December 4, 2006 1:11 PM
Bolton bails on U.N. post
Faced with a nomination destined to twist slowly in the wind, John Bolton will resign as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nation.
Bolton's nomination has languished in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for more than a year, blocked by Democrats and several Republicans. Sen. Lincoln Chafee, a moderate Republican who lost in the midterm elections Nov. 7 that swept Democrats to power in both houses of Congress, was adamantly opposed to Bolton.Critics have questioned Bolton's brusque style and whether he could be an effective public servant who could help bring reform to the U.N.
Who should the president choose to replace Bolton?
The National Review floats Sen. Rick Santorum's name and blames Republicans (and a White House without a backbone) for Bolton's resignation.
December 4, 2006
1:47 PM
gr8fuldude writes:
Can Rove be next?????
Oh please please please. I'll never ask for anything again, EVER! And, I'll shovel the driveway, be nice to my sister, etc. etc. etc.
December 4, 2006
1:48 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
Bolton was exactly what was necessary to deal with the UN cesspool.
Chafee lost 6 years to late.
December 4, 2006
1:50 PM
Anonymous writes:
Having strong men in leadership is so 2000.
Can we get an appeaser to take this job? Please?
Surrender solves 100% of the conflict 100% of the time.
December 4, 2006
1:54 PM
JW writes:
Well, nice to see the right hasnt learned from Iraq. If a mistake that large wont teach you, you idiots are doomed to be forever dangerously ignorant.
December 4, 2006
2:07 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
JW
The prosecution of the post war insurgency has not been perfect, but the Democrats are going to stay the course anyway, because there is no alternative. Whacky Fascistshopretetobelims
simply don't give you good options. Of course I will have to hand it to the Democrats, with the Pravda media on their side, they will invent much more clever slogans than "stay the course" to describe staying the course. You have to give the Democrats credit where credit is due. They are far better liars than the Republicans.
December 4, 2006
2:14 PM
JW writes:
"The prosecution of the post war insurgency has not been perfect, but the Democrats are going to stay the course anyway, because there is no alternative."
Its been a consistant cluster F&%k. And they will stay the course for reasons you have been told, but are too dim to see as true (there is oil there which we use as a global domination tool). At least they have forced the Bush admin to start talking about some other options. Thats better than you and your ilk just buying everything that comes out of Bush's mouth, sending him on a 6 year course of "I can screw up as bad as I want! These idiots will still vote Republican!" He was wrong, and right. Most of us didnt, but many of you did!
" Whacky Fascistshopretetobelims
simply don't give you good options."
Oh, but Bush did. I see. And stop using that word. I know it applies to Dems because you are a Republican tool, but for fucks sake, it means nothing in real terms.
" Of course I will have to hand it to the Democrats, with the Pravda media on their side, they will invent much more clever slogans than "stay the course" to describe staying the course.
You mean corporate media.
"You have to give the Democrats credit where credit is due. They are far better liars than the Republicans."
They have to be. Their constituants are way smarter.
December 4, 2006
2:16 PM
777 days to go writes:
They must have decided that getting information from a person nobody would talk to was pointless. I have no clue how good of ambassador he was but with a reputation as a jack booted prick bully I doubt he was very effective.
December 4, 2006
2:32 PM
jay writes:
The real question Hogar, is how the Whitehouse will spin an inevitable phased withdrawal as something besides "cut and run".
December 4, 2006
2:40 PM
history buff writes:
I don't see how Bush can be blamed for Bolton's resignation. It looks like the new Senate will not confirm him. Bolton probably doesn't have the stomach for making a statement, whatever it is the New Republic wants him to say. Something like, we don't recognize the results of the last election?
Who should he nominate? How about his dad?
The other comments about the democrats, gee -- it looks like Bush misled the American public about our reasons for going to war, and he continues to define the war in false terms. There is a reason why thou shalt not lie is one of the ten commandments.
Now, the democrats are supposed to have a plan? Until John Edwards is elected president, the democrats are limited in what they can do.
And who are the islamofascists -- total BS propoganda -- is it the Shiites, the Sunnis, the terrorists? And who are the terrorists? This is starting to look like Viet Nam where we can't tell one group from the other.
Thank you President Bush for your clear and decisive leadership.
December 4, 2006
2:41 PM
JW writes:
Jay,
Didnt you see them talking about a hand over in June? All of a sudden Iraqi forces are ready to go! YEHA!
Ill say again, I think this signals that we are now talking with insurgent groups. Give them a time frame for withdraw without reporting it to Americans. Then, hand over to the Iraqis, setting up a despot government to hold down the populace and play nice with us. Bush gets to claim victory. We get to keep control over their oil through a greatful regime.
Thats how I see it anyway.
December 4, 2006
2:43 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
They have to be. Their constituants are way smarter.
Posted by JW on December 4, 2006 02:14 PM
Which ones, the dead people or the felons?
December 4, 2006
2:54 PM
JW writes:
"Which ones, the dead people or the felons?"
dead people vote repub. Thats been proven.
The "felons" arent really felons. They were just dems that republican tools mislabeled felons so they could deny them the vote.
Jesus Hogar. All you do is bleed Elephant blood, and its so stupid. Im not even a Dem and I have all the rhetoric they use to counter Repub bs. When do you wake up and see they just arent that different?
December 4, 2006
3:06 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
JW
I realize they are more similar than different, but I feel compelled to balance the overwhelming Democrat leaning of this blog.
The thing that I find interesting is that I think that Republicans are much better sports at taking good natured ribbing than Democrats are. I find Steven Colbert, Jon Stewart and David Letterman very funny in their attacks on Republicans. But I find that Democrats have very little sense of humor when the shoe is on the other foot.
December 4, 2006
3:10 PM
777 days to go writes:
Hogar,
The felons in congress have mainly been Republicans recently they are leading the Democrats over 5 to 1 on convictions. Not to mention the loose lips group at the Whitehouse that has its felonies swept under the rug.
December 4, 2006
3:16 PM
JW writes:
"I realize they are more similar than different, but I feel compelled to balance the overwhelming Democrat leaning of this blog."
Well, ever since the election the no-name-rightwing nuts have been very quiet, so I would say its now an overwhelminly CENTRIST blog, but thats just me (And probably anyone who hasnt been so brainwashed by the right the last time they voted non-republican was before Carter).
What was the last book you read Hogar? Something other than the bible for the 15,000,000th time please.
December 4, 2006
3:26 PM
FYI writes:
Hogar feels compelled to balance out the "overwhelming Democrat leaning of this blog".
In other words, Hogar, the majority of people with an opinion on this issue disagree with you, so you feel compelled to bang your thick skull that much harder and yell that much louder in order to drown out reality.
Back on topic, it was the old congress that disagreed with Bolton. The new Democrat-controlled congress has yet to officially weigh in on the issue (since thay haven't truly taken the reins yet). Bolton was the official favorite of one man...G. W. Bush. In his typical favoritist manner, he chose someone from his personal fanclub instead of the most competent or best qualified person for the job. And when he couldn't even walk the nomination past the GOP-led congress, he simply sneaked him in during a congressional recess.
What kind of leadership is it that, when faced with a negative consensus, plays the part of the sneak thief in order to get their way? Anyone remember Watergate?
December 4, 2006
3:29 PM
jay is a JW sockpuppet writes:
So now the definition of a moonbat is a 'centrist'? That's funny.
John Edwards for prez? What happend to the affirmative action program to elect Hillary or Barack Hussein Obama to run the Dhimmicrat party? What came first the nuts or the asylum.
December 4, 2006
3:43 PM
JW writes:
Ive said several times that I could vote for McCain. I could also vote for a Dem if you morons send Jeb up or something.
That makes me a centrist.
Now run along and think right wing thoughts.
December 4, 2006
3:45 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
JW
Most of my reading interests are technical in nature, math, computer science, electrical engineering and some economics. I tend to read more articles and magazines. I enjoy the writing quality of the Smithsonian magazine, even though the have a fairly Liberal slant, they tend to be more subtle than most.
The last book I read was a biography of Dr. David Livingstone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Livingstone
December 4, 2006
3:46 PM
jay is a JW sockpuppet writes:
jw, just keep thinking those happy thoughts. Keep your inner peace.
you wouldn't know a centrist if it hit you in your head.
December 4, 2006
3:50 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
What kind of leadership is it that, when faced with a negative consensus, plays the part of the sneak thief in order to get their way? Anyone remember Watergate?
Posted by FYI on December 4, 2006 03:26 PM
You should educate yourself before you make empty accusations. If you read the history of recess appointments, you will find a long a distinguished line of past Presidents have used this Constitutional tool. But blind Bush hating is to be expected on this "Centerist" blog.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recess_appointment
December 4, 2006
4:07 PM
JW writes:
Hogar,
You should read "The Fair Tax Book"
This think is in Congress right now. Your buddy Trancredo supports it. And it is RIGHT UP YOUR ALLEY! You get your ENTIRE paycheck to do with as you see fit!
And you will probably like this; Since its a sales tax, Immigrants have to pay it legal or not, even TOURISTS end up paying it. The rich cant get around it. Neither can the poor. EVERYONE pays at the same rate!
Asside from that, if you are going to discuss politics I suggest you pick up a political book or two. Getting on here and espousing your strongly held oppinions on the subject shows that you read the paper, and you buy the conservative propoganda. Ignorance cannot be tolerated in a democracy, or it will fail.
"You should educate yourself before you make empty accusations."
There may be precident, but it was still sneaky and against what most people wanted. BTW, in that "long a distinguished line of past Presidents have used this Constitutional tool" were all the people appointed disliked by the majority?
December 4, 2006
4:34 PM
jay writes:
Sockpuppet,
Try to realize that just because an individual is left of the far right, it doesn't mean they are "leftists"...it just means you are an extremist.
December 4, 2006
4:49 PM
s writes:
How about Pat Buchanan? We need people in these types of with positions some good old fashioned American balls.
December 4, 2006
4:51 PM
David Hakala writes:
First Rummy, now Bolton. The Lord of the Flies is seeing his hellish minions swatted left and right. :-)
December 4, 2006
4:58 PM
777 days to go writes:
JW,
How about some more information on that 22% corporate tax? I still think it is a myth necessary to sell that BS fair tax plan. I still say this shifts a majority of the tax burden to the folks that cannot afford it. You are selling the system so you must have reread the “corporate tax” part so you can explain how this system works. I am anxiously waiting to hear why we all pay 22% more for all goods and how you can recover that to pay taxes. I just think there is a gigantic flaw and the 22% assumption is it.
December 4, 2006
5:03 PM
jay writes:
Bolton was never confirmed by the previous Congress either. He was a recess appointment. This is what happens when you nominate people who are unfit to hold the position.
December 4, 2006
5:47 PM
Dale writes:
The U.N. is an out dated, money wasting, political motivated, JOKE. Get rid of it.
December 4, 2006
5:51 PM
JW writes:
"I just think there is a gigantic flaw and the 22% assumption is it."
Ok, I'll try to explain it more time.
Corporations pay taxes. They pay income taxes for all their employees. They pay taxes on their earnings for the year. They pay taxes on purchases from their suppliers. They pay taxes! Get it?
Good. Now, this is a HUGE jump, but see if you can keep up...
Corporations dont actually pay those taxes. They just pass the cost of those taxes off to consumers.
YES! Taxes to corporations are really just another cost, like materials or labor.
And according to the Fair Tax Book, when you add up those taxes, they represent about 22% of the price for a finished product.
And again, its not just corporations. Anyone who sells anything recognizes that they will have to pay taxes on those sales, and will add to the price accordingly.
You cannot tax anyone but individuals. You can fool individuals about how much they are taxed by taxing corporations, or witholding their income taxes ahead of time, making them think april 15 is a great day when you get money back! Rather than what it is, the day the finalized how much the TOOK.
Again, I dont know how you can be so against this. If you get a rebate on all taxes up to the poverty line, anyone below it pays no taxes whatsoever. If all taxes are collected from sales of new products and services, no one can get away without paying, no matter if they are illegal immigrants, rich people who currently use tax shelters, or even tourists just visiting. And the amount of time and money wasted preparing and collecting taxes in the current system becomes capital to be spent.
December 4, 2006
7:21 PM
777 days to go writes:
JW,
The reason I am against it is because if I were rich enough I would just buy my stuff in another country and not pay any taxes. I could own a huge conglomerate like Murdoch has with his media enterprise and FOX television and the publishers of this book, make billions of dollars tax free, and live like a wealthier king in Australia. This and all my needs like security, police, and militaries will be paid for by the consumers of America. Sounds like a great plan there JW I wonder how I could ever find fault in a plan like that. No way could it be propaganda by supporters of Murdoch or insanely rich people that want to skirt what little taxes their accountants couldn’t avoid, no way. Since this plan completely omits small business I guess we could eliminate them too. We can just have Fox News and Wal-Mart stuff but our rich people won’t have to pay taxes, hooray for JW and the system of magic. I done cut out my brain and support you 1000 % (which isn’t possible either).
December 4, 2006
7:24 PM
777 days to go writes:
You know the Democrats and Bolton have something in common? The jackass is the mascot of the Democrats.
December 5, 2006
7:48 AM
Anonymous writes:
I find Steven Colbert, Jon Stewart and David Letterman very funny in their attacks on Republicans..Can you name any Conservative comics?
December 5, 2006
8:16 AM
Anonymous writes:
Drew Carry, Denis Miller, James Woods, George Calin (not a christian, but a conservative) are all conservatives.
December 5, 2006
8:31 AM
JW writes:
"The reason I am against it is because if I were rich enough I would just buy my stuff in another country and not pay any taxes."
Well, since the prices would be about the same as they are now, that would be cost prohibitive. Also, we currently have about $10 TRILLION American dollars in overseas accounts for the specific purpose of avoiding our tax system. What do you think would happen if there were no taxes on investments?
"I could own a huge conglomerate like Murdoch has with his media enterprise and FOX television and the publishers of this book, make billions of dollars tax free, and live like a wealthier king in Australia."
Um. Well, I guess. But since Murdoch lives in the USA even under the current system, I fail to see why he would leave when his ultimate tax responsibiltiy went DOWN.
As for the rest of your chatter, man you are an idiot. Currently, the mega rich dont pay many taxes. They have people they pay LOTS of money to help them use our insanely complicated tax code to avoid paying taxes. The people they pay are the ones FEEDING YOU YOUR OBJECTIONS becaues they make tons of money off the current system.
If there were no taxes but a 23% sales tax, there would be no reason not to invest in America. There would be less reason to off shore jobs (salary arbitrage is only part of that). And in the end, the ammount of taxes any one individual paid would go DOWN.
Yea, Id hate that system too.
And I have to say, while your objections were understandable when we started this conversation, they are now going the direction of UTTER FANTASY.
"If I were super rich I would just quit being American...I would go live in another country even though my taxes went down, and the price of goods and services stayed the same."
"If I lived in Star Trek days, why would I want to pay taxes when replicators make everything free?"
December 5, 2006
9:04 AM
jay writes:
What is it with W's nominees? Brown presides over the worst failure of government disaster response in history, Norton is arguably the worst sec of int in history, Bolton can't even get confirmed in a Republican led Congress and now Gates, his nominee for Sec of Def has the audacity to admit that the US is losing the war in Iraq!?!?! If I were a member of the Republican base, I'd have to wonder if the guy is asleep at the wheel, or conversely too coked up to get some good sleep.
December 5, 2006
9:59 AM
26 days to go writes:
The UN is a joke. They are the thieves, pedophiles and cowards. Bolton was the first ambassador from the US with balls and he called them on most of their BS.
Unfortunately things at the UN wont change much when Koffi leaves at the end of the year regardless of our ambassador.
December 5, 2006
10:28 AM
JW writes:
"The UN is a joke. "
Name three things the UN has done in the last year.
I got $50 says you dont know more than 1, and should therefore take your uninformed oppinion and STFU.
December 5, 2006
10:54 AM
26 days to go writes:
JW,
Why just today they opened a major logistics hub in Ghana, BFD.
Ever hear of Darfur? The United Nations has been shown to be truly impotent when it comes to affecting real change and it will not commit the necessary resources to militarily impose a stop to the on-going genocide in that country.
You should give the $50 to charity, LOSER.
December 5, 2006
10:57 AM
26 days to go writes:
that was oner here is another...
They brought the blue helmet into style
December 5, 2006
10:59 AM
Anonymous writes:
I sure didn't hear three things there Moonie. Why the hostility today? Are you still going bald and getting fat? Must be frustrating.
December 5, 2006
11:01 AM
26 days to go writes:
Oh yeah, here is another of my faves,
Aiding Palestinian Refugees with free schooling, essential health care, relief assistance and key social services.
Teaching them to hate the Joooos even more
December 5, 2006
11:02 AM
David Hakala writes:
"The avoidance of taxes is the only intellectual pursuit that still carries any reward."
~ John Kenneth Galbraith, whose economic theories got us into this taxation mess.
The political problem with an inescapable flat tax is that it leaves people no hope of escaping taxation, no matter how illusory such a red herring may be.
December 5, 2006
11:05 AM
26 days to go writes:
A conference on eliminating sexual exploitation and abuse brought UN staff, member states and non-governmental organizations together to discuss new strategies for addressing the problem, as a frustrated Annan reported that allegations of sexual misconduct against U.N. peacekeepers continue.
Koffi has had a long time to take care of his beloved pedophiles but all we get is another conference.
Need more?
December 5, 2006
11:31 AM
Anonymous writes:
You act as if those are bad things. Not everyone can concentrate hating people all the time.
December 5, 2006
11:34 AM
JW writes:
"The political problem with an inescapable flat tax is that it leaves people no hope of escaping taxation, no matter how illusory such a red herring may be."
Actually Dave, that would be a problem with any tax system you have. If you want government SOMEONE has to pay taxes.
December 5, 2006
12:07 PM
JW writes:
Well, you came up with some things cruton (though your palastinian stuff is actually a good thing, and you posting it as a failure shows your complete and utter ignorance).
Here is a list of 48 items they did to help the world...
http://www.una-usadanecounty.org/about/index.php?category_id=1550
hardly a useless organization, as your right wing bias would have us believe.
December 5, 2006
12:12 PM
BH writes:
777 days to go:
Rupert Murdoch WAS an Australian. He became an American citizen so now he pays US income taxes... which are far more favorable than Australian taxes.
And what was so wrong with Bolton? So we have a brash voice for change in the UN!?!?!? So what? That institution needs a guy like that. Perhaps Bolton has a 'bull in a china shop' approach, but if the china in the shop is already broken, who cares???????????
December 5, 2006
2:58 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
BTW, in that "long a distinguished line of past Presidents have used this Constitutional tool" were all the people appointed disliked by the majority?
Posted by JW on December 4, 2006 04:07 PM
I believe that the Senate is in violation of the Constitution by imposing a 60 vote threshold on Presidential appointments. If it only required a simple majority like the Constitution calls for, Bolton could have been approved. By imposing there own rules which are legitimate with regard to legilation on the advice and consent duties which the Constitution says only requires a simple majority, they have unilaterally modified the Constitution in fact.
With regard to the fair tax, I have no problem with it. Once again you have projected my comments about how others may react to it, and assumed that I feel that way. If I say it might rain tomorrow, I am not expressing what I want to happen, I am expressing what I believe is going to happen. The fair tax is fine with me, but there will be those who find it overly progressive for middle income families with many kids.
December 5, 2006
3:07 PM
JW writes:
Hogar,
Way to not answer the question. I never asked what you thought about the constitution, or what it says (nor will I EVER ask such a thing of YOU).
"With regard to the fair tax, I have no problem with it. Once again you have projected my comments about how others may react to it, and assumed that I feel that way. "
WTF are you talking about? Are you mistaking my response to someone else as a response to you? All I see in my last Fair Tax related response to you is that I think you would like it, and why. There is nothing in there about what YOU think about it.
December 5, 2006
3:10 PM
776 days to go writes:
I guess I will take I don't know as your answer. Many people pay no income taxes and thus your system does not address them with the 22% assumption. I can't be clearer and you still have not explained this. Your insults only show your lack of ability to support your argument. Also, I have no idea who ‘26 days to go’ is.
December 5, 2006
3:30 PM
776 days to go writes:
J-DUBYA,
I guess I will take I don't know as your answer. Many people pay no income taxes and thus your system does not address them with the 22% assumption. I can't be clearer and you still have not explained this. Your insults only show your lack of ability to support your argument. I will present the opposing view so you don’t take me as surly. Also, I have no idea who ‘26 days to go’ is.
Here is some of the opposing argument you should consider:
“ And the claim that the FairTax is really progressive in nature, alleviating the tax burden of the poor and shifting it to the wealthy? Wrong again. Again, the President's Advisory Panel for Federal Tax Reform final report showed that, with the prebates, the overall tax burden on middle-class Americans would increase. I'll give you one guess as to who gets the complimentary decrease in tax burden. That's right - the super wealthy. The overall federal effective tax rate paid by those earning between $15,000 and $50,000 per annum would increase from 3.6 to 6.7 percent, while the overall federal effective tax rate paid by those earning greater than $200,000 annually would drop from 53.5 to 45.9 percent. That's an 86% increase in the effective tax rate on middle Americans, and a 14% drop for the richest among us. William Gale gives it to us in terms of something we're familiar with - he estimates that while "taxes would rise for households in the bottom 90% of the income distribution . . . households in the top 1% would receive an average tax cut of over $75,000."”
Please read the rest:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/8/13/16106/9179
December 5, 2006
3:33 PM
JW writes:
"Many people pay no income taxes and thus your system does not address them with the 22% assumption."
Hmm. Well, you are totally confused or something. The 22% is corporate taxes that are built into products...has nothing to do with individual income taxes.
Just think of it this way I guess...
Corporate taxes are a nice way to make you think corporations pay taxes. Really, corporations just see their taxes as a cost like labor or materials, and deal with them the same way...by upping the price of their products.
Anyway, its pretty clear that our current system sux. You can bash any alternative that comes along because they are tax systems, and taxes SUCK. There is no perfect tax system other than NO tax system. That being the case, Id like to try something else. You want to stick with our current communist based tax system, vote for it!
December 5, 2006
3:34 PM
JW writes:
Ill read yours if youll read mine!
http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/Excerpts_from_response_to_tax_panel-103006.pdf
December 5, 2006
3:53 PM
26 days to go writes:
JW aka cruton,
Your take on the Paleostinians is Rather telling.
You said, "though your palastinian stuff is actually a good thing, and you posting it as a failure shows your complete and utter ignorance"
Since you seem to know it all, I can only think you are just stupid instead of ignorant. In case you are merely ignorant then please read below.
UNRWA (UN Relief and Works Agency) runs one of the largest educational systems in the Arab world–providing schooling for the children of all families registered as refugees. It spends roughly half its budget on education; more than 70% of its staff is concerned with education. But UNRWA does not produce its own textbooks. It is stated UNRWA policy to utilize the textbooks of the host (administrative authority) of an area where a camp is located– Syrian textbooks in camps in Syria, etc.
The Committee for Monitoring the Impact of Peace (CMIP), using UNESCO guidelines, has done a thorough analysis of these books. Findings which can be found in their entirety at www.edume.org include the following:
- Israel’s name does not appear on any of the maps, and several Israeli cities, as well as an archaeological site, a region and mountain are defined as Palestinian.
- Jerusalem is presented as a Palestinian city.
- Peace is not mentioned at all, while war against Israel as a usurper, occupier and aggressor is implicitly encouraged.
- The refugee issue is also mentioned within the context of the destined return to the 1948 homes.
- There is praise of and encouragement for the waging of Jihad–Holy War.
- Jews and Israelis are represented as being cunning and deceitful.
December 5, 2006
4:04 PM
JW writes:
K, Right off the bat we get the bs arguement that its really a 29% increase.
23 is 23% of 100. Period.
Of course if you draw it out...
100-23=77. 23/77=29.
This is just numbers manipulation. It sux.
Second point uses the above to bs you. "you'd really end up spending $145 (as the tax-exclusive rate would be $31/($100-$31) = 44.9%)."
Its tax inclusive, not exclusive.
"It's practically common sense that tax compliance is going to decrease drastically below the already pedantic current level when taxed entities are given the responsibility of self-reporting."
Uh, we are given the responsibility now, we just report to the IRS. Under the fair tax, the number of people reporting goes down, and they report to government. Seems like since the number goes down they would be EASIER to audit. Also, since its only one tax with no weird exemptions and crap, audits would be easier themselves.
"Taking into account everything that the proponents of the FairTax have failed to, the American people would be left with the necessity of a national sales tax fast approaching 100% in order to maintain critical revenue neutrality. "
If this is true (which its not) we need to cut spending. Our tax burden currenly ammounts to 100% of our retail sales (LOL).
"This would also be the case under the FairTax Act, except that the poorest families among us would become dependent on monthly checks from the government for a sizable fraction of their basic needs."
Liar. They still get their whole check (if they are currently claiming exempt) or they would get their whole check (if they are witholding and getting it back at the end of the year). The cost of products stays the same. They would be fine.
"u]nder the proposed national sales tax rate of 30 percent at the cash register, consumers would simply stop spending on anything but the barest necessities for a prolonged period of time"
Accept that prices wouldnt change...damnit! Also: "In light of comments made by former Fed Chair Alan Greenspan in support of a national sales tax program similar to the FairTax" Im gona go with Greenspan..every time.
"The overall federal effective tax rate paid by those earning between $15,000 and $50,000 per annum would increase from 3.6 to 6.7 percent, while the overall federal effective tax rate paid by those earning greater than $200,000 annually would drop from 53.5 to 45.9 percent."
Ummm, might that be because there are so many more people at that level? Besides, if you end up getting your entire paycheck, and can invest with no tax liability, do you GIVE A SHIT what your Demographic tax burden is?
"taxes would rise for households in the bottom 90% of the income distribution . . . households in the top 1% would receive an average tax cut of over $75,000."
Huh. Thats weird. Because my current tax rate for the feds is around 23% right now. If I got my whole paycheck, and only paid 23% tax on what I used to purchase stuff, Im wondering how that works out to more than 23% on my entire paycheck?
And now we get the kicker, who wrote this pos?
"A Chemical Engineering graduate from Georgia Tech and a first year law student at the University of Virginia. "
So, even though Greenspan advocated something similar, Im supposed to go with a guy who knows chemicals, and is studying law. NO THANKS.
BTW, Texas and Florida currently use a sales tax like the Fair Tax and have no income tax at all. They seem to be doing fine.
December 5, 2006
4:10 PM
JW writes:
Man, Im alwasy JW. You are the cruton.
Regarding your post....
No link, and Im hesitant to take your word for a damn thing but...
If its true, thats bad. They shouldnt be teaching hate like that. I do have to ask however, would they be better off with NO EDUCATION? My guess is they would be learning that anti Israel stuff anyway...
December 5, 2006
4:43 PM
776 days to go writes:
JW,
Read your rebuttle peice and basicly they said that the Federal Tax Panel did not respect the framing and assumptions Fair Tax made. I don't agree with the Fair Tax assumptions either. And now a federal tax panel agrees with me. Thanks for the link.
December 5, 2006
5:14 PM
JW writes:
Yea well, you got your opinion, Ill take mine. And since neither of us are economists, thas all they are, even if they are informed opinion.
And it comes down to the fact that Im willing to take a chance on real reform. Our current system sux. Its based on communist principles, it creates enormous waste, and its unfair to those who do well but not quite well enough.
You can go ahead and agree with those that shoot down all the new proposals. Ill say its because you fear change (nothing wrong with that, everyone does to one degree or antother) and that its self defeating. Doubtless, you have a different opinion on that as well.
One thing we can agree on, the country will be better off in 776 days! (provided we dont replace George with Jeb)
December 6, 2006
2:54 PM
sk writes:
If the fair tax replaces the income tax as well as sales tax, I am all for it.