s ideas are poisonous. I stipulate that he has some that are not obnoxious and even good. But his public damning of America, crackpot ideas about AIDS etc put him beyond the pale.

Re being a good talker – being a good talking is a great asset. Bush suffered from not being a great speaker. Ronald Reagan benefited. But it is not a sufficient qualification. The danger is that a good talked and an attractive candidate may get a lot of mileage from those things w/o having any real substance.

Mike Cynic

You make some good points re the war on terror, however Osama bin Laden is not gaining power. He is in a much weaker position than he was five years ago. I wish he was killed or captured, but he is no longer the great danger he was.

Stephen Hines

I think that using a book written as a political screed by the chairman of the Democratic Party to attack a Republican candidate is pretty weak, sort of like quoting “Mein Kampf” about the treaty or Versailles. It says a lot about Dean and not much about his subject.

And keep with my tit-for-tat deterrence strategy – we all know Dean is nuts. I met the guy on three occasions and would certainly not let a guy like him date my daughter.

d.a.n.
I don’t suppose Dems generally are shaking in their boots, but I have local influence around here and can blunt unfair attacks on John McCain to some extent.

Kansas

Yes, I regret that Obama supports bigotry and racism in the form of his long time mentor and that he did not properly distance himself from a man who damns America. Nevertheless, I do not think that Obama is a racist bigot who hates the U.S.

Stephen

We are closer to that solution in Iraq than you understand. In any case, you have to attack what McCain said, not what Obama misled you about. Do you believe that if we establish reasonable security in Iraq, we should just abandon the place? We didn’t do that in Germany, Japan, Korea or the Balkans. Stationing troops doesn’t mean fighting. It often means PREVENTING a conflict. Obama doesn’t understand this because he has never experienced anything relating to war. That is perhaps why he misspoke.

Re the tit-for-tat – I am good at this sort of thing. I do not expect a “victory” but I will succeed in scorching the earth around the subject and leveling the nefarious playing field. As you see from my response to Kansas, I do not plan to overuse it. In fact I resolve generally to stipulate that there is no evidence that Obama is a racist bigot who hates the U.S.

There is a big difference between personal attacks and criticism. And come on. You guys always pull the turn around attack. If I write a post about my pine trees I can be assured that someone will make a personal attack against George Bush somewhere before the third response. The Dems are trying to transfer the hate they have for Bush to McCain. They are different people with different policies.

It is valid to criticize McCain for the policies he advocates. He does not have to answer for Bush policies in general. For example, McCain’s policies toward global warming, torture, multilateral diplomacy & many aspects of the economy are very different from Bush’s. McCain’s policy on Iraq was very different form Bush’s UNTIL Bush came around to a McCain-like strategy. So it is valid to criticize McCain for what has happened in Iraq since January 2007. Before that it was a policy he did not advocate.

Posted by: Jack at April 10, 2008 1:20 AM
Comment #250200

KAP asked: “So David all because a guy can talk pretty he will make a good President?”

NO. No one said that. You said: “good talkers don’t make good presidents.”

That was a patently false statement. JFK was a good talker. Reagan was a good talker. Clinton was a good talker. Very large segments of our population regard all three of these as a good presidents. Ergo, good talkers CAN make good presidents. Being a good talker however, is not sufficient to be a good president. Much more is required like vision, judgment, and the ability to work effectively with others.

Language is gibberish, or at the very least, to be ignored as persuasive, if the rules for its use and logic are not applied. Your statement was illogical, as good talkers have been good presidents by popular polling.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 10, 2008 5:14 AM
Comment #250201

Jack asked: “How much influence do you think I will have in the McCain administration.”

Hopefully, not much :-) But, if your vote elects him, your influence over the country will be enormous, and responsible for soldiers dying in Iraq for many years to come. McCain has absolutely no realistic definition or vision for what constitutes “victory” in Iraq (just like Bush), which would permit withdrawing our soldiers from harm’s way. When things are violent over there, McCain says we must remain indefinitely until the violence abates. When the violence diminishes, McCain says our withdrawal will lead to its increase and destabilization. Hence, McCain has absolutely no exit strategy nor plan to remove our soldiers from harm’s way in Iraq.

If your vote elects McCain, your vote will have enormous influence on America and the lives of many of our soldiers in Iraq. Something to ponder before entering that polling booth? Nah! Not for a party loyalist, I suspect.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 10, 2008 5:24 AM
Comment #250202

Jack said: “Many of Wright’s ideas are poisonous. I stipulate that he has some that are not obnoxious and even good. But his public damning of America, crackpot ideas about AIDS etc put him beyond the pale.”

But, Wright is not running for president, nor is he even qualified to be a presidential advisor in economics, foreign affairs, or the law. Like I said, I don’t care what any candidate’s baker or candlestick maker thinks in terms of my consideration of the candidate. I do care about their associations with political and policy advisors within their campaign or potentially in their administration. No president can be versed in all the areas of knowledge over which a president must make decisions, making their policy and political advisors of grave importance in considering a candidate’s nomination.

On that front, Obama has no problems, so far. McCain has many including lobbyists whose agendas are not to be dismissed and advisors whose records are less than what most Americans would expect.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 10, 2008 5:32 AM
Comment #250205

David

That soldiers dying card is silly. If we lose in Iraq, as Obama and Hilary demand, we will end up fighting other wars and probably have to face the enemy even in the U.S.

Obama is a weakling who cannot make the hard decisions properly. He will blow with the wind. Weaklings condemn us to perpetual conflict because they so fear a fight that everyone knows they can push it on them.

Nobody knows the ultimate outcome in Iraq, but it is certainly worth risking lives to achieve success, since the risk of not doing so is much more dangerous. Obama has never faced this sort of challenge, so he doesn’t understand it. Besides choosing when to cross a busy street or maybe to avoid a crowd of tough looking guy hanging around on the corner, he has never made any decisions that would seriously affect his safety or that of others. The buck has never stopped with Obama. That perhaps accounts for his timidity about risk.

Re Wright – You are right that he is not qualified to be an advior on much of anything but he was Obama’s mentor and advisor for 23 years. Presumably his ideas helped shape Obama’s. Otherwise we have to assume Obama was attending his church merely to score points with future voters. If he didn’t pay any attention to what this close confidant was telling him for 23 years and yet kept on pretending to listen, perhaps he is doing the same to us now.

Posted by: Jack at April 10, 2008 7:38 AM
Comment #250207

Obama is a weakling who cannot make the hard decisions properly. He will blow with the wind. Weaklings condemn us to perpetual conflict because they so fear a fight that everyone knows they can push it on them.

Total bull Jack. It is the result of weak minds that created the conflict that so few of you foolishly continue to advocate for. It is a weak mind that refuses to acknowledge the light out of fear of loss of pride. It is the result of weak minds that do not see the value of diplomatic patience. It is a weak mind that strikes first and thinks later. The current state of our country is the result of seven years of weak minds. So please don’t try and throw that wimpy liberal crap at us. It no longer washes in the shadow of all the damage republican policy has done.

Right now the people of this country are looking for anyone with a mind capable of an intelligent sensible approach to issues. Not a mind that would be in keeping with current mindless practices.

Posted by: RickIL at April 10, 2008 9:05 AM
Comment #250209

Jack you wrote
You make some good points re the war on terror, however Osama bin Laden is not gaining power. He is in a much weaker position than he was five years ago. I wish he was killed or captured, but he is no longer the great danger he was.

I hope you’re right, but remember it took 7 years between the 1st and 2nd attacks on the world trade center. And that only involved 20 people. I’m afraid Bin Laden is still a threat. Where as Al Qaeda in Iraq is not a direct threat.

The only way we’ll ever be safe is to secure our infrastructure, secure our boarders, and have a national ID card. Whether it’s religious extremists on the other side of the world or some crazies in our own country It doesn’t take very many people to commit an act of terrorism.

Posted by: Mike the Cynic at April 10, 2008 9:38 AM
Comment #250222

“well I had a course in soil science back in college and I understand the use of biosolids.”

Your expertise in this field is quite evident at times here in this blog.

Posted by: Cube at April 10, 2008 12:04 PM
Comment #250225

Cube

Thank you. I do what I can. Biosolids have their place in the field and on the blog.

Posted by: Jack at April 10, 2008 12:15 PM
Comment #250226
Jack modestly wrote: d.a.n. I don’t suppose Dems generally are shaking in their boots, but I have local influence around here and can blunt unfair attacks on John McCain to some extent. … Re the tit-for-tat – I am good at this sort of thing. I do not expect a “victory” but I will succeed in scorching the earth around the subject and leveling the nefarious playing field. As you see from my response to Kansas, I do not plan to overuse it.
“good” ?

Then, can you help explain some of this?

  • (01) John McCain supported the invasion of Iraq. So did Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama did not.
  • (02) John McCain has a lousy voting record on illegal immigration; McCain’s career immigration grade: “D”, recent grade: “D” (27%) {pathetic} (grades.betterimmigration.com/view_all.php3?Flag=GRADE). But so do Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
  • (03) John McCain voted YES on comprehensive immigration reform. (Jun 2007) {a.k.a. the SHAMNESTY BILL which was later defeated. Later, in 2008, McCain said he “now gets it” (after 26 years in Congress) and the borders should be secured first.}
  • (04) John McCain voted for the amnesty (Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986). {Which more than quadrupled the problem. John McCain, after starting his bid for office of President in 2008, flip-flopped, and now says he “now gets it” and says we should secure the borders first. That’s not enough. How about enforcing existing laws to prosecute illegal employers? After all, more Americans were killed by illegal aliens in 3 years, than all U.S. troops killed in Iraq between Mar-2003 and Mar-2008.}
  • (05) John McCain, when 60-to-84 hospitals in border states were going bankrupt (because they are being over-run by illegal aliens), Senator John McCain wrote a rider into the Medicaid Bill for $1.4 billion of your tax dollars. It passed (2003), and an estimated 28% to 36% of illegal aliens receive welfare, Medicaid, and Medi-Cal. More hospitals have gone bankrupt since then. U.S. tax payers are being forced to foot the bills (estimated at $70 billion to $338 Billion per year). But Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama also choose to pit American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for profits from cheap labor and votes. All three of them need to read Article 4, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution and Jack’s article on “Misplaced Compassion”. All three of them refuse to enforce existing laws and uphold the U.S. Constitution.
  • (06) John McCain claims homeland security is important. So, why are the borders still near wide-open, immigration laws are still ignored, and thousands of Americans are still being killed annually by illegal aliens? (more than the number killed in 3 years, than the 4023 killed U.S. troops in Iraq in over 5 years, or the 2973 killed due to 11-Sep-2001 terrorist attacks.
  • (07) John McCain admits that economics is not his strong suit and often avoids answering economic questions. That’s not good. When many tried to run with it, he then said that he knows more about economics than Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. How is it that someone can be in Congress for 26 years (since year 1982; longer than the most politicians) and say economics is not their strong suit? That is especially bad since most voters feel that the economy is ISSUE # 1.
  • (08) John McCain wants to continue many of the policies of Bush in Iraq and wants to remain in Iraq for as long as it takes (even if it takes 100 years? (FEB 2008)). Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama do not.
  • (09) John McCain has a good record on pork-barrel (excluding that $1 million for the brown tree snake in Guam, and a rider for a Medicaid BILL for $1.4 Billion in which much of it goes to illegal aliens), but it is undone by all the spending required to keep troops all over the planet.
  • (10) John McCain recommended we send in a heavy wave of troops to Iraq to establish order (Nov 2006).
  • (11) John McCain said the Iraqi war was necessary after years of failed diplomacy. (Aug 2004)
  • (12) John McCain said the Iraqi war was necessary, achievable and noble. (Aug 2004)
  • (13) John McCain said the cause of the Iraqi war was just. (Apr 2004) {never mind one little detail … uhhmmm, like no WMD ?}
  • (14) John McCain said it is important to win (in Iraq), important for U.S. to be superpower. (Jun 1999) {What does he mean by win? And at what cost? Did it ever occur to McCain that the cost may be too high? That it may be a no-win situation for American? Does McCain’s logic really make any sense? If security for America is the goal, how about securing our own borders? It’s only been almost 7 years since 11-SEP-2001.}
  • (15) Voted NO on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007 (Jun 2006).
  • (16) Voted NO on investigating contract awards in Iraq & Afghanistan (Nov 2005).
  • (17) Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq (Oct 2002).
  • (18) John McCain said the CIA assessments on Iraqi WMDs were all wrong (Mar 2005). {OOPppppss! Like no WMD? Isn’t McCain on the Security Counsel? Isn’t this supposedly his specialty? How is it that Hans Blix (and many other people) were right, and John McCain was so wrong?}
  • (19) John McCain said we don’t have as much to fear as we had in the past. (Apr 2004) {Really? Is that why our borders are still nearly wide-open? Especially if the terrorists are going to follow us from Iraq?}
  • (20) Voted YES on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration (Jun 2006).
  • (21) Supports Amendment against flag-burning (Apr 1999).
  • (22) Voted YES on Amendment to prohibit flag burning (Dec 1995).
  • (23) Supports anti-flag desecration amendment (Mar 2001). {He’s really serious about this flag burning isn’t he?}
  • (24) Voted NO on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore (Mar 2005). {Of course not!}
  • (25) Admitted about instances where he looked the other way too (on National Public Radio in year 2005; but most (if not all) in Congress do that too)
  • (26) Violence in media caused Littleton shootings (Apr 1999). {HHHMmmmmm … but starting wars on false intelligence doesn’t?}
  • (27) Supports overthrowing “rogue” governments to keep Americans safe (Feb 2000). {Iran perhaps? Perhaps North Korea is next? And what about our own borders and ports?}
  • (28) Voted NO on banning more types of Congressional gifts. (Jul 1995) {Of course. Cha-Ching! Hurray for McCain-Fiengold campaign finance!}
  • (29) John McCain said he supported term-limits on Congress in July of 1998, but 2 years later …
  • (30) John McCain flip-flopped and said No to term-limits, and said they throw away the good with the bad (Jan 2000). {Throws away the good with the bad? With so much bad, that may be a good idea, eh?}
  • (31) Higher taxes on cigarettes (Jan 2000). {but not McDonald’s Big Mac’s ? Or Dunkin’ Donuts? Perhaps we should also out-law spoons because they make people fat, and outlaw pencilz becuz they misspel wordz?}
  • (32) Matching funds for seniors citizens’ prescription drugs (Dec 1999). {nothing like pandering for votes, while growing the entitlements ever larger, eh?}
  • (33) Voted NO on restricting business with entities linked to terrorism (Jul 2005). {? ? ? this is hard to understand ? ? ?}
  • (34) Make possible for immigrants to do a job Americans won’t do (Oct 2004). {nothing like pitting American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for profits from cheap labor and votes, eh? There are a lot of Americans that want jobs and would like to know which jobs those are?}
  • (35) Voted YES on establishing a Guest Worker program (May 2006). {a.k.a. amnesty; more despicable pitting American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for profits from cheap labor}
  • (36) Voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security (May 2006). { one-simple-idea.com/VotingRecords1.htm }
  • (37) Voted YES on allowing more foreign workers into the U.S. for farm work (Jul 1998). {more pitting American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for cheap labor.}
  • (38) Voted YES on H-1B Visas for skilled workers (May 1998). {not just jobs he claims Americans won’t do; more cheap skilled labor too; that probably made Bill Gates very happy: one-simple-idea.com/DisparityTrend.htm#IllegalImmigration}
  • (39) Voted NO on raising the minimum wage to $7.25 rather than $6.25 (Mar 2005). {well, it doesn’t really matter when cheap labor is flooding across the borders by the millions, does it?}
  • (40) John McCain said the Social Security Trust Fund is a ticking time bomb, set to go off in 2014 (Jan 2000). {Yet, Congress continues to spend the Social Security surpluses, and …}
  • (41) John McCain voted YES on using the Social Security Surplus to fund tax reductions (Jul 1999), {and …}
  • (42) previously wanted to disallow using Trust Fund for “emergency” spending (Jun 1999), {despite …}
  • (43) Voted YES on Social Security Lockbox & limiting national debt (Apr 1999).
  • (44) Voted NO on across-the-board spending cuts (Oct 1999). {And he wonders why spending, borrowing, and pork-barrel are out of control?}
  • (45) more: ontheissues.org/John_McCain.htm
Thus, it isn’t hard to see why John McCain has alienated much of his voter base, since:
  • Most Americans believe we have done enough in Iraq, and don’t buy the weak arguments that nation-building and policing Iraqis’ civil war is making the U.S. safer, not to mention being unfair to our U.S. Troops (despite all the weak arguments to portray nation-building and policing a civil war as making American safer). Especially when our own borders are still near wide-open; almost 7 years after 11-SEP-2001.
  • And McCain didn’t do himself any favors in saying economics is not his strong suit when most voters feal that the economy is ISSUE # 1. And I believe it is true, based on several instances where he has avoided answering questions on economics.
  • And McCain has thoroughly angered many Republicans (many now former Republicans) due to his voting record on illegal immigration.
  • McCain voted for the first amnesty in year 1985, which quadrupled the problem. Existing laws are still being ignored on a massive scale.
  • McCain also voted for the Comprehensive Immigration Reform (Jun 2007) (a.k.a. the SHAMNESTY BILL).
  • McCain also, after 26 years, admits that his vote against an MLK holiday was wrong. What a coincidence that McCain, in his own words, “now gets it”, after 26 years, now that he decided to run for President in 2008? How does one explain all of these revelations? It seems running for office has the strange ability to help people “now get it”, eh?
So, McCain has a lot of negatives. Probably as many as Hillary Clinton, and more than Barack Obama.

At any rate, whoever becomes the next El Presidente, the nation’s pressing problems will continue to be ignored if the president is still saddled with the same corrupt, FOR-SALE, pork-happy incumbent politicians in the two-party duopoly in the do-nothing Congress that has enjoyed (on average) very cu$hy 96.5% seat retention rates (on average) since year 1980 (one-simple-idea.com/CongressMakeUp_1855_2008.htm).

  • Posted by: d.a.n at April 10, 2008 12:17 PM
    Comment #250254

    There goes unprincipled flip-flopping McCain again.

    CNN Money reports:

    McCain introduced what he is calling his “HOME Plan,” which blends elements of government-backed mortgage rescue proposals by the Bush administration, the Office of Thrift Supervision, House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass., and Senate Banking Chairman Chris Dodd, D-Conn. (Here’s a look at each of those proposals.)

    Previously, McCain had not been advocating more government intervention, saying he wanted lenders to do for borrowers what they are asking the government to do for them - offer help.

    But on Thursday, McCain portrayed his plan as one that uses government support to help worthy borrowers who are struggling and not just bailout lenders and borrowers who got “caught up in the speculative frenzy” and who should not be spared “the consequences of their own bad judgment.”

    I happen to agree with McCain’s latest flip-flop outcome designed to rescue homeowners of good intent living in their homes, and not the home flippers for speculative profit who got caught with their mortgages down around their ankles. But, what does it say of McCain’s principles when he was so adamant against government bailouts of anykind at tax payer expense just a couple weeks ago? More proof McCain’s principles take a back seat to tripling his wealth as president.

    How does a Senator of so many years become a multi-millionaire in office anyway? A little insider trading with foreknowledge of which way the regulatory or taxing winds will blow? Inquiring minds want to know and this question is relevant for all Senators of all parties.

    Posted by: David R. Remer at April 10, 2008 4:43 PM
    Comment #250255

    The fact is the Dems have two candidates who want to make History. One who wants to be the first Black and One who wants to be the first women and in my opinion that is going to be their downfall. One at least has some experience in the WH setting. The other mind as well be a guy off the street with his experience. David, at least the guys you mentioned who were good talkers had some experience in government, Obama has very very very little, if you can call the Ill. legislator experience.

    Posted by: KAP at April 10, 2008 4:46 PM
    Comment #250264

    David

    How does a Senator of so many years become a multi-millionaire in office anyway?

    I have been wondering about that myself. I am looking forward to an explanation. I bet Dan the numbers guru knows.

    Posted by: RickIL at April 10, 2008 6:54 PM
    Comment #250267

    John McCain’s money: Net Worth: $40.4 million

    $24.6 Million: Miscellaneous Trusts
    $ 7.4 Million: Family Companies:
    $ 2.3 Million: Cindy McCain’s retirement
    $ 2.1 Million: Ca$h
    $ 1.0 Million: Real Estate
    $ 3.9 Million: Houses
    $ 857,000.00: Liabilities
    ___________________________
    $40.4 Million = Net Worth
    $ 3.9 Million = 2006 Income

    Where he got it:

    • (01) $186,600 per year: Senator salary

    • (02) $54,000 per year: Navy Pension

    • (03) $1.7 Million: his autobiography book “Faith of My Fathers” was on the bestseller list for 24 weeks in year 1999, and other books (about one per year since 1999); all donated to charity.

    • (04) $3.7 Million: Mrs. Cindy McCain’s income from investments in 2006 came to about $3.7 million. She is the chairman of Hensley & Co., the Anheuser-Busch beer distribution business she inherited from her father. As an only child, Cindy is in charge of the family trusts.

    • (05) $6 Million is in J.P. Morgan funds held in the name of their four children.

    • (06) NOTE: Everything except $50,000 is in Cindy’s name or in trust for her and the children, so John had better keep her happy.

    Barack Obama’s Net Worth: about $1.6 Million

    Hillary Clinton’s Net Worth: about $36 Million

    Posted by: d.a.n at April 10, 2008 8:41 PM
    Comment #250268

    Here’s a good tax deduction to remember.
    Make a charitable contribution to yourself.
    The Clinton campaign reports donating $10,256,741 to the Clinton Family Foundation between 2000 and 2006.

    Posted by: d.a.n at April 10, 2008 8:43 PM
    Comment #250271

    Dan

    Thanks. You are very good. So if I am reading this correctly, basically he married into the bulk of his money.

    Posted by: RickIL at April 10, 2008 9:21 PM
    Comment #250278

    Yes, it appears so, since he could not have made $40.4 Million from his salary, pension, and books.

    Posted by: d.a.n at April 10, 2008 10:42 PM
    Comment #250298

    Dan

    I read your tax deduction link. I am wondering how much of my income do I need to donate to myself to make it worthwhile. And how do I go about legally using it for my own gain? I suspect I probably would need a much larger income and some good lawyers that I can not afford that know how to use, or is that abuse, the system to my gain. ;)

    Posted by: RickIL at April 11, 2008 10:23 AM
    Comment #250300

    KAP said: “One at least has some experience in the WH setting. The other mind as well be a guy off the street with his experience.”

    Instructor in Constitutional Law as well as education in it, is enormously valuable experience. Inside familiarity with the workings of Congress, extremely valuable experience. Managing two Senatorial campaigns, one worth over $100,000,000.00, beating out the campaign management skills of the Mitt Romney with nearly unlimited money, incredible experience in management, and very successful both times. Not to mention organizational work in local communities as a lawyer choosing people over money.

    Nope, I’d say he’s got considerable experience. And Republican Colin Powell said this week, Obama has proved himself to be a quick learner. And educationally, he has it all over McCain, and save for seniority, they have equal experience as US Senators, Obama being the fast learner that he is.

    WAPO reports: “Former GOP House member Joe Scarborough, now a host on MSNBC, reports that after every important Obama speech, he is inundated with e-mails praising the speech — with most of them coming from Republicans.”

    As for Clinton, her experience as a Senator has been generally highly regarded. But, her specialty experience is in entitlements. She believes because she was a wife in the White House she is entitled to claim war stories under fire, make up BS in public like her hubbie, and of course, entitled to the seat of President.

    Such blood and marriage entitlements should be heavily frowned upon after the Jr. Bush proved to be such an incredible disappointment to his father’s record as an above average president. Nepitism can prove positive in public office, but, too often doesn’t. Besides, monarchies and aristocracies were something this country decided at its founding were no insurance of better governance and to be avoided without overwhelming cause and credentials.

    Posted by: David R. Remer at April 11, 2008 10:42 AM
    Comment #250301

    D.a.n., thanks for the wealth info. Makes sense, really. Man marries woman with money promising to use his political career to protect her interests and provide inside information to take advantage of the investment environment prior to the announcement of pending legislation that will affect that investment environment. A match made for an American marriage.

    Posted by: David R. Remer at April 11, 2008 10:46 AM
    Comment #250321
    RickIL wrote: d.a.n, I am wondering how much of my income do I need to donate to myself to make it worthwhile.
    Any amount. If you are making the donation to your own charity (i.e. yourself), you are eliminating the tax on that income. Hell of a deal, eh? How Clintonian to make tax deductible donations to their own Clinton Family Foundation charity?
    David R. Remer wrote: A match made for an American marriage
    Maybe. And then there was John Kerry, who really hit the jackpot with Teresa Heinz ($626 Million including her fortune; over 15 times more than the McCain’s fortune).

    However, Teresa Heinz made John Kerry sign a prenuptial agreement which keeps her money separate.

    Cha Ching!

    Actually, I don’t have a problem or envy of wealthy people.

    My complaint is when some wealthy people abuse their vast weatlh, such as trying to control and influence government, as evidenced by the 99.85% of all 200 million eligible voters who are VASTLY out-spent by a very, very tiny 0.15% of all 200 million eligible voters who make a 83% of all federal campaign donations (of $200 or more), and perpetuate these other 10 abuses that are hammering the middle-class, and hurting most Americans in ways that have never been worse ever, and/or since the 1930s and 1940s.

    However, the voters are culpable too, since most voters repeatedly reward irresponsible, bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians with 93%-to-99% re-election rates ( one-simple-idea.com/CongressMakeUp_1855_2008.htm ).

    At any rate, the voters have the government that they elect (and deserve).

    Posted by: d.a.n at April 11, 2008 2:22 PM
    Comment #250327

    Hmmmmmmm………..

    http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-clark10apr10,0,1791314.story

    Posted by: janedoe at April 11, 2008 3:41 PM
    Comment #250332

    DRR
    Instructor, so what. Managing senatorial campaigns, so what. I can do all that but does it make me experienced enough to be President, H*&% NO. It just means I got some smarts. I’m talking real hands on experience which Obama has very little of. Talking the talk and walking the walk are two different things. GW did neither. Most of what Obama has on his agenda is pure BS.

    Posted by: KAP at April 11, 2008 4:24 PM
    Comment #250346

    KAP, slight correction, GW did have hands-on experience in his second successful run against a war hero who is rich and very well connected. Kerry or Gore could have easily won if they were more conservative or just more moderate. It really was more of a party failure rather than a failure of the candidate who was burdened by appeasement of the liberal faction of the once-great Democrat Party.

    Today’s Democrat party has, I believe, fallen prey to the most liberal wing of the party and is leaving behind millions of moderates in the party who won’t vote for more taxing and spending.

    The DEmocrat Party was never stronger than when they stood for making government work for everyone, not just the liberal socialist wing. I am proud that I have voted Democrat in both national and state and local elections. Unfortunately, the party has left me behind and I had no choice but to become an independent seeking out conservative candidates where I can find them.

    Posted by: Jim M at April 11, 2008 6:38 PM
    Comment #250357

    Jim M,

    Both are a irresponsible.
    But the voters continue to repeatedly reward them with 93%-to-99% re-election rates.

    Thus, the voters have the government that they chose.

    Posted by: d.a.n at April 11, 2008 9:31 PM
    Comment #250400

    JimM made a funny: “Today’s Democrat party has, I believe, fallen prey to the most liberal wing of the party and is leaving behind millions of moderates in the party who won’t vote for more taxing and spending.”

    As opposed to the GOP which has cut taxes and raised spending resulting in a nearly 3.5 trillion dollar increase in national debt in 7.3 years.

    Don’t know about your household, but in mine, we increase our income when we increase our spending. It is how we keep from going bankrupt. Democrats actually have the right idea. If you spend more, you must pay for it with more revenue. Republicans spend more and charge it to the next generation and the one after that, all the time proclaiming what magicians they are. But, of course, they are not magicians, they are frauds. They have raised taxes 3.5 trillion dollars on future tax payers.

    That is more than Democrats would have raised them if they had control of government during the last 7.3 years. I can say that because Democrats would not have invaded Iraq, and run up a minimum 1 trillion dollar debt in doing so.

    Posted by: David R. Remer at April 12, 2008 4:38 AM
    Comment #250412

    David Remer found my comment amusing, but you will notice, didn’t refute it. Instead, Daivd finds solace in comparing bad spending habits of both parties. I am a conservative and vote for candidates at all level of public office based upon their belief in fiscal sanity as well as other issues.

    The first step to fiscal sanity is passing of the FairTax and repeal of the 16th Amendment. We will be the only nation in the world able to ship our products to others with no embedded tax making our products the most competitive in the world.

    The exodus to America of jobs and capital in the wake of passing the FairTax will solve many, if not most, of our economic problems and restore America the the preeminence it once enjoyed.

    Posted by: Jim M at April 12, 2008 12:52 PM
    Comment #250435

    Jim M, I’m fiscally conervative too.
    The Fair Tax doesn’t have a chance of getting passed, since fewer than 90 of 435 Congress persons support it.
    Also, there little fair about it.
    It is more regressive than the current tax system.
    Here’s a better tax system.

    Posted by: d.a.n at April 12, 2008 7:49 PM
    Comment #250436

    CORRECTION: Jim M, I’m fiscally conervative conservative too.

    Posted by: d.a.n at April 12, 2008 7:50 PM
    Comment #250437
    The exodus to America of jobs and capital in the wake of passing the FairTax will solve many, if not most, of our economic problems and restore America the the preeminence it once enjoyed.
    Only fixing the tax system is not enough. The tax system is only one of these 10 abuses that need to be stopped.

    The monetary system is messed up too. That’s part of why the U.S. Dollar is falling like a rock: one-simple-idea.com/USD_Falling.htm

    And 7 wars in the past 90 years doesn’t help.
    Especially when some of those wars were probably avoidable, and unnecessary.

    Lawlessness (in general) is a problem.
    Violent crime rates are rising after falling for several years.

    Otherwise, these economic statistics will continue to get worse, which have never been worse ever, and/or since the 1930s and 1940s.

    However, nothing is likely to get better as long as too many voters continue to repeatedly reward too many irresponsible incumbent politicians with 93%-to-99% re-election rates.

    Posted by: d.a.n at April 12, 2008 8:03 PM
    Comment #250474

    d.a.n. how many votes does the FlatTax have? None. There is not even a bill in the House is there? Iam sure you know that it took decades before we had a permanent income tax and it took the 16th Amendment to accomplish its birth. Hopefully it won’t take decades for the FairTax to be implemented. Does the FlatTax require appeal of the 16th Amendment?

    Nearly everyone knows we need a drastic change in how we tax ourselves. That alone is a good first step. More will follow and when we reach a critical mass the nation can decide which replacement is best.

    Posted by: Jim M at April 13, 2008 2:48 PM
    Comment #250486
    Jim M wrote: d.a.n. how many votes does the FlatTax have? None.
    Not true.

    There are flat tax BILLs.
    Here’s one last year: S.1081 Flat Tax Act of 2007
    in year 1998 (H.R. 1040 - The Armey-Shelby Flat Tax and H.R. 2001 - The National Retail Sales Tax Act), and year 2002, (H.R. 4585. It was a flat income tax. It was proposed by former Congressman Dick Armey (R-TX) and introduced the Freedom and Fairness Restoration Act. But it was not passed.

    But based on polls, most Americans support a Flat Income Tax (not the FairTax, which isn’t fair at all; not on the middle-income group).

    For example, see:

  • www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed102804b.cfm

  • www.freedomworks.org/informed/issues_template.php?issue_id=2253

  • www.article-5.org/mod/choice/view.php?id=87 (here’s the results of a survey I ran; 69% preferred the flat income tax)
  • Jim M wrote: There is not even a bill in the House is there?
    BILL (S.1081 Flat Tax Act of 2007) was introduced one year ago by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA): www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s1081/show
    Jim M wrote: I am sure you know that it took decades before we had a permanent income tax and it took the 16th Amendment to accomplish its birth.
    Did you know that there are a large number of people dispute whether the 16th Amendment was actually ratified by three-fourths of the states?

    I suspect it was not, but I can not prove it.

    Jim M wrote: Hopefully it won’t take decades for the FairTax to be implemented.
    I do not think the FairTax will ever be implemented, because it is very easy to show how it will be regressive.

    The problem with taxing spending is that is regressive (not just in theory, but in practice), unless the prebates are huge, or everyone spends an equal percentage of their income. The tax curve is regressive. Is regressive taxation fair?

    Here’s part of the FairTax.org’s 30% Sales Tax fraud … (see: www.fairtax.org/PDF/WhatIsTheDifferenceBetweenTaxRates.pdf) Page 4 of FairTax.org’s 30% Sales Tax example.

    Notice that their table omits income. How convenient.
    Why is that?
    That’s because they don’t want you looking at tax relative to income.

    _____________ FairTax (for example above for family of 4) ______________
    POPL = Percent of Poverty Level ($25,660 for family of 4)
    Eff.Tax = Effective Tax

    POPL _ Spending __FairTax___Prebate _NetTax_____Eff.Tax
    25% ___ $6415 ____ $1,475 __ $5,902 _ ($4,427) _ -69.0%
    50% ___ $12,830 __ $2,951 __ $5,902 _ ($2,951) _ -23.0%
    100% __ $25,660 __ $5,902 __ $5,902 _______ $0 ___ 0.0%
    150% __ $38,490 __ $8,853 __ $5,902 ___ $2,951 ___ 7.7%
    200% __ $51,320 __ $11,804 _ $5,902 ___ $5,902 __ 11.5%
    300% __ $76,980 __ $17,705 _ $5,902 __ $11,903 __ 15.3%
    400% __ $102,640 _ $23,607 _ $5,902 __ $17,705 __ 17.2%

    Now, let’s add the Income and IncomeTaxRate columns (what the FairTax.org 30% Sales Tax proponents don’t want you to see)

    POPL _ Spending __FairTax___Prebate _NetTax_____Eff.Tax _ Income __IncomeTaxRate
    25% ___ $6415 ____ $1,475 __ $5,902 _ ($4,427) _ -69.0% _ $8,000 __ -49.7%
    50% ___ $12,830 __ $2,951 __ $5,902 _ ($2,951) _ -23.0% _ $15,000 _ -13.7%
    100% __ $25,660 __ $5,902 __ $5,902 _______ $0 ___ 0.0% _ $27,000 __ 6.65%
    150% __ $38,490 __ $8,853 __ $5,902 ___ $2,951 ___ 7.7% _ $40,000 _ 14.11%
    200% __ $51,320 __ $11,804 _ $5,902 ___ $5,902 __ 11.5% _ $53,000 _ 17.91%
    300% __ $76,980 __ $17,705 _ $5,902 __ $11,903 __ 15.3% _ $200,000 _ 8.60%
    400% __ $102,640 _ $23,607 _ $5,902 __ $17,705 __ 17.2% _ $500,000 _ 4.98%

    Notice the falling income tax percentages for the wealthy?

    _____________ FairTax (for example above for family of 4) ______________
    30% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
    27% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
    24% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
    21% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
    18% _ _ _ x _x_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
    15% _ _ x _ _ _ _x_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
    12% _ _x_ _ _ _ _ _ _ x _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
    09% _ x _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
    06% _x_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
    03% x _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
    00% x _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x_ _ _ _ x
    __$0K $30K 50K 100K __ 200K __ 300K __ 400K __ 500K __ … GROSS INCOME

    It’s very clever.
    The tax percentage on the wealthy could easily be very small.
    However, the FairTax.org’s 30% Tax System can NOT prove that tax rates relative to income will be somewhat equal. Not when taxes are based on spending. The rebate only makes the lowest part of the curve progressive. After the prebate runs out (i.e. becomes insignificant as income rises), it is essentially nothing more than a flat 30% Sales Tax, and all flat sales taxes are regressive unless everyone spends an equal percentage of their income.

    Also, it is questionable whether the FairTax could raise sufficient revenues.

    However, if the people fall for a 30% National Sales tax (23% inclusive tax), it will be just one more of many regressive systems that have been foisted upon them in the past 30 years that will accelerate the current and worsening disparity trend. Anyone that thinks taxing spending is the fairest way to tax had better ask themselves two questions:

    • (1) WHO is pushing the un-FairTax.org’s 30 National Sales Tax? WHO is throwing a lot of money and lobbyists at this tax 30% National Sales tax system.

    • (2)And WHY ?
    People had better take a look at the math (see table above). There is NO way to prove that taxing spending will not be REGRESSIVE. Historically, taxing spending is always regressive, and the puny rebate is insignificant, except at the lowest income level. The claims that the rebate makes the 30% Sales Tax system progressive is barely a half-truth. People can get their education the smart way, or the hard way.

    Here is the currnt tax system …
    _________Current REGRESSIVE TAX System:________________
    35% |- - - - - - - - - - o - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    33% |- - - - - - - -o- - - - - o - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    30% |- - - - - - o - - - - - - - - -o- - - - - - - - - - - - - - = (30% total
    27% |- - - - - -o- - - - - - - - - - - - -o- - - - - - - - - - - - federal tax for
    24% |- - - - - o - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -o- - - - - - - - - secretay making $60K)
    21% |- - - - -o- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -o- - - - -
    18% |- - - - o - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - o = (17.7% Warren
    15% |- - - -o- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Buffet’s total
    12% |- - - o - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - federal taxes on
    09% |- - -o- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $46 Million)
    06% |- - o - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    03% |- -o- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    00% |o o - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    ____$0__30K__60K__90K_120K_150K_180K_210K_240K … … $thousand$ …


    Here is a better tax system …
    _____FLAT (NEUTRAL) 17% INCOME TAX (only on income above poverty level):______
    17% |_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _o_ _ o
    16% |_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ o _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
    14% |_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _o_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
    12% |_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ o _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
    10% |_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ o _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
    08% |_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ o _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
    06% |_ _ _ _ _ _o_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
    04% |_ _ _ _o_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
    02% |_ _ o _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
    00% |o o _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
    ____$0__30K__60K__90K_120K_150K_180K_210K_240K … … $thousand$ …

    Jim M wrote: Does the FlatTax require appeal of the 16th Amendment?
    No. But the FairTax would require an change to the Constitution to repeal the 16th Amendment. That will be very difficult.
    Jim M wrote: Nearly everyone knows we need a drastic change in how we tax ourselves. That alone is a good first step. More will follow and when we reach a critical mass the nation can decide which replacement is best.
    You may want to study it closer.

    There is a devious nature of the FairTax plan.
    It will be the most regressive tax system ever devised (more regressive than the current tax system).

    Posted by: d.a.n at April 13, 2008 4:26 PM
    Comment #250536

    d.a.n. thanks for the rebuttal and the dizzying charts you included. Your Flat Tax is just more of the same, an income tax. Taxing income vs taxing spending is at the core of the difference between the Flat Tax and FairTax. Continuing to tax income will continue the inherent problems causing our capital and jobs to flee our shores.

    I found this assessment by former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan interesting. To summarize the effect of the FairTax, Greenspan concluded that the within months of enactment most offshore money would come back into American markets.

    The Flat Tax will not make the U.S. more competitive around the world as it will remain an embedded tax in all goods and services produced by our country which makes it difficult for us to compete and is directly responsible for our fleeing jobs.

    d.a.n. no matter how you wrap your Flat Tax turkey, it is just more of the same, an income tax. Today, more than 130 nations utilize a Value Added Tax. 29 members of the 30 member Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) have adopted a VAT or general sales tax with the U.S. being the only exception.

    Your Flat Tax remains prey to political pandering and lobbying for special interests…not possible with a FairTax.

    Posted by: Jim M at April 14, 2008 1:04 PM
    Comment #250547
    Jim M. wrote: d.a.n. thanks for the rebuttal and the dizzying charts you included. Your Flat Tax is just more of the same, an income tax. Taxing income vs taxing spending is at the core of the difference between the Flat Tax and FairTax. Continuing to tax income will continue the inherent problems causing our capital and jobs to flee our shores.
    Not true. If you read the entire plan, the 17% flat income tax system I propose eliminates corporate income taxes, since those are merely passed on to consumers as a hidden tax, and make U.S. exports to other nations more expensive.
    Jim M. wrote: I found this assessment by former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan interesting. To summarize the effect of the FairTax, Greenspan concluded that the within months of enactment most offshore money would come back into American markets.
    Maybe. If so, so would the 17% flat income tax system, since it also removes income taxes on corporations. The only difference is that the flat tax is fairer, because ALL sales taxes are regressive, despite the rebate, which only protects the lower-income group, but still lets the wealthy pay very small tax rates. Thus, the middle class would get hammered. There’s a reason for the strange hump on that unFairTax curve. It is very easy to demonstrate how the wealthy will pay an extremely small percentage of all taxes. Especially when capital gains, interest, and dividends (a huge majority of the type of income that most wealthy have) would be completely tax free!
    Jim M. wrote: The Flat Tax will not make the U.S. more competitive around the world as it will remain an embedded tax in all goods and services produced by our country which makes it difficult for us to compete and is directly responsible for our fleeing jobs.
    Not true.

    Again, the 17% flat income tax system I propose eliminates corporate income taxes, since those are merely passed on to consumers as a hidden tax, and make U.S. exports to other nations more expensive.

    Jim M. wrote: d.a.n. no matter how you wrap your Flat Tax turkey, it is just more of the same, an income tax.
    False.

    No matter how you wrap the unFairTax fraud, it is a regressive and dangerous tax system, and that is why it will never be passed.
    There is more support in Congress and nation-wide for a flat income tax, than any other type of tax.

    Jim M. wrote: Today, more than 130 nations utilize a Value Added Tax. 29 members of the 30 member Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) have adopted a VAT or general sales tax with the U.S. being the only exception.
    The current tax system is regressive. The unFairTax system will be even more severely regressive. All sales taxes are regressive. That’s not a mere theory. That is what is demonstrated in practice by all sales taxes.
    Jim M. wrote: Your Flat Tax remains prey to political pandering and lobbying for special interests…not possible with a FairTax.
    All tax system are vulnerable to that.

    The unFairTax requires a change to the Constitution (i.e. 16th Amendment), making it doubly unlikely to ever be passed.

    Again, most Americans polled agree that a flat income tax (on all income; no tax loop holes) is the fairest system, and the tax curve supports that.
    The 17% flat income tax means that everyone pays the very same 17% on ALL income ABOVE the poverty level.

    Here’s another example of the unFairTax 30% Sales Tax for a single person.

    _____________ FairTax (for example, for 1 single person) ______________
    POPL = Percent of Poverty Level ($10,400 for a single person)
    Eff.Tax = Effective Tax

    POPL _ Spending __ FairTax___Prebate __NetTax___ Eff.Tax
    25% ____ $6,415 ___ $1,925 __ $2,392 __ ($ 467) __ -7.3%
    50% ___ $12,830 ___ $3,849 __ $2,392 __ $1,457 __ 11.4%
    100% __ $25,660 ___ $7,698 __ $2,392 ___ $5,306 __ 20.7%
    150% __ $38,490 __ $11,547 __ $2,392 ___ $9,155 __ 23.8%
    200% __ $51,320 __ $15,396 __ $2,392 __ $13,004 __ 25.3%
    300% __ $76,980 __ $23,094 __ $2,392 __ $20,702 __ 26.9%
    400% __ $102,640 _ $30,792 __ $2,392 __ $28,400 __ 27.7%

    Now, let’s add the Income and IncomeTaxRate columns (what the FairTax.org 30% Sales Tax proponents don’t want you to see)

    POPL _ Spending __ FairTax___Prebate __NetTax___ Eff.Tax _ Income __IncomeTaxRate
    25% ____ $6,415 ___ $1,925 __ $2,392 __ ($ 467) __ -7.3% _ $8,000 __ -240.7%
    50% ___ $12,830 ___ $3,849 __ $2,392 __ $1,457 __ 11.4% _ $15,000 ____ 9.7%
    100% __ $25,660 ___ $7,698 __ $2,392 ___ $5,306 __ 20.7% _ $27,000 ___ 19.7%
    150% __ $38,490 __ $11,547 __ $2,392 ___ $9,155 __ 23.8% _ $40,000 ___ 22.9%
    200% __ $51,320 __ $15,396 __ $2,392 __ $13,004 __ 25.3% _ $53,000 ___ 24.5%
    300% __ $76,980 __ $23,094 __ $2,392 __ $20,702 __ 26.9% _ $200,000 __ 10.6%
    400% __ $102,640 _ $30,792 __ $2,392 __ $28,400 __ 27.7% _ $500,000 ___ 5.7%

    Notice the falling income tax percentages for the wealthy?

    _____________ FairTax (for example above for family of 4) ______________
    30% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
    27% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
    24% _ _ _ x x _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
    21% _ _ _x_ _ x _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
    18% _ _ x _ _ _ x _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
    15% _ _x_ _ _ _ _ x _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
    12% _ _x_ _ _ _ _ _ _x_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
    09% _ x _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
    06% _x_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
    03% _x_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ x
    00% x _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
    __$0K $30K 50K 100K __ 200K __ 300K __ 400K __ 500K __ … GROSS INCOME

    That is severely regressive.
    Have you ever noticed how the FairTax.org web-site always omits the last two columns?
    They do not want you to see the real IncomeTaxRate, because it is regressive.
    Beware. The unFairTax 30% Sales Tax system is a fraud to add to these 10 existing abuses hammering middle-income Americans, resulting in thesee economic conditions that have never been worse ever, and/or since the 1930s and 1940s.

    Can you provide some proof that the unFairTax 30% Sales Tax system will not be regressive?
    Have you actually done the math yourself?
    I have.
    I initially thought the unFairTax 30% Sales Tax may have some merit, until I ran the numbers over and over, from all aspects.
    It’s not as complicated as some want to make it.
    The unFairTax 30% Sales Tax is quite simply regressive, as are ALL sales taxes.
    Take any sales tax and try to prove it is not regressive.
    The unFairTax people will try to tell you the unFairTax is progressive, but that is only true at the bottom of the tax scale.
    The clever deception is what happens as income grows.
    When only sales are taxed, a wealthy person could pay as little as 1% in taxes (e.g. $1 Million tax on $3.33 Million spending, despite a $100 Million income from capital gains, dividends, and interest).
    Is that what you want?
    If enough Americans want that (which they don’t, fortunately), they should have it.
    Sometimes, the best lesson is the lesson learned the hard and painful way.

    Posted by: d.a.n at April 14, 2008 4:16 PM
    Comment #250548
    Jim M. wrote: d.a.n. thanks for the rebuttal and the dizzying charts you included. Your Flat Tax is just more of the same, an income tax. Taxing income vs taxing spending is at the core of the difference between the Flat Tax and FairTax. Continuing to tax income will continue the inherent problems causing our capital and jobs to flee our shores.
    Not true. If you read the entire plan, the 17% flat income tax system I propose eliminates corporate income taxes, since those are merely passed on to consumers as a hidden tax, and make U.S. exports to other nations more expensive.
    Jim M. wrote: I found this assessment by former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan interesting. To summarize the effect of the FairTax, Greenspan concluded that the within months of enactment most offshore money would come back into American markets.
    Maybe. If so, so would the 17% flat income tax system, since it also removes income taxes on corporations. The only difference is that the flat tax is fairer, because ALL sales taxes are regressive, despite the rebate, which only protects the lower-income group, but still lets the wealthy pay very small tax rates. Thus, the middle class would get hammered. There’s a reason for the strange hump on that unFairTax curve. It is very easy to demonstrate how the wealthy will pay an extremely small percentage of all taxes. Especially when capital gains, interest, and dividends (a huge majority of the type of income that most wealthy have) would be completely tax free!
    Jim M. wrote: The Flat Tax will not make the U.S. more competitive around the world as it will remain an embedded tax in all goods and services produced by our country which makes it difficult for us to compete and is directly responsible for our fleeing jobs.
    Not true.

    Again, the 17% flat income tax system I propose eliminates corporate income taxes, since those are merely passed on to consumers as a hidden tax, and make U.S. exports to other nations more expensive.

    Jim M. wrote: d.a.n. no matter how you wrap your Flat Tax turkey, it is just more of the same, an income tax.
    False.

    No matter how you wrap the unFairTax fraud, it is a regressive and dangerous tax system, and that is why it will never be passed.
    There is more support in Congress and nation-wide for a flat income tax, than any other type of tax.

    Jim M. wrote: Today, more than 130 nations utilize a Value Added Tax. 29 members of the 30 member Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) have adopted a VAT or general sales tax with the U.S. being the only exception.
    It does not matter. Most Americans do not like the unFairTax.

    They do not like the current tax system either.
    Most Americans are smart enough to know that a flat income tax on all income (remove tax loopholes) is the fairest system.
    That is substantiated by many polls.

    The current tax system is regressive, and the unFairTax system will be even more severely regressive, because ALL sales taxes are regressive.
    That’s not a mere theory.
    That is what is demonstrated in practice by ALL sales taxes.
    It is not hard to prove mathematically.

    Jim M. wrote: Your Flat Tax remains prey to political pandering and lobbying for special interests…not possible with a FairTax.
    All tax system are vulnerable to that.

    The unFairTax requires a change to the Constitution (i.e. 16th Amendment), making it doubly unlikely to ever be passed.

    Again, most Americans polled agree that a flat income tax (on all income; no tax loop holes) is the fairest system, and the tax curve supports that.
    The 17% flat income tax means that everyone pays the very same 17% on ALL income ABOVE the poverty level.

    Here’s another example of the unFairTax 30% Sales Tax for a single person.

    _____________ FairTax (for example, for 1 single person) ______________
    POPL = Percent of Poverty Level ($10,400 for a single person)
    Eff.Tax = Effective Tax

    POPL _ Spending __ FairTax___Prebate __NetTax___ Eff.Tax
    25% ____ $6,415 ___ $1,925 __ $2,392 __ ($ 467) __ -7.3%
    50% ___ $12,830 ___ $3,849 __ $2,392 __ $1,457 __ 11.4%
    100% __ $25,660 ___ $7,698 __ $2,392 ___ $5,306 __ 20.7%
    150% __ $38,490 __ $11,547 __ $2,392 ___ $9,155 __ 23.8%
    200% __ $51,320 __ $15,396 __ $2,392 __ $13,004 __ 25.3%
    300% __ $76,980 __ $23,094 __ $2,392 __ $20,702 __ 26.9%
    400% __ $102,640 _ $30,792 __ $2,392 __ $28,400 __ 27.7%

    Now, let’s add the Income and IncomeTaxRate columns (what the FairTax.org 30% Sales Tax proponents don’t want you to see)

    POPL _ Spending __ FairTax___Prebate __NetTax___ Eff.Tax _ Income __IncomeTaxRate
    25% ____ $6,415 ___ $1,925 __ $2,392 __ ($ 467) __ -7.3% _ $8,000 __ -240.7%
    50% ___ $12,830 ___ $3,849 __ $2,392 __ $1,457 __ 11.4% _ $15,000 ____ 9.7%
    100% __ $25,660 ___ $7,698 __ $2,392 ___ $5,306 __ 20.7% _ $27,000 ___ 19.7%
    150% __ $38,490 __ $11,547 __ $2,392 ___ $9,155 __ 23.8% _ $40,000 ___ 22.9%
    200% __ $51,320 __ $15,396 __ $2,392 __ $13,004 __ 25.3% _ $53,000 ___ 24.5%
    300% __ $76,980 __ $23,094 __ $2,392 __ $20,702 __ 26.9% _ $200,000 __ 10.6%
    400% __ $102,640 _ $30,792 __ $2,392 __ $28,400 __ 27.7% _ $500,000 ___ 5.7%

    Notice the falling income tax percentages for the wealthy?

    _____________ FairTax (for example above for family of 4) ______________
    30% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
    27% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
    24% _ _ _ x x _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
    21% _ _ _x_ _ x _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
    18% _ _ x _ _ _ x _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
    15% _ _x_ _ _ _ _ x _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
    12% _ _x_ _ _ _ _ _ _x_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
    09% _ x _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
    06% _x_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
    03% _x_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ x
    00% x _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
    __$0K $30K 50K 100K __ 200K __ 300K __ 400K __ 500K __ … GROSS INCOME

    That is severely regressive.
    Have you ever noticed how the FairTax.org web-site always omits the last two columns?
    They do not want you to see the real IncomeTaxRate, because it is regressive.
    Beware. The unFairTax 30% Sales Tax system is a fraud to add to these 10 existing abuses hammering middle-income Americans, resulting in thesee economic conditions that have never been worse ever, and/or since the 1930s and 1940s.

    Can you provide some proof that the unFairTax 30% Sales Tax system will not be regressive?
    Have you actually done the math yourself?
    I have.
    I initially thought the unFairTax 30% Sales Tax may have some merit, until I ran the numbers over and over, from all aspects.
    It’s not as complicated as some want to make it.
    The unFairTax 30% Sales Tax is quite simply regressive, as are ALL sales taxes.
    Take any sales tax and try to prove it is not regressive.
    The unFairTax people will try to tell you the unFairTax is progressive, but that is only true at the bottom of the tax scale.
    The clever deception is what happens as income grows.
    When only sales are taxed, a wealthy person could pay as little as 1% in taxes (e.g. $1 Million tax on $3.33 Million spending, despite a $100 Million income from capital gains, dividends, and interest).
    Is that what you want?
    If enough Americans want that (which they don’t, fortunately), they should have it.
    Sometimes, the best lesson is the lesson learned the hard and painful way.

    At any rate, run the numbers and see if you can get the curve above to not be regressive beyond the middle-income region.
    Those numbers above come from the FairTax.org’s own web-site.
    Play around with it, and you will see that the curve above is regressive on the middle-income group.
    Nobody is arguing that the pre-bates will untax the poor.
    The issue (the problem) is that the unFairTax 30% sales tax hammers the middle-income group.

    Posted by: d.a.n at April 14, 2008 4:21 PM
    Comment #250550

    CORRECTION: _____________ FairTax (for example above for family of 4 single person) ______________

    Posted by: d.a.n at April 14, 2008 4:32 PM
    Comment #250559

    Sorry for double-post. I must have hit the wrong key without realizing it.

    Posted by: d.a.n at April 14, 2008 6:05 PM
    Comment #250564

    d.a.n. Using a 30% tax rate rather than the actually proposed rate of 23% is helping to skew your graph. Please explain to me how spending at 100% of the Poverty Level of $10,400 is $25,660.

    The biggest fraud in your graph depicts someone earning $500,000 spending only $102,640. Where in the world does this data come from? Just for comparison, let’s suppose this high earner spends $300,000 of the $500,000 income. The FairTax then becomes $90,000 (using your incorrect 30%) rather than the $30,792 you show and $120,000 if he spends $400,000 of his income.

    And, if this high earner spends nothing of his income beyond the basic necessities covered by the rebate he pays no taxes, 0%. Simple logic tells us that this person making $500,000 will pay taxes of somewhere between 23% of all of it or 23% of none of it depending upon how much he spends.

    Let’s also suppose this high earner purchases a home for $2 million. He will then pay $600,000 (again using your 30% figure) in FairTax. In this case his tax rate becomes 120%.

    Most normal people spend according to their means. The more we make the more we spend. We attempt to earn more so we can spend more. If that were not true, why even bother to earn more than what is necessary for our basic needs.

    And finally d.a.n. let’s address your hypothetical person earning $100 million in capital gains and dividends with no earned income. Today that person is taxed at 15% on those earnings which are being used and spent. That same person under the FairTax will be taxed at 23% on those earnings that are spent.

    And maybe that very rich person will purchase a new home, new Mercedes, or new yacht and pay 23% in taxes on the principle used for those purchases. Under our present tax code or your Flat Tax, no taxes will ever be paid on the principle sum generating those dividends and capital gains no matter how much of that principle he spends. With the FairTax when the rich person spends some of the principle he/she will pay a tax of 23%.

    Hoarding the money and not spending it is the only way to escape paying the FairTax. And eventually, the estate will pass to heirs who may not be so frugal.

    Posted by: Jim M at April 14, 2008 7:44 PM
    Comment #250590

    McCain is now under investigation and suit for breaking the campaign finance law. What Finance Law? The McCain-Feingold law. The man won’t even observe his own laws, let alone that of others.

    McCain now says suspend the gas tax. Which of course will drive the deficit and debt yet higher.

    Couple days ago he said bail out homeowners. That of course was a couple days after he said no bailouts from government, period.

    Over a month ago, he said he would keep the Bush tax cuts (raising the deficit and debt yet higher). But that was after he voted previously against the Bush tax cuts in the Senate.

    McCain is proving to be the man for every voter. Tax cuts? You got it. Balanced budget? You got it. Protecting American jobs? You got it. Increasing immigration to keep wages low? You got it. Trade agreements with conditions good for America? You got it. Enforcement of those conditions? You don’t got it, as tariffs are off the table. Campaign finance reform? You got it. Just don’t ask McCain to run his election campaigns by them.

    The man is a walking Contradiction. And America will be rudderless under his presidency. We are truly getting to know John McCain. The man who will promise anything to anyone at anytime to get elected to a position where he won’t have to listen to anyone again. Which is worse? Bush Jr. or McCain. It is getting very difficult to tell anymore.

    Posted by: David R. Remer at April 15, 2008 10:31 AM
    Comment #250594

    JimM, and if wealthy person’s earnings are overseas, their investments overseas, and their expenditures made overseas? Give it a break, Jim. We all know for whom the Sales Tax Bell tolls and trolls.

    Aristocratic hoarding of wealth across blood line generations to rule over the have-nots, was a key concept our founders fought a revolutionary war to abolish. The vast majority of taxpayers believe the wealthy should be taxed AT LEAST at the same rate of income and earnings as the blue collar working class. And in a democratic republic, their will should prevail. The UnFair Tax plan would tell the blue collar working class to shoulder the lion’s share of the taxes the wealthy now pay. That is both contrary to the will of the people and democracy, and ethically and financially unsound for American government and America’s future.

    Sure, the UnFair Tax plan has some benefits for the economy along side some horrible, unethical, and unFair burdens. The current progressive income tax system is far more fair than a flat rate sales tax which shifts the tax burden from corporations and the wealthiest to the working middle class.

    The Flat Income Tax plan sidesteps that shift of tax burden from the wealthy to the non-wealthy making the rate the same for both on individual earnings, and while relieving corporations of taxation altogether.

    Another flaw of the Sales Tax Plan is this. The president and congress decide to go to war. The American public majority disagrees. The American public majority constrain consumption depriving the politicians of anticipated revenues to conduct the war, not to mention declining economic growth. The government then becomes the enemy of the people at large, and the people forced to protest in a manner that hurts them economically.

    Or, perhaps that is one of the fringe benefits the designers of the UnFair Sales Tax plan foresee, the prospect that the people would have no stomach for protesting government action through constraint of consumption, since that would harm the economy the protesters depend directly upon.

    Hence, politicians could raise the consumption tax without fear of public protest demonstrated reduced consumption.

    And if the UnFair Sales Tax proponents intend to tax foreign ordered products with a sales tax on the internet for such orders, does this not constitute a trade tariff against foreign made products? And would not foreign nation’s be given license in response to increase their tariffs?

    The UnFair Sales Tax plan is fraught with hidden intended and certainly unintended consequences by its proponents. You do realize that 7.2 million American citizens have chosen already to take up permanent residence overseas, right? And do you not see the advantage to the very wealthy to establish overseas residences for the purpose of making their expensive purchases, thus sidestepping the UnFair National Sales Tax in the U.S.? Or would we need government monitors to inspect what furnishings, clothing, art, jewelry, etc. they move between their foreign based residences and their multi-million dollar hovels here in the U.S.?

    It’s a STUPID plan for American workers and their families, with enormous windfalls for the super wealthy and wealthy investors.

    And one more question. Are you suggesting that Americans pay tax on what they consume in America but, that people of foreign nations may import our exports without paying the same sales tax? And if that is not what you are suggesting, then you obviously are a supporter of export tariffs, which a sales tax on exported American products and services would constitute. Sounds like the UnFair Sales Tax people have a greater love for the welfare of other nation’s workers than for our own, since they don’t believe in tariffs, but free and Unfair trade as well.

    Posted by: David R. Remer at April 15, 2008 11:04 AM
    Comment #250625

    Mr. Remer, thanks for your comments. I will attempt to address your main concerns.

    1. You must understand that corporations do not pay taxes, they merely collect taxes from the end user and pass along to government.

    2. Many American’s would like to have the opportunity to approve or disapprove of government actions (such as war which you mentioned) by virtue of their spending. The biggest complaint I read on this site, and others, is that we keep voting in the same old politicians and policies. With the FairTax we will have both the ballot box and our wallets to express our will. I think that’s great and so do many others.

    3. I don’t understand your internet sales tax on foreign purchases. Please explain more.

    4. Yes, Americans will pay the FairTax on every purchase they make. And another huge YES, that our exports to other nations will have no embedded tax as they now do.

    This will be of tremendous benefit to Americans as our products will enter their country at much lower prices. And, foreign manufacturers will rush to America to relocate their plants AND JOBS as we will be the world’s tax haven. They can produce and export their products from our shores with no taxes.

    Foreign products entering our country will contain that countries embedded taxes along with the 23% FairTax making their products much more expensive. American companies will finally have a level playing field with other countries spurring both jobs and investments in America. Please don’t confuse this with a tariff. When the same tax is levied on both domestic and foreign products it is not a tariff.

    The FairTax of 23% is revenue neutral and will collect the same amount of money now being collected thru the current income tax and payroll tax to pay for Social Security and Medicare.
    With our present income tax being embedded in every product we consume at home or send abroad, we are at a tremendous disadvantage with those European countries that already have a VAT or sales tax with no embedded tax in the products they send to our shores.

    Please reread my previous post that will help you understand that the wealthy who consume more will pay more. The poor will be much better off, and the middle income can decide for themselves when and on what to pay taxes. And, all savings and investments will grow with no taxation.

    Posted by: Jim M at April 15, 2008 3:16 PM
    Comment #250639
    Jim M wrote: d.a.n. Using a 30% tax rate rather than the actually proposed rate of 23% is helping to skew your graph.
    Not at all.

    Were you unaware that the FairTax.org’s tax is actually a 30% sales tax.
    That is, if the price of an item is $100 , the sales tax is $30.
    30/100 = 30% .
    The FairTax.org plan calls it a 23% tax (omitting the word sales), and cleverly gets the 23% = $30 / ($130).
    See how clever that is?
    At any rate, no matter which way you cut it, it is a 30% Sales tax.
    The prebate is not that different from the current personal deduction and standard exemptions ($5150 + $3300 in year 2006 for a single person).

    Jim M wrote: Please explain to me how spending at 100% of the Poverty Level of $10,400 is $25,660.
    Good point. That was a mistake. I forgot to update the POPL column, but it doesn’t change anything, since the tax curve is still regressive. Here is the updated table …

    _____________ FairTax (for example, for 1 single person) ______________
    POPL = Percent of Poverty Level ($10,400) for a single person
    Eff.Tax = Effective Tax

    POPL _ Spending __ FairTax___Prebate __NetTax___ Eff.Tax
    061% ___ $6,415 ___ $1,925 __ $2,392 __ ($ 467) __ -7.3%
    123% __ $12,830 ___ $3,849 __ $2,392 __ $1,457 __ 11.4%
    246% __ $25,660 ___ $7,698 __ $2,392 ___ $5,306 __ 20.7%
    370% __ $38,490 __ $11,547 __ $2,392 ___ $9,155 __ 23.8%
    200% __ $51,320 __ $15,396 __ $2,392 __ $13,004 __ 25.3%
    493% __ $76,980 __ $23,094 __ $2,392 __ $20,702 __ 26.9%
    987% __ $102,640 _ $30,792 __ $2,392 __ $28,400 __ 27.7%

    Now, let’s add the Income and IncomeTaxRate columns (what the FairTax.org 30% Sales Tax proponents don’t want you to see)

    POPL _ Spending __ FairTax___Prebate __NetTax___ Eff.Tax _ Income __IncomeTaxRate
    061% ___ $6,415 ___ $1,925 __ $2,392 __ ($ 467) __ -7.3% _ $8,000 __ -240.7%
    123% __ $12,830 ___ $3,849 __ $2,392 __ $1,457 __ 11.4% _ $15,000 ____ 9.7%
    246% __ $25,660 ___ $7,698 __ $2,392 ___ $5,306 __ 20.7% _ $27,000 ___ 19.7%
    370% __ $38,490 __ $11,547 __ $2,392 ___ $9,155 __ 23.8% _ $40,000 ___ 22.9%
    200% __ $51,320 __ $15,396 __ $2,392 __ $13,004 __ 25.3% _ $53,000 ___ 24.5%
    493% __ $76,980 __ $23,094 __ $2,392 __ $20,702 __ 26.9% _ $200,000 __ 10.6%
    987% __ $102,640 _ $30,792 __ $2,392 __ $28,400 __ 27.7% _ $500,000 ___ 5.7%

    Notice the falling income tax percentages for the wealthy?

    ___________________ FairTax (for single person) _________________________
    30% |_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
    27% |_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
    24% |_ _ _ _ x _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
    21% |_ _ _ x _ x _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
    18% |_ _ _ _ _ _ x _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
    15% |_ _ x _ _ _ _ x _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
    12% |_ _x_ _ _ _ _ _ _x_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
    09% |_ _x_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
    06% |_ x _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
    03% |_ x _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ x
    00% |xxx _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
    __$0K $30K 50K 100K __ 200K __ 300K __ 400K __ 500K __ … GROSS INCOME

    Jim M wrote: The biggest fraud in your graph depicts someone earning $500,000 spending only $102,640.
    Nonsense. A person making $500,000 might easily only spend $102,640. And a person making $20 Million could easily only spend $4 Million of it.
    Jim M wrote: Where in the world does this data come from?
    It comes from FairTax.org’s own web-site in the FAQ section.

    I simply added the Income column and IncomeTaxRate column, which unFairTax.org does not want you to see.

    Jim M wrote: Just for comparison, let’s suppose this high earner spends $300,000 of the $500,000 income. The FairTax then becomes $90,000 (using your incorrect 30%) rather than the $30,792 you show and $120,000 if he spends $400,000 of his income.
    If the wealthy spend a whole lot, they will pay a lot of sales tax. But that is unlikely. Especially with such a high 30% Sales tax.
    Jim M wrote: And, if this high earner spends nothing of his income beyond the basic necessities covered by the rebate he pays no taxes, 0%.
    Correct.
    Jim M wrote: Simple logic tells us that this person making $500,000 will pay taxes of somewhere between 23% of all of it or 23% of none of it depending upon how much he spends.
    You are making our case for us.

    Taxing spending is very unpredictable.
    The bad part is that the middle-income group will most likely have to spend a much larger percentage of their income, than the wealthy person.
    Thus, the middle-income group will get hammered.
    And with no taxes on capital gains, dividends, bonds, and interest, the rich will get very wealthy.
    The rich will absolutely love this sales tax system.
    The middle-class will not.
    But it ain’t gonna happen, because most Americans prefer a flat income tax rate system, such as this one.

    Jim M wrote: Let’s also suppose this high earner purchases a home for $2 million. He will then pay $600,000 (again using your 30% figure) in FairTax. In this case his tax rate becomes 120%.
    Yep. If that happens. And if a frog had wings, it wouldn’t bump its ass on the ground.

    With such a high 30% Sales tax, can you say “BLACK MARKET”.
    Also, all sales taxes are regressive, and a puny prebate won’t change that except for the very poor.

    Jim M wrote: Most normal people spend according to their means. The more we make the more we spend. We attempt to earn more so we can spend more. If that were not true, why even bother to earn more than what is necessary for our basic needs.
    Not true. People save if they can.

    And the wealthy can afford to save a lot more.
    Especially with a massive 30% Sales tax.

    Jim M wrote: And finally d.a.n. let’s address your hypothetical person earning $100 million in capital gains and dividends with no earned income. Today that person is taxed at 15% on those earnings which are being used and spent. That same person under the FairTax will be taxed at 23% on those earnings that are spent.
    Only if they spend all of it.

    And the current tax system is screwed up too; it is also regressive, with a 15% on capital gains, but most Americans pay a higher percentage on their payroll income tax.
    All that proves is that the current system is regressive too.
    It in no way diminishes the more fair 17% flat income tax (on all income above the poverty level), with no corporate taxes, and no other tax loop holes.

    Jim M wrote: And maybe that very rich person will purchase a new home, new Mercedes, or new yacht and pay 23% in taxes on the principle used for those purchases. Under our present tax code or your Flat Tax, no taxes will ever be paid on the principle sum generating those dividends and capital gains no matter how much of that principle he spends. With the FairTax when the rich person spends some of the principle he/she will pay a tax of 23%.
    Not true. Under the 17% Flat Income Tax (on income above the poverty level; no corporate taxes), all income (above the poverty level), including interest, dividend, and capital gains (when liquidated) would be taxed at the same flat 17%.
    Jim M wrote: Hoarding the money and not spending it is the only way to escape paying the FairTax. And eventually, the estate will pass to heirs who may not be so frugal.
    The wealthy can afford to hoard a lot of money, and watch it grow larger and larger, with no tax on dividends, interest, and capital gains.

    If they are dead, what does it matter. They can’t take it with them.
    The wealthy will absolutely love it. Cha Ching!

    Thus, your argument is weak, unless you can provide some real life examples that prove the unFairTax 30% Sales tax system can not be regressive.

    Jim M wrote: 1. You must understand that corporations do not pay taxes, they merely collect taxes from the end user and pass along to government.
    Agreed. And in my 17% Income Tax System, there would be no corporate taxes, so this is a dead issue.
    Jim M wrote: 2. Many American’s would like to have the opportunity to approve or disapprove of government actions (such as war which you mentioned) by virtue of their spending. The biggest complaint I read on this site, and others, is that we keep voting in the same old politicians and policies. With the FairTax we will have both the ballot box and our wallets to express our will. I think that’s great and so do many others.
    That would only affect disposable income. Not the income people must still spend to sustain themselves and their family.
    Jim M wrote: 4. Yes, Americans will pay the FairTax on every purchase they make. And another huge YES, that our exports to other nations will have no embedded tax as they now do.
    No one said there would be an embedded tax on exports. The question is, will exports also have the 30% Sales Tax imposed? If foreigners don’t pay the tax that Americans have to pay, you can rest assured of one thing in a big hurry: “BLACK MARKET” (which will probably occur anyway with such a large tax rate percentage).
    Jim M wrote: This will be of tremendous benefit to Americans as our products will enter their country at much lower prices. And, foreign manufacturers will rush to America to relocate their plants AND JOBS as we will be the world’s tax haven. They can produce and export their products from our shores with no taxes.
    Not likely. Labor costs are a much bigger factor than taxes.
    Jim M wrote: Foreign products entering our country will contain that countries embedded taxes along with the 23% FairTax making their products much more expensive.
    Great. That will be wonderful, by adding another 30% in taxes onto oil and other resources imported into the U.S.
    Jim M wrote: American companies will finally have a level playing field with other countries spurring both jobs and investments in America. Please don’t confuse this with a tariff. When the same tax is levied on both domestic and foreign products it is not a tariff.
    Still won’t work, because all sales taxes are regressive. It’s simply a fact. Not only mathematically, but in real life practice. Take any sales tax in existence and try to prove that it isn’t regressive. That’s why some clever people got together and said “let’s create a National Sales Tax”. Cha Ching!

    Who do you think will love this unFairTax.org 30% Sales Tax?
    Who do you think is funding the promotion of the unFairTax.org’s 30% Sales Tax?
    Who do you think is mostly for it (in Congress)?
    Look at this LIST.
    95% of the 91 supporters (only 17% of 535 persons) in Congress that support the unFairTax.org 30% Sales Tax are Republicans, and 63 of those 91 come from only these 7 states:

    • 06 Congress Persons from Oklahoma

    • 06 Congress Persons from Louisiana

    • 08 Congress Persons from California

    • 09 Congress Persons from Michigan

    • 10 Congress Persons from Florida

    • 11 Congress Persons from Georgia

    • 13 Congress Persons from Texas

    Jim M wrote: The FairTax of 23% is revenue neutral …
    False. You are simply repeating what you’ve read somewhere without providing a mathematical proof.
    Jim M wrote: and will collect the same amount of money now being collected thru the current income tax and payroll tax to pay for Social Security and Medicare
    False. There is no proof of that.

    There is no easy way to prove it, since it all depends on spending.
    Incomes do not vary nearly as widely and spending.
    Incomes number in the hundreds of millions per year, and the employ and employer both track those numbers (adding transparency).
    Sales transactions number in the billions per day, and the consumer does not track those numbers (reducing transparency).
    Thus, there will most likely be massive fraud, with many merchants pocketing the sales tax, and policing billions of transactions per day will be impossible, compared to monitoring the much smaller number of incomes (i.e. hundreds of millions of incomes per year).

    In fact, some studies have show that it will most unlikely not produce sufficient revenues.

    Accurate proof is impossible, since taxes are dependent on regressive sales taxes, which means tax revenues can not be accurately determined.

    Jim M wrote: With our present income tax being embedded in every product we consume at home or send abroad, we are at a tremendous disadvantage with those European countries that already have a VAT or sales tax with no embedded tax in the products they send to our shores.
    The current tax system is flawed.

    That is why the proposed 17% Income Tax Rate system would eliminate the corporate taxes, which are like hidden sales taxes that are passed onto comsumers.

    Jim M wrote: Please reread my previous post that will help you understand that the wealthy who consume more will pay more.
    Not likely. There is no proof of that, and there is certainly no proof that the wealthy will spend enough to pay about the same effective income tax rate.

    And if that is the goal, to pay about the same income tax rate, why not tax income instead?

    Jim M wrote: The poor will be much better off, and the middle income can decide for themselves when and on what to pay taxes.
    False. While the poor will still not pay much tax (if any), the middle-income group will get hammered, and the rich will easily be able to pay very low taxes as a percentage of their income.
    Jim M wrote: And, all savings and investments will grow with no taxation.
    For the rich mostly. Cha Ching!

    Most Americans will not go for the unFairTax.org’s 30% Sales tax.
    They understand that all sales taxes are regressive.
    Especially a massive 30% Sales tax.
    Do the math yourself.
    Don’t fall for the unFairTax Fraud.

    There is the possibility of another type of tax system that has NO taxes, but it would require many changes to the monetary system, and new attitudes and new ways of thinking about money.
    Here’s how it would work.
    (1) First, pass a new Monetary System Amendment.
    (2) The federal government controls the monetary system and money supply.
    (3) The federal government creates the money it needs, interest free, and controls the money-supply.
    (4) The federal government prohibit usury (interest) by the government and member banks (under-cutting anyone who lends with interest). If a lot of interest is bad (i.e. usury is immoral), how can a little interest be good? If inflation is bad, how is a little inflation good?
    (5) This creates a stable money supply with the flexibility for small fluctuations. If inflation is too high, some money in circulation can be removed. If there is deflation, or the population increases, the government can create and spend some money.
    (6) If the federal government does a bad job of it (i.e. creating too much inflation or deflation), the voters know exactly who to hold accountable. They can’t do much worse than the current Federal Reserve causing the drastic fall of the U.S. Dollar since 1999 ( one-simple-idea.com/USD_Falling.htm ). Currently, the Federal Reserve is a quasi-privately owned/government controlled bank, and the voters have little (if any) control over it. Why would people borrow from a bank (with interest) when they can borrow from the government, interest free? Thus, there would be little (if any) usury. Usury, predatory lending, other manifestations of unchecked greed, and the other numerous negative side effects would be greatly reduced. If properly managed, without profit and usury as a motive, the U.S. currency would be stable, and become the most preferred currency in the world.

    Posted by: d.a.n at April 15, 2008 5:52 PM
    Comment #250648

    d.a.n. did you ever hear about the guy who was so slick he could steal the shortening from a biscuit without breaking the crust? You’re not him.

    Some get it and some never will. Jim

    Posted by: Jim M at April 15, 2008 7:53 PM
    Comment #250708
    Jim M wrote: d.a.n. did you ever hear about the guy who was so slick he could steal the shortening from a biscuit without breaking the crust? You’re not him.
    I understand your frustration with the inability to adequately defend your position. Otherwise, you would have simply provided the proof to support your position. But that is indeed difficult when the evidence does not exist.
    Jim M wrote: Some get it and some never will.
    That is very true, as demonstrated by the comments above. If you want your comments to have credibility, simply show the proof that the unFairTax.org 30% Sales Tax system will not be regressive. Good luck, since all sales taxes are regressive.

    Fortunately, most Americans “get it”, which is why they reject the fraudulent unFairTax.org 30% Sales Tax, and prefer a flat income tax, such as this 17% Income Tax System.

    Posted by: d.a.n at April 16, 2008 1:23 PM
    Comment #250719

    Actually d.a.n. it isn’t frustration on my part, but rather the reality that you continue to refuse to respond to my points and just continue with your rant. The 23% as proposed in the actual bill vs your imagined 30% is just mathematical manipulation.

    When I answer your questions about the rich paying more you respond with “what if” and other nonsense. You go against all of human history and say that the rich won’t spend their money. You say there will be a huge underground economy and want me to prove there won’t be.

    Your biggest error is failing to understand that it is our embedded income tax in every product sold both here and abroad that is causing our job loss and flight of capital. Replacing our God-awful income tax with just another God-awful income tax won’t change how we compete in world markets.

    You make no comment to my reference of the 29 members of OECD that already have a VAT or sales tax to help them compete well in the world. Only the U.S. out of the 30 members remains with the outdated income tax which you believe should remain to stifle our job market and capital markets.

    I could go on d.a.n. but you won’t respond to my comments so why bother. Your charts and graphs have proven inaccurate by your own admission. I will listen to Jay Leno’s monologue, but from you, I expect a dialog.

    Posted by: Jim M at April 16, 2008 2:47 PM
    Comment #250747
    Jim M wrote: Actually d.a.n. it isn’t frustration on my part, but rather the reality that you continue to refuse to respond to my points and just continue with your rant.
    Nonsense.

    The frustration is obvious, as often revealed when people resort to personal/character attacks when they are unable to adequately defend their position.
    As a resort, people often turn themselves into a pretzel trying to defend a position that is indefensible.

    Jim M wrote: The 23% as proposed in the actual bill vs your imagined 30% is just mathematical manipulation.
    False. That is a clever fraud.

    The BILL is HR25. You obviously have not read it, nor do any of the math yourself.
    The tax is a 30% Sales tax.
    If you buy an $100 item, the tax is $30, and $30/$100 = 30% Sales Tax.
    The fraud used to claim a 23% tax is by counting the tax as inclusive: $30/($100 + $30) = 23%

    From Wikipedia: The tax rate, as defined in the legislation, is 23% of the total price including tax (23 cents of every $1 ; calculated like income taxes), which is comparable to a 30% traditional sales tax (30 cents on top of every $1).

    Jim M wrote: When I answer your questions about the rich paying more you respond with “what if” and other nonsense.
    But you still have failed to prove that the rich will spend enough to prevent the tax system from being regressive.
    Jim M wrote: You go against all of human history and say that the rich won’t spend their money.
    False again.

    I never said the rich won’t spend their money.
    I said it is unlikely they will spend enough to prevent the tax system from being regressive.

    Jim M wrote: You say there will be a huge underground economy and want me to prove there won’t be.
    Black markets historically crop up anytime sales taxes become too high, so it is safe to assume a massive 30% sales tax will result in a lot of black markets.

    Also, incomes do not vary nearly as widely and spending.
    And incomes number in the hundreds of millions per year, and the employ and employer both track those numbers (adding transparency).
    Sales transactions number in the billions per day, and the consumer does not track those numbers (reducing transparency).
    Thus, there will most likely be massive fraud, with many merchants pocketing the sales tax, and policing billions of transactions per day will be impossible, compared to monitoring the much smaller number of incomes (i.e. hundreds of millions of incomes per year).

    Jim M wrote: Your biggest error is failing to understand that it is our embedded income tax in every product sold both here and abroad that is causing our job loss and flight of capital.
    False again.

    The embedded (i.e. hidden) taxes are resolved by eliminating the corporate income taxes, because those are like hidden taxes that are passed on to consumers.
    The 17% Flat Income Tax system I proposed eliminates the corporate income taxes too.

    Jim M wrote: Replacing our God-awful income tax with just another God-awful income tax won’t change how we compete in world markets.
    If the goal is to prove (as the FairTax.org group tries, but fails to do) that taxes are not regressive relative to income, then why tax spending?

    The problem with the current system is complexity and regressiveness.
    What it needs is simplification.
    Only tax income (of all types) above the poverty level 17%
    Eliminate corporate taxes.
    Eliminate all tax deductions and tax loop holes.
    Don’t tax Social Security and Medicare, because those are already tax-derived benefits, and taxing them again is double-taxation.

    Jim M wrote: You make no comment to my reference of the 29 members of OECD that already have a VAT or sales tax to help them compete well in the world. Only the U.S. out of the 30 members remains with the outdated income tax which you believe should remain to stifle our job market and capital markets.
    No need.

    All sales taxes are regressive. Not only in theory, but in practice.
    You have provided no evidence that those sales taxes are not regressive too.
    Merely because something exists is not sufficient evidence that it is better.

    Jim M wrote: I could go on d.a.n. but you won’t respond to my comments so why bother.
    Nonsense. I’ve responded to practically every sentence you wrote.
    Jim M wrote: Your charts and graphs have proven inaccurate by your own admission.
    False.

    There was only an error in the PercentOfPovertyLevel, which had no bearing on the other data.
    If you can find any other errors or inaccuracies, please prove it.

    Jim M wrote: I will listen to Jay Leno’s monologue, but from you, I expect a dialog.
    Funny how some people accuse others of the very thing that they do themselves.

    That is typical when people become frustrated with the weakness of their own position, and resort to personal/character attacks when they are unable to adequately defend their position.
    As a result, people often turn themselves into a pretzel trying to defend a position that is indefensible.

    At any rate, let’s try this.
    Do the math, and show me how the FairTax.org’s 30% Sale Tax will not be regressive.
    That’s all.
    But you realize it will be very difficult to prove that the wealthy will spend equal amounts of their income (i.e. equal to the middle and lower income groups, who will spend the vast majority of their incomes to simply get by).
    Most Americans understand that, which is why most Americans polled prefer a flat income tax system.

    Posted by: d.a.n at April 16, 2008 7:30 PM
    Comment #250795

    d.a.n. To paraphrase you, “But you realize it will be very difficult to prove that the wealthy will” not “spend equal amount of their income”. How about you prove me wrong for a change d.a.n.?

    d.a.n. since none of your material represents your original thinking, but rather comes from a website, I will also reference my source.

    Quoting from the FairTax book, “After the FairTax is implemented, if you go to the store and pay $100 for an item, $23 of the cost of that item will go to the federal government. The $23 isn’t added to the price of the item when you get to the cashier, it’s included in the price of that item as it sits on the display shelf. Most high school graduates in this country know that $23 is 23 percent of $100.”

    d.a.n. please try to understand the difference between an inclusive and exclusive tax. The sales tax collected by the states on purchases is exclusive, added on to the purchase price. The FairTax is inclusive just as virtually all income taxes, that is, they’re included in the dollar amount being taxed. SS and Medicare taxes are also inclusive. For every dollar you earn your employer takes 7.65 cents and sends it off, along with that “matching contribution” to Washington. Your income taxes and payroll taxes aren’t added to what you earn, they’re taken from what you earn.

    The embedded tax that presently exists on everything you purchase is also inclusive. All the taxes you pay in a loaf of bread, or anything else, is included in the price of the bread, not added to it.

    Got it now? Good!

    Posted by: Jim M at April 17, 2008 1:22 PM
    Comment #250828
    Jim M wrote:
      d.a.n. To paraphrase you, “But you realize it will be very difficult to prove that the wealthy will” not “spend equal amount of their income”.
    How about you prove me wrong for a change d.a.n.?
    All sales taxes are regressive, and I already provided examples above.

    Take any sales tax, and it is easy to prove.
    Sales taxes especially hammer the poor, since sales taxes are always a larger percentage of their income.
    Try to find any sales tax that isn’t regressive. Good luck.

    Jim M wrote: d.a.n. since none of your material represents your original thinking, but rather comes from a website, …
    False again. Many of the pages are my own web-pages. One-Simple-Idea.com is only one of the several web-sites that I manage.

    The other pages are from FairTax.org’s own site, or Wikipedia.

    Jim M wrote: Quoting from the FairTax book, “After the FairTax is implemented, if you go to the store and pay $100 for an item, $23 of the cost of that item will go to the federal government. The $23 isn’t added to the price of the item when you get to the cashier, it’s included in the price of that item as it sits on the display shelf. Most high school graduates in this country know that $23 is 23 percent of $100.”
    Of course.

    $77 + $23 = $100 ;
    Inclusive tax = $23/($77 + $23) = $23 / $100 = 23%
    Sales tax = $23/$77 = 30%
    And your point is ?

    Jim M wrote: d.a.n. please try to understand the difference between an inclusive and exclusive tax.
    I do, and always have understood the difference.

    FACT: A 23% inclusive tax is also a 30% Sales Tax (non-inclusive).
    Your arguing a point that I have never questioned or attempted to refute.

    Jim M wrote: The sales tax collected by the states on purchases is exclusive, added on to the purchase price. The FairTax is inclusive just as virtually all income taxes, that is, they’re included in the dollar amount being taxed.
    Of course. It seems as if you are only now discovering that.

    But it is still a 30% Sales Tax (which is the way most people understand sales taxes; sales taxes are typically non-inclusive).
    Part of the dishonesty of the unFairTax.org’s tax system is leading people to believe it is a 23% Sales tax (non-inclusive), which it is not.
    In many instances, people were surprised to find out that it is actually a 30% Sales tax (non-inclusive) = 23% Sales Tax (inclusive).
    The unFairTax.org group shot themselves in the foot by doing that, because it appears to be an attempt to trick people, based on their preconceived understanding of a sales tax (which is non-inclusive).

    Jim M wrote: SS and Medicare taxes are also inclusive. For every dollar you earn your employer takes 7.65 cents and sends it off, along with that “matching contribution” to Washington. Your income taxes and payroll taxes aren’t added to what you earn, they’re taken from what you earn.
    Ofcourse, becaue income taxes are inclusive, and I never contended otherwise.
    Jim M wrote: The embedded tax that presently exists on everything you purchase is also inclusive. All the taxes you pay in a loaf of bread, or anything else, is included in the price of the bread, not added to it.
    Of course. You are preaching to the choir.
    Jim M wrote: Got it now? Good!
    I never was confused. Reveiw the thread above.

    If anything, based on your comments, it is you that only now seem to be getting it, because I already (above, in this thread) previously made the distinction between an inclusive and non-inclusive tax (in Comment 250486 and Comment #250747)
    It is also clearly explained on my web-pages.
    Also, in a previous comment, I wrote:

      The fraud used to claim a 23% tax is by counting the tax as inclusive: $30/($100 + $30) = 23%

    So why are you now trying to explain a difference which I already know about?

    At any rate, show me any sales tax that isn’t regressive.

    Here’s another observation.
    It is interesting that the unFairTax.org’s 30% Sales Tax system goes to great lengths to prove that their system is not regressive relative to income.

    If the goal is to ensure income is not taxed regressively, then why tax spending instead of income?

    Nevertheless, the unFairTax.org’s 30% Sales Tax is a fraud, and it doesn’t have much support.

    However, Congress has a BILL that was introduced last year, and will probably be re-introduced (HR 1040), which is a flat income tax.

    Unfortunately, the Republicans are also trying to eliminate taxes on certain types of income (types that help the weatlhy mostly), such as reduced or elimiated taxes on inheritance, capital gains, interest, dividents, etc.

    A more fair tax system would be this one.
    Some may ask, why can’t Congress come up with something that simple.
    The answer seems obvious.
    They don’t want to.
    They want a regressive tax system, and it will remain regressive as long as voters repeatedly reward irresponsible, FOR-SALE, corrupt incumbent politicians with 93%-to-99% re-election rates.

    Posted by: d.a.n at April 17, 2008 4:58 PM
    Post a comment