Giuliani, Thompson and Huckabee, Oh My!

I wasn’t shocked that Kansas Senator Samuel Brownback withdrew from the presidential race. I was surprised to read an article in The Hill claiming that Brownback may endorse former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

From The Hill:

"Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) is considering endorsing Rudy Giuliani for the GOP presidential nomination and will meet with him Thursday in Washington to hear his views on abortion.

Brownback, who ended his White House run last week and is a champion of social conservative issues, said he would consider Giuliani because he had heard that the former New York City mayor had changed his position on partial-birth abortion and has pledged to appoint to the courts strict constructionists who would not overturn anti-abortion laws."

Well, this is good news for pro-life supporters and advocates, but I get the feeling there's more to it than a change in policy.


Giuliani is one of the frontrunners of the 2008 elections, however most social conservatives do not support him because of his stance on abortion. The possibility of Samuel Brownback pledging his support would be a great coup in Giuliani's campaign.

Brownback has said he would consider supporting other top GOP candidates but has made no decision at this time and does not know when he will reveal the name of the candidate he will endorse. Brownback's support would be a great advantage to any candidate, as the Kansas Senator has built an impressive following in Iowa.

BK of Redstate.com says:

"Does this make any sense, except perhaps as angling for a VP slot?"

From ABC News' Political Radar:

"He is making the same calculation that Republican primary voters are," said the adviser who spoke about Brownback's endorsement plans on the condition of anonymity. "Every indication is that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee and we will really have to sit down and ask ourselves: if that's the binary --- Clinton or non-Clinton --- ask yourself who is the most likely non-Clinton."

What is it with the GOP constantly talking about Hillary Clinton? They can't help but publicly show their fear of this woman!

As much as it pains me to confess that I want to vote for Hillary because she is a woman, I would never compromise my principles, my values, to allow that shark to swim in the Oval Office.

I'm getting very sick and very tired of listening to every single Republican candidate use Hillary Clinton as a bargaining chip with voters.

From Talking Points Memo:

"The Republican presidential candidates debated in Orlando, Florida Sunday night. While the debate purported to feature only the GOP field, it was a Democrat's name that was on everyone's lips throughout the night... someone by the name of Hillary... Hillary something."

Yes, the final tally was revealed. Hillary's name was mentioned twenty-eight times!

Blue Ollie writes:

"Obviously she is one of the most talked about candidates of all time. The Republicans are absolutely in love with her; they spend their debate time saying how THEY are the one who can “stop Hillary”!"

Do the Republican candidates really believe they can beat Mrs. Clinton in the presidential race? Or are they are banking on the notion that conservative and Republican voters hate Hillary Clinton enough to vote for one of them instead? Golly gee, I wonder!

From The Star-Ledger:

"As Republicans see it, Hillary is their best bet to keep the White House. First, she drives the GOP faithful into paroxysms of sputtering rage and should hike Republican turnout. And second, they're convinced the public, especially independent voters, shares their hatred of her, sees her as a runaway liberal or at the very least is loath to hand her the reins at this dangerous moment in history."

I'm going to be honest when I say, the more I hear Hillary's name, the more I wonder if I should be voting for her. The habitual mentioning of the name "Hillary Clinton" seems to increase her power more and more. I don't hear Hillary speaking publicly about her opposition in this way.

Perhaps the Republican candidates could take a lesson when, and if, they decide to really listen to their voters, instead of rambling on about the competition. Stop talking about what Hillary Clinton is doing, saying and thinking. Start showing us what YOU stand for, what YOU believe in, what YOU are going to do for us.

In the back of my mind, I can't help but think that perhaps the GOP believes that Rudy Giuliani is the only candidate who can debate against Hillary, and therefore Brownback might endorse him to boost the former mayor's electabilty.

Meanwhile, Fred Thompson is spending most of his time working on Immigration, but voters are wondering what took him so long.

Dyre Portents writes:

"What's important here is that Thompson started running for president prior to having a concrete stance on one the major issues facing America. Given the amount of time he had from the point that rumors of his announcement started and the point at which he actually declared he had ample time to come up with policy on this and other issues. However pleasing his immigration stance may be to GOP supporters it'll be hard not to notice that everyone else hit the ground running with policies in hand."

And, Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee is making people angry with his remarks about the promotion of safe sex and his theory about illegal immigration.

Vanessa at Femisting.org writes:

"Not even a week after his priceless claim that promoting safe sex and contraception use is the same as saying that domestic violence is only half bad, Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee is following Tom DeLay's lead by now saying that immigration is taking jobs away from aborted fetuses."

I am having difficulty deciding which candidates are the real deal. Thankfully Jennifer Rubin created "Your Guide to the Rest of the Race". I encourage you to read her humorous post on the leading GOP candidates.

(The "Hillary Count" for this post: 16)

----------

Contributing Editor Dana J. Tuszke also blogs at The Dana Files.

Posted by Dana J. Tuszke at October 30, 2007 3:29 PM
Comments
Comment #237240

Republicans have built up much of their political strategy on badmouthing the otherside and proposing contrary policies to that of the liberals.

With Hillary, they’re making a mistake. They’ve slimed her as bad as they can, and now the slime’s sliding off the previous slime. Those who think she’s the Anti-Christette already hate her. Everybody else remembers the Clinton years with fond nostalgia, well-justified or not.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 30, 2007 5:05 PM
Comment #237255

Dana, “Perhaps the Republican candidates could take a lesson when, and if, they decide to really listen to their voters, instead of rambling on about the competition. Stop talking about what Hillary Clinton is doing, saying and thinking. Start showing us what YOU stand for, what YOU believe in, what YOU are going to do for us.”

I agree with you. If its not Hillary bashing its “Im more like Reagan than you are” with the repubs. Its a pretty dismal choice the repubs are giving us.

Posted by: j2t2 at October 30, 2007 9:51 PM
Comment #237259

The Republicans attack Hillary for the same reason that Hillary and the rest of the Dems attack George Bush.

This is a primary, and there’s no better way to appeal to your base than lashing out at some hated figure on the other side.

At least in the Republican’s case, one of them really will be running against Hillary. But none of the Dems will be running against George Bush.

Posted by: Liam at October 30, 2007 10:18 PM
Comment #237269

Is it possible that they keep bringing up/campaigning for Hillary is because someone has figured out running against her is the best chance to win? Lots of baggage, very polarizing and gotta say she’s a female…not that there’s anything wrong with that.

Posted by: andy at October 31, 2007 12:13 AM
Comment #237278

I garner a measure of solace remembering that if all the candidates ,Rep& Dem,were on the stage at the same time,one could close their eyes,throw a rock and hit a better president than we have now.BTW HC has not as yet been crowned the winner of the Dem primary except by the press,pollsters and now,apparently by the Reps.

Posted by: BillS at October 31, 2007 1:20 AM
Comment #237301

Liam-
What you really have to worry about is the fact that every Republican will have to run against George Bush, whether they like it or not. Whover wins the primary will have to face an electorate almost overwhelmingly against what they told the voters in the Republican primary to win. If they keep it up, they’ll alienate the majority of Americans, but keep their base. If they try to go the other way, they can lose their base, and will face deep skepticism on whether they really believe what they’re saying from everybody else.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 31, 2007 9:19 AM
Comment #237321

andy, BingO!

The facts are, none of the Republican candidates can win on the merits of their agendas:

Anti-Roe v. Wade, which includes Giuliani as he has vowed to appoint strict constructionist Justices to the Supreme Court, which is code to the religious right on this issue.

National Sales Tax to replace income and wealth taxes. (This they could never win on).

Spend 2 trillion on remaining in Iraq for at least another 10 years to entrench American hegemony over the Middle East (another loser issue).

Privatize Soc. Sec. and let Medicare implode under its 40 Trillion dollar unfunded future mandate rather than do anything to create cost effective and sustainable health care for all Americans. (Huge loser issue).

With a political agenda like this, what else are these loser candidates to do but bash the opposition, which, after all, is very easy to do considering the fact that the Democrats are holding the details of their agenda VERY close to the vest for fear voters might have the same reaction as to the Republican candidates.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 31, 2007 1:50 PM
Comment #237322

Funny how in the democratic debate last night, all the dems got on board (“the right-wing conspiracy”) and attacked Hillary. She couldn’t even answer a question about illegal immigration in her own state; and she’s a threat to repubs?!! Don’t think so! She’s a threat to the US voters and they know what to do come Nov 2008. Believe that!

Posted by: rahdigly at October 31, 2007 2:23 PM
Comment #237326

Let’s face it. Everyone’s talking about her because she’s by far the most qualified candidate.

Posted by: Max at October 31, 2007 3:09 PM
Comment #237333

Babies are raised by by their mothers. They are instructed, disiplined, restrained, confronted and totally controlled by a woman. Much of a child’s efforts are geared toward challenging and loosening the grip of this control. Both men and women are going to be confronted by their own history when they enter the voting booth and it is going to be a hinderance to Sen. Clinton’s efforts to become the first woman president. There is almost a primal resentment of women in power. How many men are there out there, both liberal and conservative, who, at the core of it all, are not going to let a woman tell them what to do?
Republican strategists would never admit to this but they are counting on this.

Regarding who is most qualified to be president. Sen. Clinton’s qualifications are not as impressive as several other of the candidates: Joe Biden, Thomas Dodd, John McCain all possess far more experience than does Hillary Clinton. What we get with Ms. Clinton is Bill, and, considering the nightmare we have had running the country the last seven years, that is a good thing.

Posted by: Charles Ross at October 31, 2007 5:20 PM
Comment #237337

Why would a Republican candidate waste time talking about Dennis K or Barak O or any of the other clowns on that stage? Hillary represents what is worse about her party so attacking the head also attacks the body. Merely standing next to Hillary on the stage dirties the image of all the candidates. All the dems attack President Bush and he will not be on the ballot. All the Republicans invoke Reagan’s name, not Bush’s. Whose name do the dems invoke? No one. Who will they emulate, no one. I never hear Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson or Carter’s name invoked. Two of those men are worthy of some emulation. But, how can one publically admire a past president of their own party when their beliefs are so different?

Posted by: Jim at October 31, 2007 6:58 PM
Comment #237341

I’ll tell you one thing, the only candidate on the conservative ticket who doesn’t pander is Mike Huckabee.

He’s making people angry? That is a pointless observation. Somebody in America is ALWAYS upset about something someone says. The difference with Huckabee is that he never un-says what he said ten minutes earlier. EVERY OTHER CANDIDATE is an establishment politician - bought and paid for by someone or someone’s interests.

I find it ludicrous when people say he’s not electable because his name sounds too much like Hick - when three men named Bush, Dick and Colon(Colin) ran the whole shebang just a few short years ago.

For the fair tax alone - which has NO down sides, not for the poor (who would get a credit for their expected expenditures each year) not for ANYONE, Mick Huckabee should get the nod. All the other candidates just pander and pander and pander and this man is as straight as they come. His first goal as president would be to close down the IRS. Done. No more. You earn it, you keep it, and if you’re poor, you actually get a check for the upset to your cost of living. It is MIT born and bred brilliance and will actually turn the good ship America away from the crash course we are on.

You may not like his views on everything, but he’s the only one who doesn’t sway back and forth like a blade of grass in a windstorm - and his theme of vertical politics instead of this left-right unproductive nonsense we are buried in right now is refreshing and uplifting.

I have never even considered giving money to a campaign until this race, and I actually sent this man money for what he stands for, I can only hope that this country hasn’t turned into a complete plutocracy, such that only the man who raises the most money can get the nomination. If that’s the case, then this country is already lost.

Posted by: Yukon Jake at October 31, 2007 7:59 PM
Comment #237343

Fred, Fred, where’s your cred?
Will you let me keep my bread?
FairTax, Yes! ‘er FairTax, No!
Just another politico?
Hope for tax reform, I see,
Will be voting HUCKABEE!

Huckabee’s FairTax is still largely unknown, however, it’s ramifications for the country are huge, and urgently needed. Witness: Renown economist Laurence Kotlikoff believes that failure to enact the FairTax - choosing instead to try to “flatten” what he deems to be a non-flattenable income tax system - will eventuate into an irrevocable economic meltdown, because of the hidden aspects of the current system that make political accountability impossible. Tom Frey, of the DiVinci Institute, foresees the coming collapse of the income tax system.

The effective tax rate percentages, that different income groups would pay under the FairTax, are calculated by crediting the monthly “prebate” (advance rebate of projected tax on necessities) against total monthly spending of citizen families (1 member and greater, Dept. of HHS poverty-level data; a single person receiving ~$200/mo, a family of four, ~$500/mo, in addition to working earners receiving paychecks with no Federal deductions) Prof.’s Kotlikoff and Rapson (10/06) concluded,

“…the FairTax imposes much lower average taxes on working-age households than does the current system. The FairTax broadens the tax base from what is now primarily a system of labor income taxation to a system that taxes, albeit indirectly, both labor income and existing wealth. By including existing wealth in the effective tax base, much of which is owned by rich and middle-class elderly households, the FairTax is able to tax labor income at a lower effective rate and, thereby, lower the average lifetime tax rates facing working-age Americans.

“Consider, as an example, a single household age 30 earning $50,000. The household’s average tax rate under the current system is 21.1 percent. It’s 13.5 percent under the FairTax. Since the FairTax would preserve the purchasing power of Social Security benefits and also provide a tax rebate, older low-income workers who will live primarily or exclusively on Social Security would be better off. As an example, the average remaining lifetime tax rate for an age 60 married couple with $20,000 of earnings falls from its current value of 7.2 percent to -11.0 percent under the FairTax. As another example, compare the current 24.0 percent remaining lifetime average tax rate of a married age 45 couple with $100,000 in earnings to the 14.7 percent rate that arises under the FairTax.”

Further, per Jokischa and Kotlikoff (circa 2006?)

“…once one moves to generations postdating the baby boomers there are positive welfare gains for all income groups in each cohort. Under a 23 percent FairTax policy, the poorest members of the generation born in 1990 enjoy a 13.5 percent welfare gain. Their middle-class and rich contemporaries experience 5 and 2 percent welfare gains, respectively. The welfare gains are largest for future generations. Take the cohort born in 2030. The poorest members of this cohort enjoy a huge 26 percent improvement in their well-being. For middle class members of this birth group, there’s a 12 percent welfare gain. And for the richest members of the group, the gain is 5 percent.”

Huck’s belief that it is long past due to scrap the tax code and pay for government the way that America’s working men and women are paid - when something is sold - may be the primary reason his star is rising.

Posted by: Ian at October 31, 2007 8:52 PM
Comment #237362

In 2006, the Republicans kept saying that the Democrats couldn’t win because we “hate Bush” and “have no agenda”. Now Republicans seem to doing exactly what they accused us of doing. Will it work in a Presidential election year? I doubt it.

One thing I can say for sure: anyone who thinks that Hillary is unelectable is kidding themselves. Most polls show her beating all her Republican rivals. Hard to explain why people would choose a Democrat they supposedly despise over a moderate Republican.

Posted by: Woody Mena at November 1, 2007 9:18 AM
Comment #237371

Yukon Jake said: “I’ll tell you one thing, the only candidate on the conservative ticket who doesn’t pander is Mike Huckabee.”

Bullcrap! He panders to the wealthy in this country every chance he gets by advocating for the UNFair National Sales tax to replace the income tax. By advocating for the most regressive tax system possible, poor pay the lion’s share of government expenses, while the wealthiest pay the least percentage of income, is pandering of the highest order, especially for a candidate in dire need of campaign donations.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 1, 2007 10:32 AM
Comment #237372

Woody, you are correct that polls show her beating any GOP candidate. But, the polls also show that she hasn’t been able to move past the 50% of folks who don’t approve of her as president. She does not have the majority support for her candidacy of the majority of the American people. And I suspect that her numbers are about to drop below the 50% level for Americans who think she may be a good choice.

The debate a couple nights ago hurt her, and there are more such debates coming. She is the front runner, no question. But, then, so was Howard Dean at one point.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 1, 2007 10:37 AM
Comment #237391
Now Republicans seem to doing exactly what they accused us of doing. Will it work in a Presidential election year? I doubt it.


You should look at that democratic prez debate the other night again; the other (dem) candidates were doing the same thing you are accusing the repubs of doing. And, the fact is, Hillary has never (truly) been asked tough questions from the media; this is the result of when they get a little tough or she takes a little criticism. She’s truly a pathetic candidate; she may actually get a repub elected prez in 2008.

Posted by: rahdigly at November 1, 2007 1:28 PM
Comment #237418

“Bullcrap! He panders to the wealthy in this country every chance he gets by advocating for the UNFair National Sales tax to replace the income tax. By advocating for the most regressive tax system possible, poor pay the lion’s share of government expenses, while the wealthiest pay the least percentage of income, is pandering of the highest order, especially for a candidate in dire need of campaign donations.”

To quote Ronald Reagan, “There you go again.” You know as well as I do that the FairTax plan is a plan based on consumption instead of income, so saying it is regressive because someone pays a higher percentage of their income is misleading at best. As you know, people living under the poverty level will pay absolutely no tax. Can’t be too regressive to them.

But of course this doesn’t matter to you because it don’t meet your agenda of soaking the rich.

Posted by: tomd at November 1, 2007 6:34 PM
Comment #237421

David,
Bullcrap? That is laughable. You call the fair tax names because it is a conservative idea, but the FACT of the matter is, it truly IS fair. It’s the first fair thing that has come across the avenues of possibility in this country in a VERY long time.

Ian (thank you Ian) gave some links and quotes of factual and statistical evidence, but you (as is often the case when emotion and not logic is involved) call the idea names. Attack the idea because of where it comes from, and not based on its merits.

I consider you a reasonably intelligent guy David. You are well spoken, and well written, but you are dead wrong on this, and shame on you for acting like a little kid with his lip stuck out saying “NO, IT’s ‘UN’FAIR” when you either haven’t taken the time to actually LEARN about the fair tax, or you just plain won’t entertian the idea because a welfare state is more important to you, or because of its conservative origins.

There has not been one, not ONE, even remotely solid argument against the fair tax - except that thousands of IRS agents will lose their jobs - Boo Hoo. The upside is so enormous it’s like choosing not to undergo open-heart surgery to save your life because you think stitches are ugly.

Posted by: Yukon Jake at November 1, 2007 7:32 PM
Comment #237424

Yukon said: “You call the fair tax names because it is a conservative idea,”

I didn’t call it names, I called it what it is, UnFair. I have researched it in depth, and it is the most regressive scheme out there, and I explained, which your comment appears to ignore, that the poor would pay a vastly higher percentage of income in tax than the wealthy under the UnFair national sales tax system. I didn’t say those in poverty, because I am also aware the UnFair Tax system would grant a rebate to those in poverty.

If Democrats proposed it, I would have the same commentary on it. Your comment’s predilection to read political motive into my critique of the system misses the mark by a solar system or two. It is not about politics. It is about the wealthy accruing wealth and passing it on generation after generation untaxed, drying up liquidity for consumption for the rest of Americans.

Too bad you felt it necessary to get personal and critique the messenger instead of the message with “shame on you for acting like a little kid with his lip stuck out saying “NO, IT’s ‘UN’FAIR”…”

That too is UnFair according to WB’s rules.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 1, 2007 8:29 PM
Comment #237446

Yukon said: “You call the fair tax names because it is a conservative idea,”

I didn’t call it names, I called it what it is, UnFair. I have researched it in depth, and it is the most regressive scheme out there, and I explained, which your comment appears to ignore, that the poor would pay a vastly higher percentage of income in tax than the wealthy under the UnFair national sales tax system. I didn’t say those in poverty, because I am also aware the UnFair Tax system would grant a rebate to those in poverty.

If Democrats proposed it, I would have the same commentary on it. Your comment’s predilection to read political motive into my critique of the system misses the mark by a solar system or two. It is not about politics. It is about the wealthy accruing wealth and passing it on generation after generation untaxed, drying up liquidity for consumption for the rest of Americans.

Too bad you felt it necessary to get personal and critique the messenger instead of the message with “shame on you for acting like a little kid with his lip stuck out saying “NO, IT’s ‘UN’FAIR”…”

That too is UnFair according to WB’s rules.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 2, 2007 9:45 AM
Comment #237450


David R. Many of us saw Hillary take a hit in the debate. We assume that this is going to hurt her but, we really don’t know that it will, yet.

If Huckabee sticks to his fair tax plan, he may have a shot at the nomination but, he would loose big in the general election once the middle class hears how the fair tax works. What effect would the fair tax have on those who’s income is slightly more than poverty level?

If energy prices go to where it looks like they are headed, it is going to be a long hard winter for Republicans.

Posted by: jlw at November 2, 2007 10:15 AM
Comment #237456

“If energy prices go to where it looks like they are headed, it is going to be a long hard winter for Republicans”

Amen to that jlw.
I only wish the Dems were in charge of the House and Senate so that they could make energy prices reasonable and end the war.

Wake up people. If you want change, put the Dems in charge of the House and Senate

AND

Vote hillary!

Posted by: kctim at November 2, 2007 11:43 AM
Comment #237469


Kctim: What is happening in Congress now has to do with the makeup of the Democratic party. Unlike the Republican party, the Democratic party has liberals, moderates and even conservatives. If energy prices go through the roof this winter, Who do you think the people will blame, the Democrats that have a slim majority in Congress or the oil men in the White House? The Republican candidates can run from Bush but they can’t hide from his policies.

Say what we will about Hillary, she is the only candidate that has consistently danced to the tune of moderate America. Our liberal candidates tend to loose elections even when they win. I prefer Edwards but, there is a good possibility that the Republican candidate could pull off another electorial college win and deny the majority victory. The Republicans know this more than the Democrats do and that is why they don’t waste time and money attacking the other Democratic candidates. The Republican pollsters know that Hillary can put several of the red states in play and that is why the Republicans have already started a full court press against her.

Today, the news is full of men saying that Hillary is playing the gender card. Why shouldn’t she? How long have men been playing the gender card?

Posted by: jlw at November 2, 2007 12:59 PM
Comment #237470

jlw said: “David R. Many of us saw Hillary take a hit in the debate. We assume that this is going to hurt her but, we really don’t know that it will, yet.”

True enough. Especially if she bounces back with more specific answers and a whole lot of other factors.

I agree with you, even if Hillary’s poll numbers are only 40% in the general, she will beat any Republican candidate running on the national UnFair sales tax plan.

The are hints at another bubble possibly bursting over the next 12 months, the credit card industry bubble built on the usurious rates of between 22 and 32%. If that bubble bursts, you can count on millions of voters filing bankruptcy, because millions are floating their financial monthly boat on these credit cards, out of necessity.

Combined with soaring energy prices and weather related food inflation over the next year, the lower middle class and poor are indeed going to be pinched very, very hard. With current politicians working feverishly to move the national debt from 9 trillion to 10 trillion dollars, it is going to progressively get harder and harder for government to rescue one disaster and crisis after another.

But that is the path our nation and her people have been put on this last decade or so.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 2, 2007 1:00 PM
Comment #237473

David,
What is it with the Robin Hood mentality? I am going to ask you some very pointed questions, and I can’t wait to hear your answers.

Democrats moan and gripe about business going overseas, the Fair Tax brings 10 Trillion per year in commerce back home, this is fact. Your comment, which was more name calling and a complete non-answer, was that the poor will pay vastly higher “percentage” of their income than the rich - thank you for stating the irrevocably obvious. Groceries are groceries, and if you make 1/10 the income of another family, OF COURSE YOU ARE PAYING A HIGHER PERCENTAGE!!!! Did you think you were turning on any light bulbs with this comment? That is why I refer to it as a non-answer. There is nothing besides PURE socialist income redistribution that would eliminate a percentage difference between the wealthy and poor expenditures. I gather from your post that socialism and income-redistribution is exactly what you are pulling for, but I would love to hear how you are not.

How much of a wealthy man’s income is fair to take and spend on the pathologically-lazy, entitlement-minded, welfare-throngs in this country who blame EVERYONE but themselves for their living conditions? I take exception only for the medically or mentally disabled. (When you attack this question for being loaded - make sure you give me an answer) I want to know. Would you be happy at 50%? How about 75%? How about no one person can personally bring home more than $100,000 per year… -> enter complete economic collapse under a socialist system. Read your history David, but make sure you tell me how much YOU PERSONALLY would be satisfied with, of my VERY hard-earned money.

Democrats just don’t get it. I make a great living because I put in 14 hours days 6 to 7 days a week for three years building up a client base for my business, and now, I enjoy a great living. All that time away from my wife and kids, all those nights with 3 and 4 hours of sleep. Nothing stops the middle class from doing this, I AM THE MIDDLE CLASS. Neither my Mother NOR my Father have 1 red cent in savings and they are in their late 60’s - I grew up in a dilapidated trailer with the siding falling off, and I have no degree besides a high school diploma. If I can break 200k per year before I am 30 in podunk Wasilla, Alaska, anyone can do it. But it’s society’s fault that millions of people want to have their cake and eat it too.

But if YOU ran the country and I couldn’t have a pot of gold at the end of my back-breaking rainbow, then give me a motivation to be a provider and create a job for someone, and pay benefits, and all the other hassles my employee(who is good, but would never work a 14-hour day under any circumstances and has said so) would never do? Let’s hear it, the communist manifesto - for the good of the party, the nation, the masses.

As I said before, while you refer to the fair tax as Regressive and UNfair, there has not been one single “credible” argument against the fair tax. A lot of bashing and spin, but nothing conrete. And finally to obliterate the non-issue you provided as evidence of the regressiveness of the fair tax, those people over poverty level who do pay some level of income tax, would pay less money in than they do now, which is in no way regressive (def: returning to a worse condition) because having more money at the end of the month is a BETTER condition.

Don’t forget to give me an answer about what percentage of my money you would be happy with - because $68,772 in 2006 (just federal) is obviously not enough.

Posted by: Yukon Jake at November 2, 2007 1:05 PM
Comment #237497

Yukon said: “Democrats moan and gripe about business going overseas, the Fair Tax brings 10 Trillion per year in commerce back home, this is fact.”

How can this be fact. The UnFair Tax doesn’t even exist. Ergo, this is not fact, this is projection.

The entire Real GDP for 2006 was only 11 trillion, 319 billion. So, how can it be a fact that the UnFair Tax would bring 10 trillion a year in foreign commerce back to the U.S., especially when the domestic sales tax will make foreign purchases cheaper by comparison?

And thank you for admitting that it is a very regressive tax, putting a far higher tax rate on the poorer than on the wealthier.

As for income redistribution, try running a consumer economy with only 1 to 2 percent of the population with the means to consume. This is what the 1930’s was about, too much wealth in too few hands to the point that the consumers could not underwrite the economy during a contraction. Money has to circulate in the economy in order for the economy to function.

And more and more American wealth is, as I type, being invested in overseas markets, not here, and this trend must grow in that direction as China and India and other nations become the growth economies of this century via their low human capital cost advantage. Which means less and less money circulating in the U.S. economy in the absence of wealth redistribution.

Finally, the wealthy utilize vastly more government resources per capita than regular working folks. But, the UnFair Tax would put the government cost burden on the working person and virtually give the wealthy a free pass on taxes in perpetuity. Donald Trump for example has made use of or, consumed resources of the FCC, FEC, SEC, FAA, Courts (on many occasions), US Marshall Service and Justice Department, ART, BIB, CFT, COS, CRT, CEA, EPA, DOC, DHS, DTR, DOT, NEA, EEO, FDI, FNM, FLR, FME, FTC, GPO, to name just a few of the federal agencies he has benefited from or been governed by. A regular working person would interface with a list far, far shorter. So who should pay the greater share of government, those who benefit from and utilize far greater government services or, those who don’t. The UnFair Tax plan says those who don’t use government as much should pay the greater share of their wealth to pay for government.

You said: “As I said before, while you refer to the fair tax as Regressive and UNfair, there has not been one single “credible” argument against the fair tax.”

Saying it again doesn’t make it true. What I see you saying here is that there is no argument or evidence that you would recognize as valid against the UnFair Tax. There are a couple words for that in the dictionary.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 2, 2007 8:09 PM
Comment #237505

David,
I asked three times for you to tell me how much, as a percentage, of my hard earned money you would be satisfied with, and you do not answer. Very interesting.

Your point about the 10 trillion in economic money coming back not being fact because it hasn’t happened yet is true, it by nature of time cannot be fact - so I’ll grant you that, but you fail to acknowledge that America will once again become the land of business opportunity, instead of the great wealth Vampire it has become, which is what is driving business overseas.

Also, you make absolutely no sense when you say I admit that the tax is regressive - that’s insanity.

The poor pay nothing, so nothing changes there. The middle class pay less, so that is decidedly PROgressive (Pro meaning better) Where do you come up with the ridiculous statistic that only 1 to 2 percent of the economy will be able to consume? That’s complete and total crap and you know it. You say I would not acknowledge anything bad about the fair tax, I will, if you “prove” a point with numbers instead of just making ridiculous claims.

You say you have researched it extensively, but you obviously have not read the book, the fair tax, which explains at length and ad nauseum about the method of its effectiveness.

The cost of goods that we buy now has multiple amounts of tax built into the cost, everything from napkins to toothpaste to a gallon of milk. You don’t see it because you just go to the store and buy it and it has cost roughly the same for so long that it looks “normal” when it is 20 to 30% inflated with government taxes that get passed along the production chain. The fair tax removes those taxes, the cost of goods drop, the masses pay less per item, but PLUS the new 23% tax. The cost stays roughly the same to slightly more for the goods depending on the item (not new construction houses or cars, I’m talking everyday consumption stuff that you say 98% of america won’t be able to afford - LOL)

The only difference is NOW, instead of some amount of withholding, + FICA, + Social Security, + Medicare, + ETC coming out before John Q Public even sees his check, he/she gets the whole damn thing to do with what they please. Not to mention it completely removes the underground economy of Drug Dealers, and thugs, and various other groups that successfully avoid paying any taxes whatsoever.

Whether you will admit it or not, EVERYONE gets more money at the end of the month. The fact that you will not acknowledge that this a good thing demonstrates that you just want a Socialist Government with income redistribution, and that you harbor ill will towards the people in this country who have buckled down and made something of themselves.

You also say foreign goods will be cheaper by comparison, which tells me you have absolutely NOT studied the fair tax, or read the book as there is an entire section devoted to this issue.

And as far as your Bill Gates reference, you are dead right about how many government entities he interacts with, but compare that to the hundreds of millions of dollars he has personally paid in taxes, and your argument falls flat on its face. Who cares if he interacts with all those agencies, he sends enough cash to Uncle Sam each year to pay the annual salaries of several thousand people. More power to him!

Everything is about percentages with you, so I ask you again, with what percentage of my money would you be satisfied?

You won’t answer how much of my money is enough for you…

Why won’t you answer that?

Is it because you don’t want to acknowledge publicly that you are a Die-Hard Socialist and not a Democrat? Just asking…

Posted by: Yukon Jake at November 2, 2007 11:40 PM
Comment #237507

Yukon Jake said: “I asked three times for you to tell me how much, as a percentage, of my hard earned money you would be satisfied with, and you do not answer.”

My, you are observant. The question is an insult to anyone’s intelligence who it is asked of. You frame the question in a way that any answer is subjective.

I will offer this, it takes a lot of money to run a nation of 300 million people with the world’s largest economy, military, and international influence. I believe we should all pay a Fair share to preserve and protect our livlihoods in this society. Make more, pay more. Make less, pay less. Use more, pay more. Use less, pay less. That is the rational that makes sense to me.

What I won’t do, is permit you, or any individual to dictate what a fair share should be. That must be a collective decision, for we are all in this together, benefiting enormously from our habitation of this land called America, and vastly interdependent upon each other in ways most don’t even recognize.

If the UnFair Tax people can convince the majority of Americans that the UnFair national sales tax is the way to go, I will pay my share. And unlike you, I won’t moan and bitch about it. I love being an American and don’t mind at all paying my share, whatever the majority decide that should be. But I will fight with everything I have a minority of wealthy folks trying to shift the burden unfairly onto those without wealth, as if being wealthy was not its own reward regardless of taxes due. That is greed! If I were Bill Gates, I would not mind paying a flat or even higher rate than everyone else. From what I have read, Bill Gates doesn’t mind either.

Also, one of the wealthiest investors in America was on MSNBC this week saying how unfair it is his receptionist pays a higher percent of her pay in taxes than he does. He even researched it and discovered everyone who works for him pays a higher percentage than he does. And he went on TV to say this is UnFair, like the national sales tax would be. Now that is integrity and appreciation for having been fortunate enough to become one of the wealthy.

A poll taken in 2001 indicated the majority of wealthy persons surveyed indicated they would not mind seeing their taxes raised if it would keep the economy and government from going into recession or the red. So, don’t even pretend that you speak for the majority of the wealthy in America who I believe have a true sense of what fair is.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 2, 2007 11:52 PM
Comment #237508


David R: One of those questions was cleared up today. During the debate, Tim Russert caught Hillary off guard with an accusation that Bill Clinton had sent a letter to the National Archives demanding that his presidential papers not be released until 2012. Hillary said that she didn’t think that was true but, she would look into the matter and try to get the documents released.

Today, Bill Clinton stated that the reason Hillary was confused was because the accusation was untrue. He said that five years ago, he sent a letter asking that the release of his documents be expedited and that to date more than a million pages have already been released including all the documents relating to Hillary’s National Health Care Taskforce.

Posted by: jlw at November 2, 2007 11:57 PM
Comment #237511

jlw, Hillary’s Achille’s Heel is her stance on Amnesty and Spitzer’s driver’s licenses for illegals. I see she began backing off her support of Spitzer’s plan as of today’s news, but, she will be clubbed by independents and Republicans alike in the general election if she continues this stance on allowing illegal immigrants to become legal in growing numbers, year after year during her term of office.

I have nothing evidenciary to base this on, but, I believe Hillary and most Democratic leaders believe their first and primary goal is to acquire an overwhelming number of Democratic voters through immigration legal and illegal, to insure they never lose power again.

Unless I see evidence to the contrary, this will keep me a foe of her presidency. Power as an end was never the intent or spirit of our U.S. Constitution or democratic republic, and on that issue, I see little difference between at this point between Hillary and Bush, making them both enemies of what America was designed to stand for.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 3, 2007 12:16 AM
Comment #237516

Yukon & David,

You both make good points. My question is how does a middle class work-a-day guy figure out what to get behind. My accountant doesn’t even want my saved reciepts it’s way too confusing. I mean as a guy who takes pride in staying away from keeping up with the Jones’s, the fair tax seems like it would benefit me. If your buying cool rims for your car or buying $300 tennis shoes while raising a family then it would be bad. So the conservative in me says it’s good it puts personal responsibility on everyone.

But even beyond that isn’t the tax 17%? As an IC thats less than I pay per year so I don’t care if the wealthier make more because I also would, and I have next to no stress in my life compared to most wealthier people. More power to ya. So it seems to me if I buy the cheapest milk & eggs, which I already do because they taste the same, I would come out ahead.

Also let me say I think most taxes are wasted and the gov. is so addicted that I just know no matter what, anything talked about is a pipedream and they will always know how to get whats theirs.

Posted by: andy at November 3, 2007 2:22 AM
Comment #237519

David,
More ridiculous claims and no evidence. Please provide a link to that amazing poll of which you reference. I’d love to read about the organization behind the poll, if it was scientific, and what the methodology was.

Nice duck btw, I asked what you PERSONALLY felt was a fair percentage of my money, and for the record, I don’t bitch and moan about how much I pay, but I’ll damn sure get excited about the idea of paying a lot less without hurting anybody.

Andy,
You are absolutely right. YOU would have more money at the end of the month. But because someone who makes twice what you do would have even more at the end of THEIR month, David says it’s regressive. That’s because David resents the rich, and wants Socialist income redistribution - whether he will admit it or not.

You don’t care if the wealthier make more because you would too. Thank you for that truly American spirit. The same is true for me. I have a buddy who has the printing contract for the Denver Broncos and he makes over a million a year, and I LOVE the fact that he would get to keep every bit of it and spend it on what HE wanted. David kills me with his notion that it in some way harms him if the government is funded the same amount, the poor pay less taxes, the middle class pay less taxes and a wealthy person pays less taxes. It is a patently ridiculous position.

The wealthy produce more and therefore the wealthy deserve more. Think of it this way, because it’s a perfect metaphor: You and another guy are in a logging camp. Your fellow axeman cuts five trees a day at the pace that he is comfortable with, and he can maintain steadily for his minimum 8 hours - but your dad taught you that if you bust your butt, you are a better person for it. So, you cut down 50 trees and work 14 hours. At the end of the day when you sit down to eat in the chow hall and you have 10 cord in your pile to the other guys one cord - there are two steaks left on the grill… who deserves the bigger steak on their for their efforts? How you answer that question tells you what side of the fair tax you should be on - but you already know. More money for you is better for you - and less stress for every man and woman in the country.

Socialism be damned.

Posted by: Yukon Jake at November 3, 2007 3:28 AM
Comment #237521

David said: Use more, pay more; use less, pay less.”

Interesting idea. I have never taken a nickel, not one cent of federal money. I have never gotten a health benefit, never a social program, never assistance of any kind from the state or country. Yet I pay and pay and pay into social programs - by your own statement you think this is UNfair because I certainly use LESS and pay MORE. Thank you for making my point for me.

Andy, btw, you need a better accountant. It’s a fact that most Americans overpay their taxes (thank you to garbage TurboTax software and H&R Block 2 week training certificates) Even a middle-class work-a-day guy like you has deductions that can add up to more than your standard. And before David calls this advice a bunch of names, realize that it is the IRS stated goal that each American pay only the taxes that they owe, and not a penny more.

Also, 2 great books you might consider - “The Richest Man in Babylon” and “Rich dad, Poor dad.” That’s assuming you have already picked up a copy of “The Fair Tax.”

Posted by: Yukon Jake at November 3, 2007 3:42 AM
Comment #237523

Yukon,

I saw that. I meant it’s too confusing to me. I have a strong feeling he doesn’t use my reciepts. I will think of a write-off later and he will say “oh nevermind we just want to keep you just under the red flags”. Which leads me to the conclusion that taxes are just complicated BS. I don’t have the will to even try to understand what I’m paying or how the final number comes about.

Posted by: andy at November 3, 2007 4:11 AM
Comment #237525

“Yukon,

I saw that. I meant it’s too confusing to me. I have a strong feeling he doesn’t use my reciepts. I will think of a write-off later and he will say “oh nevermind we just want to keep you just under the red flags”. Which leads me to the conclusion that taxes are just complicated BS. I don’t have the will to even try to understand what I’m paying or how the final number comes about.

Posted by: andy at November 3, 2007 04:11 AM”

You and several millions more of us. That’s one of the prime reasons we NEED the FairTax.

Posted by: tomd at November 3, 2007 5:49 AM
Comment #237547

Yukon Jake, now I see why your arguments make no sense.

You comments are either incredibly ignorant or deceptive since, you have indeed consumed federal tax dollars on a daily basis.

You have consumed military defense tax dollars, federal highway dollars, if you have investments you have consumed SEC dollars, your voting, if you vote, has consumed FEC dollars, and those thousands of homeless and starving beggars you didn’t have to step over to get from home to work or school for your children, yep, federal dollars you have consumed as beneficiary of their being spent.

You support the UnFair tax, and logic and reality appear to have no place in your comments.

You said: “I have never taken a nickel, not one cent of federal money.” Indeed. Then you must NOT live in America. Because every person raised in America has taken 10’s of thousands of federal tax dollars in goods and services rendered over their lifetime. Education, safety of the food consumed, the safety from airplanes dropping on your home, and much, much more are federal dollars all Americans take for benefit from taxpayers and federal tax dollars. The failure of your comments to recognize this says it all.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 3, 2007 2:49 PM
Comment #237549

tomd said: “You and several millions more of us. That’s one of the prime reasons we NEED the FairTax.”

Fortunately for America, it will take many times several million to change the tax system, and a national sales tax isn’t going to be the choice if a reform is made.

You are right. America needs A fair tax reform. But, the national sales tax isn’t it. Latest and most rigorous PEW poll shows Republicans are losing public support in droves. Even registered Republicans are souring on Republican politicians. So, I can rest easy about the national sales tax ever becoming a reality for at least another decade or two. Amen to that.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 3, 2007 2:54 PM
Comment #237551

Yukon, the poll is public information. Do your research. Or don’t. But, I don’t fall for doing your work for you.

Your comment regarding the poll already says you will discount it before ever seeing it. So, there is no point, is there? You said: “Please provide a link to that amazing poll of which you reference. I’d love to read about the organization behind the poll, if it was scientific, and what the methodology was.”

No, I suspect you really don’t want to read it. Because if it were true, you would have to change your thinking and it appears obvious nothing I could say or present is going to accomplish that. If you really want to read it, you would go look it up, if Google is within your scope of skills.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 3, 2007 3:03 PM
Comment #237552

andy, I would begin to answer your question by directing you to one of my previous articles and the lengthy discussion that followed it on this topic of tax reform. The article is: The GOP’s UN-Fair Tax Goal.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 3, 2007 3:06 PM
Comment #237559

Andy,

I suggest you read David’s article referenced above, then go to
http://fairtaxgroups.com/index.php

and read their information.

I think if you believe in capitalism, you will favor the FairTax plan.

Under the FairTax almost everyone pays less tax. David don’t like it because the “rich” pay less also.

Posted by: tomd at November 3, 2007 4:15 PM
Comment #237561

tomd, you obviously haven’t a clue why I don’t like it, and haven’t read the article you refer andy to. I hope andy reads it, and recognizes right away what an erroenous and fallacious projection of my motives your comment was.

I don’t like it because it will, in destroy America’s economy by allowing those who invest to never have their investments taxed, and it will get handed down to the next generation of their family where again, it will never be taxed nor, will the increased return on investment it accrues, until one day, there isn’t enough money in circulation to sustain the economy.

The entitlement crisis is where the UnFair Tax is aimed. It proposes that the wealthy have no stake in whether the working class can afford health care or middle class lifestyles, and shifts the burden for entitlements on the vast majority of recipients of those entitlements, insulating the wealth folks accrue from ever shouldering the burden.

The UnFair Tax plan proposes no estate taxes, no capital gains taxes, in fact no way to tax wealth accrual or investment wealth unless they spend it here in the U.S. Of course, some wealthy will simply big ticket items overseas if the product is cheaper there, and not pay sales tax at all. But even if the wealthy purchased everything in the U.S., the ratio of their spending to wealth would mean they pay about 2.25% of their income in tax, while the lower middle class pay 17%.

(That 17% figure btw, is suspect, as it must assume no Soc. Sec. or Medicare spending or taxes for the next 75 years. This is obvious by the fact that no other nation that has national health care or retirement has a tax rate that low, and ours is one of the most expensive governments in the world for infrastructure, military, and foreign aid compared to all other nations.)

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 3, 2007 6:24 PM
Comment #237563

You say that it isn’t fair because the rich will pay a smaller percentage of their INCOME in taxes. Why are you so hung up on INCOME? If I pay $500 less in taxes this year, why should I care if my boss pays $2000 less?

You say the FairTax will destroy America’s economy by alowing those who invest to never have their investments taxed. It will be taxed…when it is spent.

All of your objections seem to be the lack of taxing wealth. It appears to me that you are jealous of rich folks.

Posted by: tomd at November 3, 2007 6:40 PM
Comment #237565

tomd, it may seem that way to you, but, I like many rich folks. I especially those, and they are a majority of wealthy folks, who believe their wealth is a product of the whole nation and don’t mind paying a fair share.

A flat tax is far more fair in that everyone pays the same rate. Even if the wealthy utilize more government services and benefits, it is fairer than the national sales tax which puts a disproportionally higher tax burden on those with the least means to afford it.

Also, the math of the national sales tax doesn’t work out. Assuming the same outlays we have today, if the wealthy pay substantially less, as is obvious in the national sales tax, then, the less wealthy will have to pay more to afford the same level of government spending.

This UnFair Sales Tax literally means the service on the national debt will be paid mostly by those with the least voice in having created that debt and service cost. Politically, this also what makes the so called Fair Tax plan the UnFair Tax plan.

There is another plan out there that I am researching that is called the NoTax plan, short for no income and no sales tax. Under this plan, the diametric opposite of sales tax plan, NO ONE pays ANY tax on any money they physically engage in work or effort to produce. However, all government revenue comes from taxing income which the recipients of money have NOT worked for physically in a work place. Inheritance income, investment income, interest income, and all other income not earned through a marketable salary or waged job is taxed.

I have a lot more research to do on this plan to determine if it is viable, practical and equitable. But, it is an interesting idea with far reaching potential effects. We may be hearing much more about this.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 3, 2007 7:17 PM
Comment #237566

Ding Ding Ding, what do we have for him Johnny! Weeeeelllll, it’s a lifetime of happiness, hard work, and gratification.

You hit it right on the head Tomd. The reason he hides behind my very simple question of his PERSONAL views about what percentage of my money he would be satisfied with, is because he can’t give a percentage. It only matters to David that the Rich pay for the lazy and/or irresponsible poor (handicaps excused)

Nevermind that ANYONE in this country can literally choose to better themselves, develop a skill and turn that skill into lots of money. All the social programs which have created a generation of people happy to not better themselves and suck off the American Teet, were created when there weren’t jobs for a huge percentage of America. Unemployment was rampant and people were starving - no obesity crisis in those days. But now, when unemployment stays around 5% nationwide and virtually ANYONE with enough stones to get up in the morning and be on time for work can get a job, there’s just more laziness breeding more socialism.

Women literally having kids JUST to increase the monthly welfare check. It’s ridiculous. But then again, most liberal positions are exactly that, ridiculous. About the only kudos I will give liberalism is spearheading environmental awareness, which I personally believe is vital. But other than that, it’s pretty much insanity.

I love this bumper sticker I’ve seen in almost every state: Annoy a liberal… work hard and be happy.

Counldn’t be more accurate.

Posted by: Yukon Jaker at November 3, 2007 7:19 PM
Comment #237567

“tomd, it may seem that way to you, but, I like many rich folks. I especially those, and they are a majority of wealthy folks, who believe their wealth is a product of the whole nation and don’t mind paying a fair share.”

It does seem that way to me and I don’t know of any rich person who thinks the whole nation is responsible for his wealth, Please tell me who they are.

“A flat tax is far more fair in that everyone pays the same rate. Even if the wealthy utilize more government services and benefits, it is fairer than the national sales tax which puts a disproportionally higher tax burden on those with the least means to afford it.”

How so? A flat tax as you describe would tax everyone the same. Even those under the poverty level would be taxed at the same rate. You know the politicians wouldn’t stand for that so exemptions would start and within 10 years we would be back where we started.

” Also, the math of the national sales tax doesn’t work out. Assuming the same outlays we have today, if the wealthy pay substantially less, as is obvious in the national sales tax, then, the less wealthy will have to pay more to afford the same level of government spending.”

That is pure bunk. The tax base would be increased so much by illegal alians, drug dealers, tourists, and others who pay no taxes now that everyone’s taxes will be reduced. Read the book.

“This UnFair Sales Tax literally means the service on the national debt will be paid mostly by those with the least voice in having created that debt and service cost. Politically, this also what makes the so called Fair Tax plan the UnFair Tax plan.”

More bash “Bash the rich”

“There is another plan out there that I am researching that is called the NoTax plan, short for no income and no sales tax. Under this plan, the diametric opposite of sales tax plan, NO ONE pays ANY tax on any money they physically engage in work or effort to produce. However, all government revenue comes from taxing income which the recipients of money have NOT worked for physically in a work place. Inheritance income, investment income, interest income, and all other income not earned through a marketable salary or waged job is taxed.”

You will probably like that plan since it seems the rich would be paying ALL the taxes.

Posted by: tomd at November 3, 2007 7:47 PM
Comment #237570

Yukon Jake said: “It only matters to David that the Rich pay for the lazy and/or irresponsible poor (handicaps excused)”

It so like a conservative to build this war on the rich by the poor argument, which does not and has not existed in this country since the Colonialists overthrew the King.

The non-wealthy don’t resent the rich for being rich, and they don’t resent not being rich themselves. They had other ends in life to achieve besides chasing money, and most of them are proud of the goals they set to be nurses, data processors, bank personnel, artists and crafts persons.

This view of projecting resentment is just that, psychological projection. A projection any person driven by greed would naturally entertain. Many a wealthy person are not driven by greed. Instead they become philanthropists and benefactors recognizing the value of aiding and elevating those less fortunate.

Thank you though for revealing what drives your comments and fantasy that anyone opposed to a national sales tax is out to soak the rich, become socialist party members, or whatever else fills the need for understanding why anyone would oppose such an unpopular concept as a national sales tax.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 3, 2007 9:34 PM
Comment #237571

tomd said: “It does seem that way to me and I don’t know of any rich person who thinks the whole nation is responsible for his wealth, Please tell me who they are.”

Wow! Thank you for revealing that you don’t associate with wealthy folks who attribute their success to having been born in America, the land of opportunity made so by its citizens. I suggest you do a little reading in the area of biographies, especially those of philanthropists like Bill Gates, Oprah Winfrey, Jimmy Carter, Paul Newman, and hosts of others attribute their success to many things and persons outside their own talent and efforts. “Providence is the mainstay of enormous success” someone once said. Hopefully in your reading, you will discover who said it.

Guess those millions coming across our border for opportunity have been sold a Brooklyn Bridge, eh, tomd?

Oh and yes, be sure to read up on Minnie Vogel, her will said: “‘I bequeath and devise to my beloved country, the United States of America, to be used to reduce the national debt. The reason for this distribution is because of the deep love I have for America and I wish to show my appreciation and love in helping my country in this small way.”

She knew had she been born in Africa or Russia, she would not likely have had anything to bequeath to her beloved country.

And from a NYTimes article: “David Liebschutz, a spokesman for the Bureau of Public Debt, said he could recall just one donation of similar size: the $100,000 given annually by a retired Ohio industrialist who also sends the bureau his monthly Social Security checks.”

I am not surprised you don’t know of any of these folks.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 3, 2007 9:47 PM
Comment #237580

I have one simple question for you David.

If I pay you $100 to do a job for me, who owns the $100? Me, you, or the US Government?

Posted by: Tomd at November 4, 2007 4:55 AM
Comment #237583

tomd, I pay my taxes freely and willingly, and while I write my congresspersons and join organizations to insure my taxes are spent more wisely, more prudently, and for the betterment of my nation and my daughter’s future in this country, I am pleased that my taxes also support the quality of life for all in this wealthiest nation on earth.

Your question implies that you believe the government has not right to tax, but, of course, without revenue, there would be no government, and without government there would be anarchy, chaos, and horrendous rampant crime and human tragedy. So, if you hate government’s authority to tax your income, it would logically appear that you must support anarchy and chaos. Is that the case?

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 4, 2007 9:30 AM
Comment #237590

“tomd, I pay my taxes freely and willingly,”

Good!…I’m proud of you.

“and while I write my congresspersons and join organizations to insure my taxes are spent more wisely, more prudently, and for the betterment of my nation and my daughter’s future in this country,”

You certainly have the right to do that.

“I am pleased that my taxes also support the quality of life for all in this wealthiest nation on earth.”

That is your opinion and where we probably disagree as to who gets this quality of life support and to what degree.

” Your question implies that you believe the government has not right to tax, but, of course, without revenue, there would be no government, and without government there would be anarchy, chaos, and horrendous rampant crime and human tragedy.”

I don’t imply anything of the sort David, and you know it. The entire premise of our banter is your mis-representation of the FairTax. How does that imply that I believe in NO taxation?

“So, if you hate government’s authority to tax your income, it would logically appear that you must support anarchy and chaos. Is that the case?”

I don’t hate the government’s authority to raise taxes. I think a consumption tax is a better way.

Now that we got the implication thing out of the way, you didn’t answer my question, so here it is again.

If I pay you $100 to do a job for me, who owns the $100? Me, you, or the US Government?


Posted by: tomd at November 4, 2007 10:48 AM
Comment #237595

tomd, the implication I refer to is in your question: “If I pay you $100 to do a job for me, who owns the $100? Me, you, or the US Government?”

Or, would you answer that the government DOES have ownership of a part of that $100?

See, the implication?

Please try to exercise a bit of logic here. If you are for a sales tax, then of course, you are for the government owning a piece of anyone’s income whether that ownership is derived at the time money is taken in or paid out. Answer your own question, if you dare? Then, upon answering it, defend the government’s right to tax everything one buys with their income.

The implication could not be clearer in your own question or, you are at odds with your own premises.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 4, 2007 1:40 PM
Comment #237600

I didn’t think you would answer it. Your dodging says it all.

Posted by: tomd at November 4, 2007 3:39 PM
Comment #237605

The dodge or incapacity to respond to me, is all yours tomd. As evidenced by your paltry responses to mine.

It’s obvious from your response that you didn’t like the logical trap you painted yourself into. You don’t like taxes and ask if the government should own your pay or mine, at the same time that you advocate for sales taxes on everything you purchase, which is the government owning a portion of every income dollar you spend.

Thanks though.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 4, 2007 7:34 PM
Comment #237610

David,

You’ve twisted and squirmed and so far haven’t answered my question or Yucon’s question. Both questions are simple but an honest answer would expose your agenda.

I’ll answer my question for you as if it were directed at me. If you payed me $100 to do a job, then the $100 would belong to ME. My obligation help fund my government is a totaly different issue. And YES I do believe in taxes. Now, How do YOU answer the question?

Posted by: tomd at November 4, 2007 9:15 PM
Comment #237646

Thank you tom, if you believe in taxes, then you believe the government owns a part of your income, whether it collects those taxes before you get your income check or after when you spend it.

So, logically, you are inconsistent in saying you own the $100 and can, by definition of ownership, choose not to give ANY part of that $100 income to the government in taxes. But, then, that is inconsistent with your statement that you believe in taxes to fund government.

That’s fine. I know many people who are inconsistent and illogical in their statements of belief and thinking.

I answered your trick question, many times now, while highlighting the inconsistency in your statements and implications. Because a person asks a question in no way entitles them to an answer (that too is 1st and 5th Amendments protected).

There are certain questions one shouldn’t answer: like: Do you beat your child more or less today than before?. It’s a trick question and a straightforward answer of “less” (as in never) becomes indicting upon the person answering even though they never beat their child ever. The educated debater will reframe the question to render a more honest and informative answer.

My answer to you was everyone who enjoys the benefits and protections of the government are obligated to help pay for those benefits and protections and to keep the nation as a whole solvent. At $9 Trillion of national debt, it is clear Republican politicians don’t agree with me on this.

Instead, they chose to borrow from future generations who have no voice to represent themselves on this matter of piling on current national debt and deficit it spending. The GOP in action doesn’t practice what they preach: they in fact do tax those who have no representation, future generations of workers, by piling national debt upon them before they are even born.

Democrats have been no better through the absence of action to legislate current recipients of entitlements pay more for them, including the millionaires exempt from SS tax after the first $92,000, despite the fact that they are entitled to SS benefits under current law. That however will change soon.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 5, 2007 5:57 PM
Comment #237650

David,

It wasn’t a “trick” question. I asked a simple questionto try and get a perspective of your beliefs. Your dodging the question SHOUTED your beliefs. Thank you for your response.

Posted by: tomd at November 5, 2007 6:34 PM
Comment #237693


Let’s do away with the New Deal, all the laws that protect workers or regulate business and see what happens.

Posted by: jlw at November 6, 2007 12:17 PM
Comment #237704

Shoot jlw, I’d gladly give up those laws in order to get back my individual rights the founders intended me to have.

Tomd and Yukon, stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, gets votes and brushes responsibility onto the govt.

They tell the poor that the rich don’t “pay their fair share” even though the rich probably pay 10 times more than the average person does. They create this envy because they know people will disregard individual rights and vote with their emotions.

Why should somebody have to actually support what they “say” is the right thing to do, when they can have govt force everybody else to support it for them?

People won’t want a fair tax system if it means they have to be more responsible and people won’t want a fair tax system if it means they can no longer use govt to force others to believe as they do.

Americans are too lazy and too dependent on govt for a fair tax system to work so you might as well get used to it.

Posted by: kctim at November 6, 2007 1:28 PM
Comment #237714

tomd, I answered your question, many times now. You just don’t like the fact that my answer is not what you want me to say. Enjoy!

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 6, 2007 3:15 PM
Post a comment