[Ed Dantes]

Innocent Bystander and I are having a discussion on a different post, and I wanted to move the thread here. this started by big smooth asking why people would vote for huckabee:

#1 - I believe him to be the strongest pro-life candidate by far. My vote hinges more on this issue than any other
#2 - I am a supporter of the fair tax system
#3 - I find him to be the strongest advocate of the 2nd amendment
#4 - I think he is likeable enough to people on both ends of the political spectrum to possibly get some things done and rebuild some bridges

#1 - The only thing that matters in that issue is what judges he appoints. Every GOP candidate essentially says he'll put on judges favorable to the pro-life side.
#2 - That's probably because you're a fool, or you want to screw the middle class.
#3 - I would defer to Fred Thompson on this one.
#4 - The only way Democrats would permit "rebuilding bridges" is if the right completely abandons their principles. Go ask Joe Lieberman about how accepting the left is towards people with opposing views. And you know what, since Huckabee is basically a Democrat, maybe you're right about #4.

#1 - I agree with you on this, the question is whether or not you believe and trust them. At least two of the candidates either are now, or have been, pro-abortion. Most of the others (McCain and Huckabee are the exception) favor that decision being left to the states. Huckabee is the only candidate that I am aware of that is proposing to amend the constitution to define unborn babies as people. I am not naive enough to believe that, in the current political climate, this will happen, but I think it is a debate that we, as a nation need to have.
#2 - I'm glad you said 'probably' or else I might have been offended. What is foolish, in my opinion, is that we currently have a tax system that not only punishes acheivement, but also gives the federal government theoretical control of 100% of our earnings. We also have a system that allows a majority of the people to decide that other people are too successful and to take their money. What gets lost in this jealous grab for someone elses money is that the people that make the most money are the people that make the economy go. They are the people that build businesses, spend money in the marketplace and provide jobs. By taxing them at a higher rate, you give them less money to put back into the marketplace.
#3 - After further research, I will concede that Thompson is stronger in 2nd amendment rights than Huckabee, but Huckabee is by no means weak.
#4 - The idea that a republican president can effect change with a democrat controlled congress without building bridges is questionable, to say the least. I don't forsee a massive shift in either house of congress coming this year. You may be correct that the current democrat members of congress are not interested in building bridges, but that doesn't mean that you don't try. And I also don't think that you need to compromise principles to do it. In fact, I would say that the Bush administration has done just that. They tried to work with congress on some big government projects and Bush apparently lost his veto stamp for the first 6 years of his presidency and it got him nowhere.

[LUconn]

The fairtax is so funny. The 2 different sides, will tell you 2 completely different things. Not in an interprative way but in a way where one side has got to be lying about it.

I do tend to think there has been a lot more time and money poured into researching it by supporters than detractors. You can take from that what ever you'd like.

[LUconn]

and just so it doesn't come off that I'm some kind of unbias source, I don't think taxing income makes any sense.

[LUconn]

#2 - That's probably because you're a fool, or you want to screw the middle class.

and while I'm thinking about it, how does this screw with the middle class?

[Ed Dantes]

#1 - You can propose all the amendments that you want, but that doesn't mean it's going to go anywhere. You need to get three-fourths of the states to agree to it, which is pretty difficult. I mean, there was a proposal to ban abortion in South Dakota which didn't go anywhere. And South Dakota isn't exactly a bastion of liberalism, you know. You can easily find 12 other, more liberal states, that won't agree to ban abortion -- thus meaning that your amendment won't go anywhere. So I guess you're all for saying, "Vote for Huckabee -- he'll say stuff, even though it won't even come close to sticking". Kind of like our Democratic Congress.

#2 - If you want to talk about unfair, how about how the "Fair" Tax is considerably unfair to those with high consumption lifestyles and little income? While you're probably saying "who cares about them" -- take into consideration senior citizens. They've dealt with our current tax system for their entire lives, saved what they could, and now they've retired and living on their life savings. You want to say to them "thanks for the help. Now your standard of living is 23 percent higher." Sounds rather unfair to me. Also, you say "by taxing them (meaning citizens) at a higher rate, you give them (citizens) less money to put back into the marketplace. Well -- how about this: "By taxing "goods and products" at a higher rate (23%), you give citizens less incentive to put their money into the marketplace."

#3 - Hey, I'm for the second amendment as much as the next guy, but if there was a candidate saying "guns for everyone, except nut jobs like the guy who shot up VTech and that church in Denver"

#4 - Ronald Reagan managed to work rather fine with a Democrat Congress. Bush's problem is that he is so divisive (largely due to the circumstances that surrounded how he took office in 2000 -- albeit legitimately) that no one listens to him and Congress will basically oppose him no matter what he says. Plus, he's not great at articulating his position or inspiring the masses, like Reagan was. Frankly, I don't think any of the Republican candidates can inspire like Reagan. And if there was someone on the right that spoke like that -- well, we, and every other conservative, would probably be in agreement over who to support.

[ToTheLeft]

#2 - That's probably because you're a fool, or you want to screw the middle class.

and while I'm thinking about it, how does this screw with the middle class?

That was my biggest question with the rant.

The poor get to take home all of their lightly taxed (currently) money, the middle class get to take home all of their moderately taxed money, and the rich get to take home all of their heavily taxed money.

Seems like the poor, if anyone, get the short end of this deal.

[Ed Dantes]

#2 - That's probably because you're a fool, or you want to screw the middle class.

and while I'm thinking about it, how does this screw with the middle class?

The Fair Tax claims to be revenue-neutral, meaning that it will bring in to the treasury as much as the current tax system.

You can say, well, what's the point then? Simple. It's shifting the tax burden from some groups to others -- basically, the poor and the rich will see less of a burden; the middle class, more.

And there are people who are struggling to get by now -- it'd pretty much blow if everything I bought cost an extra 23%.

[ALUmnus]

I don't think you have a clear view of how the Fair Tax works. That 23% is already built in to the price of what we consume today, in the form of taxes and regulations imposed on the seller/producer, we just see it as a higher price. The Fair Tax implemented correctly would eliminate those built in taxes on the seller/producer, lowering the actual price of the product, and then adding it back in the form of the tax. Hence, no price change. At least that's the theory. Scaremongers love throwing in the middle class when they don't like or understand a policy change.

Now, I like the Fair Tax, think it's a good idea, but like Ed, I know it has absolutely no chance of EVER happening in this country. And I think that Huckabee knows that also, but it sure is good for winning a few votes. I think the Flat Tax, while inferior, would have a much better chance of being implemented.

[Innocent Bystander]

#1 - You can propose all the amendments that you want, but that doesn't mean it's going to go anywhere. You need to get three-fourths of the states to agree to it, which is pretty difficult. I mean, there was a proposal to ban abortion in South Dakota which didn't go anywhere. And South Dakota isn't exactly a bastion of liberalism, you know. You can easily find 12 other, more liberal states, that won't agree to ban abortion -- thus meaning that your amendment won't go anywhere. So I guess you're all for saying, "Vote for Huckabee -- he'll say stuff, even though it won't even come close to sticking". Kind of like our Democratic Congress.

#2 - If you want to talk about unfair, how about how the "Fair" Tax is considerably unfair to those with high consumption lifestyles and little income? While you're probably saying "who cares about them" -- take into consideration senior citizens. They've dealt with our current tax system for their entire lives, saved what they could, and now they've retired and living on their life savings. You want to say to them "thanks for the help. Now your standard of living is 23 percent higher." Sounds rather unfair to me. Also, you say "by taxing them (meaning citizens) at a higher rate, you give them (citizens) less money to put back into the marketplace. Well -- how about this: "By taxing "goods and products" at a higher rate (23%), you give citizens less incentive to put their money into the marketplace."

#3 - Hey, I'm for the second amendment as much as the next guy, but if there was a candidate saying "guns for everyone, except nut jobs like the guy who shot up VTech and that church in Denver"

#4 - Ronald Reagan managed to work rather fine with a Democrat Congress. Bush's problem is that he is so divisive (largely due to the circumstances that surrounded how he took office in 2000 -- albeit legitimately) that no one listens to him and Congress will basically oppose him no matter what he says. Plus, he's not great at articulating his position or inspiring the masses, like Reagan was. Frankly, I don't think any of the Republican candidates can inspire like Reagan. And if there was someone on the right that spoke like that -- well, we, and every other conservative, would probably be in agreement over who to support.

#1 - What I am not saying is, "vote for someone that will not introduce any new ideas because they probably won't be approved". Most people don't accept the gospel the first time they hear it, but you keep presenting it to them anyway. If ideas that don't have wide acceptance to start are never presented, nothing would ever get done.

#2 - I will concede that there would have to be a transition of some sort for senior citizens. However, you say, "By taxing "goods and products" at a higher rate (23%), you give citizens less incentive to put their money into the marketplace." But you also give them much more spendable income to put into the marketplace.

#3 - I think we're in agreement on point #3

#4 - So you go from bashing my point on bridge building to pointing out what a great bridge builder Reagan was and how bad Bush is at it. I'm a bit confused here. As for needing someone like Reagan, I wholeheartedly agree. Hopefully, another Reagan will come along before too long, but I fear he was a once in a generation type of president.

[LUconn]

#2 - If you want to talk about unfair, how about how the "Fair" Tax is considerably unfair to those with high consumption lifestyles and little income? While you're probably saying "who cares about them" -- take into consideration senior citizens. They've dealt with our current tax system for their entire lives, saved what they could, and now they've retired and living on their life savings.

As was stated, by imbedded taxes being eliminated, the things they are purshasing will remain the same price. Now the people who will get the shaft is folks investing in Roth 401ks and Roth IRAs. But I guess that's the chance you take when deciding whether to go Roth or traditional.

[Ed Dantes]

Yeah, but it's wrong to say that the corporate income taxes that companies pay for products that they sell you is 23%. It's nowhere near that, it's closer to 3-5%.

[Ed Dantes]

#1 - What I am not saying is, "vote for someone that will not introduce any new ideas because they probably won't be approved". Most people don't accept the gospel the first time they hear it, but you keep presenting it to them anyway. If ideas that don't have wide acceptance to start are never presented, nothing would ever get done.

#2 - I will concede that there would have to be a transition of some sort for senior citizens. However, you say, "By taxing "goods and products" at a higher rate (23%), you give citizens less incentive to put their money into the marketplace." But you also give them much more spendable income to put into the marketplace.

#3 - I think we're in agreement on point #3

#4 - So you go from bashing my point on bridge building to pointing out what a great bridge builder Reagan was and how bad Bush is at it. I'm a bit confused here. As for needing someone like Reagan, I wholeheartedly agree. Hopefully, another Reagan will come along before too long, but I fear he was a once in a generation type of president.

#1 - The abortion discussion has been at the national forefront since 1973, and has been around far longer than that. I really doubt that people are going to say "Well, the President is pro-life! That changes everything! Never again will I petition my congressman for the right to insert scissors into the back of a partially-born infant's head, suck its brain out, and collapse its skull!" They know what they're signing up for. Abortion will never be illegal again in this country, I'm sorry to say. Hopefully those who commit the atrocity will abort their sick, sick ideology out of existence... but until then, let's address the issue realistically.

#2 - Regardless, the Fair Tax ain't happening. I think if we start the "tax" argument by saying "we can do this and still give the government the same revenue", we lose the argument. The problem is that the cost of government is far too high. I mean, $2.8 TRILLION dollars! We need to curb the size of government. If you cut government by 20 percent -- which you can easily, easily do -- we wouldn't need to have taxes as ridiculously high and complicated as we do now.

#3 - Darn it. I still want to argue.

#4 - Bobby Jindal, the new Governor of Louisiana. He's like the Republican's Barack Obama, except he's qualified and there's substance to what he says.

[LUconn]

here's some bathroom reading

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer? ... answers#15

What about senior citizens, retired people, and anyone on a fixed income?

As a group, seniors do very well under the FairTax. Low-income seniors are much better off under the FairTax than under the current income tax system.

Some erroneously believe that people who live exclusively on Social Security pay no taxes. They may not know it, but they are paying hidden corporate income taxes and employer payroll taxes whenever they buy anything. Under the FairTax, seniors pay $0.23 out of every dollar they choose to spend on new goods and services.

Plus, seniors, like everyone else, receive a monthly prebate, in advance of purchases, for taxes paid on the cost of necessities which more than pays for all of the taxes they would pay if they received the average Social Security benefit amount and spent it all. If seniors choose to work, they are freed from regressive payroll taxes, the federal income tax on wages, and the compliance burdens associated with each. They pay no more hidden taxes on goods or services, and used goods are tax free. There is no income tax on their Social Security benefits.

The income tax imposed on investment income and pension benefits or IRA withdrawals is repealed. Pension funds, IRAs, and 401(k) plans had assets of $12 trillion in 2004. An income tax deduction was taken for contributions to most of these plans. All beneficiaries and owners of these plans expected to pay income tax on them upon withdrawal, but are not required to do so under the FairTax.

All owners of existing homes experience large capital gains due to the repeal of the income tax and implementation of the FairTax Plan. Seniors have dramatically higher home ownership rates than other age groups (81 percent for seniors compared to 65 percent on average). Homes are often a family’s largest asset. Gains are likely to be in the range of 20 percent.

The FairTax makes the economy much more dynamic and prosperous. Consequently, federal tax revenues grow. This makes it less likely that federal budget pressures require Medicare or Social Security benefit

[Ed Dantes]

I like this one.

"Support the Fair Tax! People making between $15,000 and $200,000 don't pay enough in taxes, anyway!"

[Innocent Bystander]

#1 - What I am not saying is, "vote for someone that will not introduce any new ideas because they probably won't be approved". Most people don't accept the gospel the first time they hear it, but you keep presenting it to them anyway. If ideas that don't have wide acceptance to start are never presented, nothing would ever get done.

#2 - I will concede that there would have to be a transition of some sort for senior citizens. However, you say, "By taxing "goods and products" at a higher rate (23%), you give citizens less incentive to put their money into the marketplace." But you also give them much more spendable income to put into the marketplace.

#3 - I think we're in agreement on point #3

#4 - So you go from bashing my point on bridge building to pointing out what a great bridge builder Reagan was and how bad Bush is at it. I'm a bit confused here. As for needing someone like Reagan, I wholeheartedly agree. Hopefully, another Reagan will come along before too long, but I fear he was a once in a generation type of president.

#1 - The abortion discussion has been at the national forefront since 1973, and has been around far longer than that. I really doubt that people are going to say "Well, the President is pro-life! That changes everything! Never again will I petition my congressman for the right to insert scissors into the back of a partially-born infant's head, suck its brain out, and collapse its skull!" They know what they're signing up for. Abortion will never be illegal again in this country, I'm sorry to say. Hopefully those who commit the atrocity will abort their sick, sick ideology out of existence... but until then, let's address the issue realistically.

#2 - Regardless, the Fair Tax ain't happening. I think if we start the "tax" argument by saying "we can do this and still give the government the same revenue", we lose the argument. The problem is that the cost of government is far too high. I mean, $2.8 TRILLION dollars! We need to curb the size of government. If you cut government by 20 percent -- which you can easily, easily do -- we wouldn't need to have taxes as ridiculously high and complicated as we do now.

#3 - Darn it. I still want to argue.

#4 - Bobby Jindal, the new Governor of Louisiana. He's like the Republican's Barack Obama, except he's qualified and there's substance to what he says.

#1 - True, but I believe it is an issue that we should be trying to take ground on, not give ground. And as far as it never being illegal, we're only one justice away.

#2 - This is the correct answer....fair tax, flat tax, progressive tax, regressive tax....the best answer is to quit spending so much money. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on the merits of a flat tax, but I think we are in total agreement on the need to quit spending so much money.

#3 - Pick a new topic. I'm game.

#4 - I'm hearing his name more and more recently. I'm hoping he speaks at the convention because I'd like to hear him speak.

Well, I need to wrap some stuff up before I head home for the day. Thanks for an interesting afternoon Ed.

[Ed Dantes]

#1 - True, but I believe it is an issue that we should be trying to take ground on, not give ground. And as far as it never being illegal, we're only one justice away.

#2 - This is the correct answer....fair tax, flat tax, progressive tax, regressive tax....the best answer is to quit spending so much money. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on the merits of a flat tax, but I think we are in total agreement on the need to quit spending so much money.

#3 - Pick a new topic. I'm game.

#4 - I'm hearing his name more and more recently. I'm hoping he speaks at the convention because I'd like to hear him speak.

Well, I need to wrap some stuff up before I head home for the day. Thanks for an interesting afternoon Ed.

#1 - One conservative justice will revert Roe v. Wade to the states; it won't make it illegal.

#2 - Has anyone preached cutting government? I like the Ron Paul-esque theory of blowing up the government and starting all over again.

#3 - Ummm... how 'bout illegal immigration?

#4 - IF a Republican doesn't win the White House this year (quite likely), I guarantee that these are your top contenders for 2012:

- Gov. Matt Blunt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Blunt
- Gov. Rick Perry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Perry
- Gov. Bobby Jindal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Jindal
- Gov. Charlie Crist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Crist

Thanks, too, Innocent Bystander... 'till tomorrow!

[ALUmnus]

What, no Michael Steele?

[Ed Dantes]

What, no Michael Steele?

I like Michael Steele. He just needs to win an election first.