Campaign 2008

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

The 23% number is what the FairTax advocacy groups claim will be required to remain revenue neutral...most economists think you would actually need a higher rate in order to do so.

 

Somehow a 30% income tax is going to cause a 20% drop in prices? Oh do tell.

 

Marvin, you could (tenuously) make the argument that tax rates would decrease for everyone at the margin, but you're not doing that. The FairTax would increase the tax burden on middle class families. Let me repeat that, MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES WILL PAY MORE TAXES THAN THEY DO NOW WITH THE FAIRTAX.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Upon further thought, the claim that the FairTax will lower prices by 20% is prima facie ridiculous.

 

Again, the claim is revenue neutrality. Payroll and income taxes collect about 2 and half trillion bucks a year for the federal government. The FairTax would have to replace every single one of those dollars. If prices somehow dropped 20%, then the gubmint would just have to jack up the tax rate to replace revenues.

 

So either the prices won't drop 20%, or the tax rate will be a lot higher than 23%.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

The 23% number is what the FairTax advocacy groups claim will be required to remain revenue neutral...most economists think you would actually need a higher rate in order to do so.

 

Somehow a 30% income tax is going to cause a 20% drop in prices? Oh do tell.

 

Marvin, you could (tenuously) make the argument that tax rates would decrease for everyone at the margin, but you're not doing that. The FairTax would increase the tax burden on middle class families. Let me repeat that, MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES WILL PAY MORE TAXES THAN THEY DO NOW WITH THE FAIRTAX.

 

Bush's Tax Reform panel in 2006 said fair tax could be revenue neutral as low as 20% but that was 2 years ago so who knows.

 

Prices will drop up to 20% because companies wont have to pay corporate taxes. I guess you could subscribe to theory that companies will just hog all the extra money they save from the elimination of those taxes to themselves as profitd and not invest it in creating new jobs and reducing product prices, but I would imagine it would be very transparent if they did so. "Why does your product still cost X$ when your corporate taxes were eliminated?" "Well..uh..yeah..about that uh.." They'd be faced with other companies that would reduce costs and thus be at a disadvantage in the marketplace and quickly change their tune.

 

And I dont see how anyone would worry about a 3% tax burden increase on the middle class if they were getting to keep almost $4,000 themselves, all other things being equal (government getting the same ammount of money and the family buying the same ammount of goods/services).

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I'm going to bed but I'll try to respond/discuss more if I have time tomorrow.

[Toshiaki Koala 0]

I still prefer Ron Paul to any other candidate, but holy shit are his supporters batshit fucking nuts.

 

WHO WILL PROTECT OUR PRECIOUS BODILY FLUIDS?

[Jingus 0]

If Jingus, the Dr. King of TSM, says Ron Paul is racist then it's gotta be true.

Except that I DIDN'T SAY HE WAS RACIST you blind fucking troll. I said, if he didn't approve of those statements then it means he didn't write, edit, or even read his own newsletter which was published under his byline. That, plus claiming to be unable to remember any names of anyone who might've possibly written it, just sounds like sloppy leadership to me.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Upon further thought, the claim that the FairTax will lower prices by 20% is prima facie ridiculous.

 

Again, the claim is revenue neutrality. Payroll and income taxes collect about 2 and half trillion bucks a year for the federal government. The FairTax would have to replace every single one of those dollars. If prices somehow dropped 20%, then the gubmint would just have to jack up the tax rate to replace revenues.

 

So either the prices won't drop 20%, or the tax rate will be a lot higher than 20%.

 

Im too lazy so from the Wikipedia for the fair tax:

 

Retail prices are inflated due to embedded taxes and compliance costs passed to the consumer by producers and suppliers.[4] John Linder states the FairTax would eliminate almost all federal taxation costs from the supply chain, which could lower production costs by up to 30%.[49] Americans For Fair Taxation has claimed that the production cost of domestic goods and services could decrease by approximately 22% on average after embedded taxes and compliance costs were removed, leaving the sale nearly the same after taxes.[27] This is based on a study conducted by Dr. Dale Jorgenson, who found that producer prices would drop between 15% and 26% (depending on the type of good/service) after the switch to a consumption based tax.[5]

 

..

 

The decrease in production cost would only slightly apply to imported products, so, according to proponents, it would provide tax advantages for domestic production and increase U.S. competitiveness in global trade.

 

Another problem is whenever major media reports on the Fair Tax, they almost always dont do enough research and jump to the wrong conclusions based on the concept of "30% sales tax". And Huckabee almost never is mentioned in the same breath with the fair tax even though he's the only major supporter of it running for President.

 

It bugs the hell out of me that a candidate backing an actual plan (OH MY GOD AN ACTUAL PLAN) that could help the economy out in numerous ways. If the media actually got its head out of its ass and did research and reported on the benefits of the fair tax (see below), I think Huckabee would appeal to a lot of people. But as it is now, people who even remotely support it are viewed as crazy and given every reason in the world why it wont work, which is dumb since the current tax code is broken and doesn't work anymore either. Someone is going to have to do something during the next term as president or else I believe the economy will be ruined beyond repair and we'll be staring 1929 right in the face and kicking ourselves for not doing anything about it.

 

Benefits :

1) Bring high paying manufacturing jobs back to the US. If people had a nickel for everytime they heard someone complain that the good paying jobs were going overseas, we'd all be rich and wouldn't have to worry about it. The fair tax would turn the Worlds worst country for businesses in terms of corporate tax burden (the corporate tax currently stands at 35%) into a haven for businesses from around the globe who would be fighting to build presences in the US. Eliminating that tax would allow companies to invest in not only physical assets like plants and equipment, but the people that work there through higher wages.

 

2) More goods made in the US means less prices for US goods making them better options than crap made in China and other countries. It would also mean we'd be exporting more goods than we do now because our goods would be cheaper overseas than they are now. The biggest thing though is what I mentioned earlier, in that we could reverse the economy based on you spending money to manufacturing things like it used to be a while ago. There is no way the economy can maintain itself at 70% fueled by consumer spending, which is also why you hear almost nothing negative about consumer spending, since they don't want to panic people into not spending their money and why they need people to be in debt for the rest of their lives in order to keep the economy going.

 

3) Environmental impact would be great because used goods would get sold over and over again since they're cheaper instead of ending up in landfills. Also think of all the paper that would get saved not having to worry about mailing the tax forms out each year to millions of people. The 30% tax would apply to gas which would cause people to think of alternative transportation methods and get businesses who are now not taxed away from viable research into alternative fuel technologies into that arena. It wont be 15 or 20 years before we have viable alternatives to gasoline, it'll probably be 5-10.

 

4) If nothing is done about illegal immigration, then at least the illegal immigrants would pay the fair tax unless they send all of their money to Mexico via a horse (western union or whatever would need to pay the fair tax as well since its a service). Maybe they'd decide to go home? Not to mention the fact that profits from illegal activities such as drugs, prostitution and gambling would in effect be taxed if the people used the profits to buy things. These two areas alone do not pay taxes now and yet would for the most part under fair tax.

 

5) From everything Ive read, Social Security and Medicare wouldn't end up being a huge burden on the economy in as little as 10 years (you dont have them taken out of your paycheck anymore, but the fair tax goes to help pay for those entitlement programs)

 

6) People might be motivated to save their money instead of spending every last dime they have, especially for things like retirement, education and healthcare.

Costs for education wouldnt be taxed and savings plans for retirement wouldnt be taxed either since its not spending. You get to keep every dime you earn and its up to you, not the government to decide how much of the money you make they get.

[Guest Cock Ring Warehouse]

If Jingus, the Dr. King of TSM, says Ron Paul is racist then it's gotta be true.

Except that I DIDN'T SAY HE WAS RACIST you blind fucking troll.

BLIND FUCKING TROLL

 

[Narcoleptic Jumper 0]

Every election in modern US history has been a criminal manipulation, choreographed and rigged by political elites and performed by hand-picked elite puppets, each backed by their teams of corrupt war criminals, intelligence/security “advisors” and think tank assets. The 2008 affair will be no different.

 

It is time once again to dispel the mass insanity and unfounded hopes as another fresh election hell ensues. There will be no savior, no end to the continuing world crisis, and absolutely no “change."

 

The monsters behind each candidate

As the American public once again gets swept up into another beyond, ridiculous carnival over which “presidential personality” is most “likeable," which preselected puppet makes a better speech, etc., there is little or no attention paid to the individuals behind each candidate; the forces that are pulling the strings, and actually setting the geopolitical agenda.

 

The Washington Post has provided a complete list of each puppet’s respective “masters," which must be studied line by line:

 

The War Over The Wonks: A list of national security and foreign policy advisors to the leading presidential candidates from both parties

 

This list holds the key to the central issue: war.

 

As the names reveal, every major candidate (the favored puppets with any real chance of being selected) fronts for agendas set by current and former neoconservative and neoliberal “security” officers and politicos, members of the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations, and apparatuses such as the Heritage Foundation, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Brookings Institution, AIPAC, the Hoover Institution, the American Enterprise Institute, and others.

 

Some of the most nightmarish individuals who walk the earth today can be found behind the candidates, as follows:

 

John McCain

*

Henry Kissinger

*

Richard Armitage, former deputy secretary of state, covert operative and lifelong Bush ally

*

Robert “Bud” McFarlane, Reagan/Bush national security adviser, Iran, Contra

*

William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard (neocon)

*

Alexander Haig, Reagan/Bush secretary of state

*

George Shultz, Reagan/Bush secretary of state, Hoover Institution, Bechtel

*

Brent Scowcroft, Ford, George H.W. Bush national security adviser

*

James Woolsey, former CIA director

*

Lawrence Eagleburger, George H.W. Bush secretary of state

*

William Ball, Reagan administration Navy secretary

*

Colin Powell

 

Barack Obama

*

Zbigniew Brzezinski

*

Anthony Lake, Clinton administration national security adviser

*

Sarah Sewall, Clinton administration deputy secretary of defense, counter, insurgency czar

*

Richard Clarke, Clinton and Bush administration counter, terrorism czar

*

Susan Rice, Clinton administration Africa specialist and NSC member, Brookings

*

Bruce Riedel, former CIA officer, NSC Near East and Asian affairs, Brookings

 

Hillary Clinton

*

Bill Clinton

*

Madeline Albright, Clinton administration secretary of state

*

Sandy Berger, Clinton administration national security adviser

*

Richard Holbrooke, Clinton administration UN ambassador

*

Gen. Wesley Clark, Clinton era Kosovo commander

*

Leslie Gelb, Council on Foreign Relations, former State and Defense Department official

*

Martin Indyk, Clinton administration Israel ambassador, Brookings

*

Strobe Talbott, Clinton administration deputy secretary of state, co, creator of Caspian oil “6+2” group, Brookings

*

Jeffrey Smith, former CIA general counsel

 

Rudy Giuliani

*

Kim Holmes, former George W. Bush assistant secretary of state, Heritage Foundation

*

Louis Freeh, former FBI director

*

Stephen Yates, former deputy assistant to Dick Cheney

*

Norman Podhoretz, Hudson Institute (neocon)

*

Kenneth Weinstein, Hudson Institute

*

Numerous individuals connected to the neocon Hoover Institution and Heritage Foundation

Mike Huckabee

 

Huckabee has been secretive about his team. Among the names floated so far:

*

Ed Rollins, Republican operative

*

Frank Gaffney, neocon

*

John Bolton, George W. Bush U.N. ambassador (as of this writing, Bolton’s participation is a strong rumor)

John Edwards

 

Edwards boasts a large team of career military/intelligence officers, most of whom are “rank and file." Among the more notable names:

*

Barry Blechman, Jimmy Carter assistant director of US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, founder and chairman of the Henry L. Stimson Center

*

Irving Blickstein, former assistant deputy chief of Naval operations, RAND Corporation

Mitt Romney

*

Cofer Black, former CIA and George W. Bush state department counter, terrorism officer, vice president of Blackwater USA

*

Alberto Cardenas, lobbyist and former chairman of Florida Republican party

*

Roger Noriega, George W. Bush assistant secretary for Western hemisphere affairs

*

Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R, Mich.), ranking member, House Intelligence Committee

 

The choice of the puppet masters

As noted by Daniel Estulin in The True Story of the Bilderberg Group, the masters of “one world government," whose members manipulate all elections, seek the following main objectives: 1) one international identity, or “internationalism," 2) centralized control of people, 3) a zero growth, post industrial society, 3) a state of perpetual world imbalance, 4) centralized control of all foreign and domestic policies, 5) empowerment of the United Nations and NATO, and 6) Anglo, American, controlled trading bloc.

 

While it is still too early to ascertain the final choice of the leading world-shaping groups (Bilderberg, Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations, etc.), it is clear, from the above lists, that the approved White House puppets are already the “front runners."

 

While true representatives of “change” such as Dennis Kucinich, Cynthia McKinney and Ron Paul, stand no chance (and whose “votes” would be systematically erased in any case), the only remaining puppets, and their respective teams, are proven supplicants of the existing war and industrial elite.

 

It goes without saying that the Republican candidates, particularly John McCain, is deeply connected to the worst elements, most prominently, Henry Kissinger. Barack Obama’s elite connection speaks for itself: Zbigniew Brzezinski.

 

McCain’s participation in the 1980s savings and loan scandal, as a member of the infamous Keating Five, is a matter of historical fact.

 

Also a matter of record are McCain’s brutal views on war and killing, which are best exemplified by his 2001 op, ed, War is Hell. Now Let's Get On With It.

 

There is no better crystallization of McCain than his own blood, soaked words.

 

It is well known that both of the Clintons are long time members of Bilderberg. As noted by Daniel Estulin, John Edwards, who currently postures as a “populist," was handpicked by Henry Kissinger (who now works behind John McCain) to be John Kerry’s vice presidential candidate in 2004. Now, four years later, his connections must have certainly increased.

 

Here comes the “even more aggressive ‘war on terrorism’”

 

It's clear from the chosen “candidates," there will be no end to the war, or the continuing decline of the American empire.

 

The “war on terrorism” will not only continue but likely intensify and expand under “new management." The only question is whether the bias will be towards a neoliberal brand, , , the “more nuanced” multinational New World Order, a “bipartisan consensus” in Washington, more orderly economic and political declines, etc. . . . .or a continuation of the open brutality and criminality of Bush-Cheney.

 

Violent events, including the assassination of Bhutto in Pakistan, and other such “9/11s," stack the deck towards the latter . . . McCain and Giuliani.

 

The Republican candidates have uniformly and consistently echoed the Bush/Cheney/neocon war agenda and 9/11/“terrorism” lies. Huckabee, the bizarre dark horse of the Republican side, has voiced criticism of some Bush-Cheney policies, but not the “war on terrorism” in general.

 

The Democratic candidates have each declared themselves the champion “anti-terrorist," or the “real” anti-terrorist that George W. Bush is not.

 

Obama’s murderous views on war are well documented, and similar to those of Bush-Cheney. In addition to war on Iran, Obama has declared that he would attack Pakistan if his administration possessed “actionable intelligence” that Osama bin Laden was hiding in Pakistan, and the government there did not act.

 

Edwards, who squealed during his 2004 vice presidential debate with Dick Cheney that he would “kill the terrorists," recently reiterated: “If I, as president, know where Osama bin Laden is, I would go get him.”

 

Clinton went even further into details about her particular war fantasy: “At some point, probably when the missiles have launched, the Pakistani government has to know they are on the way.”

 

In the end, McCain’s War is Hell. Now Let's Get On With It is the voice of the consensus . . . the 9/11 lie exemplified.

 

The vote count and other illusions

 

As noted repeatedly in this publication, every aspect of the American vote has been, and continues to be, manipulated.

 

It is still a fact is that corporations (primarily connected to the Republican political apparatus) control the American vote, and with increasing technological sophistication: Diebold, ESS, Sequoia, and SAIC. In fact, new generations of their machines will be used in 2008.

 

Beyond the courageous whistle-blowing and activism by the likes of Black Box Voting and others, the same democracy destroying criminal juggernaut that has been in place for generations remains in control.

 

The winner of the 2008 election: crime

 

As Mike Ruppert wrote in Crossing The Rubicon: “That profits of crime and war, which are destructive of human life, of labor, of happy, healthy neighborhoods (whether in the US or in Afghanistan, Africa and Iraq) are in effect a keystone of the global economy and a determinant of the success in a ruthless competition, is a compass needle for human civilization. One cannot expect to follow the recipe for roadkill stew and produce a crème brulee.”

 

Criminals do not obey laws. Criminals do not believe in “democracy."

 

Criminals do not “permit” elections.

 

They will not permit an election in 2008. They will impose another one.

 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...va&aid=7766

 

Ron Paul, people. RON. FUCKING. PAUL.

[LaParkaMarka 0]

Well, that was bizarre.

 

Anyways, it's interesting that Colin Powell is working with McCain. If Obama gets the Democratic nomination and McCain the Republican, does Powell become the favorite for Republican VP candidate? That would make for a very interesting election.

[Jingus 0]

Hey snuffbox: despite the fact that you and I disagree on pretty much every issue and seem to generally react to each other in a highly catalystic manner, let us both stop in our petty bickering for just one shining moment as we gaze with awe upon the post by Narcoleptic Jumper, and nod in unison as each says to the other, "At least you're not THAT guy."

[Guest]

If Jingus, the Dr. King of TSM, says Ron Paul is racist then it's gotta be true.

Except that I DIDN'T SAY HE WAS RACIST you blind fucking troll.

BLIND FUCKING TROLL

Hey, you need a name change.

[Guest Cock Ring Warehouse]

Snuffy gets the right of first refusal on that one.

 

Also, is that our biggest tl;dr in board history?

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Ron Paul, people. RON. FUCKING. PAUL.

 

No amount of emphatic cursing is going to give your guy any chance of winning. Get over it.

[Guest Shylock]

Hey snuffbox: despite the fact that you and I disagree on pretty much every issue and seem to generally react to each other in a highly catalystic manner, let us both stop in our petty bickering for just one shining moment as we gaze with awe upon the post by Narcoleptic Jumper, and nod in unison as each says to the other, "At least you're not THAT guy."

Not that I agree with the general tone of the whole article, but lets not discount it right out of the gate just because you're too stupid to conceive that someone would do such a thing as rigging an election.

 

Anyways, I'm not sure about all the voting stuff that article talked about.. but Diebold/Premiere has been shown to be an easily hackable voting machine and Sequoia was exposed by, I think, that Dan Rather report show on HDNet to be connected to the Bush family somehow. So it's not that far of a stretch that our elections could be stolen and possibly controlled.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Is there any real evidence that any of those machines have been hacked, though?

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

Huckabee: Amend Constitution to be in "God's Standards"

 

"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution," Huckabee told a Michigan audience on Monday. "But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."

[Nightwing 0]

Nacroleptic Jumper: GOLD STANDARD, people. GOLD. FUCKING. STANDARD.

 

No amount of conspiratorial bullshit can divert my attention from the fact that he's basically running William Jennings Bryan's campaign a hundred and ten years later.

 

And allow me to express my disappointment for my own state. It's sad to see McCain go down like that, but frankly his campaign here was insanely lackluster. Romney has name recognition with the older demographics here (But unfortunately not as the guy who completely fucked Detroit during the riots... or maybe they do. It's always hard to tell around here...), and he had been showing commercials for a few months now. The problem that I didn't realize at the time is that Romney is the figure the Democrats WANT to go up against, not McCain. Last time Democrats turned out for McCain, it was a big "Fuck you!" to John Engler, the governor on the way out at the time, who had managed to go up against the weakest Democrats of all time (Wolpe and Fieger) and continue to stay in office. Without that motivation and lacking a decent campaign, McCain set himself up for a loss here.

 

I'm also disappointed in the Democrats. I honestly think they are going to regret basically giving Michigan a backhand when it comes to the General Election. The Republicans aren't running GW this time, and this isn't the same state they used to know. Without giving Michigan any heed, I can see the state swinging towards a Republican Candidate this election.

[Jingus 0]

Not that I agree with the general tone of the whole article, but lets not discount it right out of the gate just because you're too stupid to conceive that someone would do such a thing as rigging an election.

So you missed the part about "EVERY American presidential election has been completely rigged"? Come on. Trust me, any article that mentions the "Bilderberg group" as a world-controlling Illuminati in all seriousness is a piece of fiction.

[Narcoleptic Jumper 0]

Not that I agree with the general tone of the whole article, but lets not discount it right out of the gate just because you're too stupid to conceive that someone would do such a thing as rigging an election.

So you missed the part about "EVERY American presidential election has been completely rigged"? Come on. Trust me, any article that mentions the "Bilderberg group" as a world-controlling Illuminati in all seriousness is a piece of fiction.

 

trust you? why would anybody trust you on anything, ever, let alone something like that? you know as much or less than anybody else, so don't act like you're some beacon of truth because you have a fucking opinion. anyway, the most important part of that article was the list of the people who are supporting and advising the major candidate-puppets. is that list not disconcerting to you in any way? if so, why? look at this list, and ask yourself the same question.

 

OpenSecrets.org is one vital resource that tracks campaign money flows in detail, and virtually in real time. Not surprisingly, both the mainstream corporate and so-called alternative media have devoted scant attention to this corruption.

 

As culled from the OpenSecrets.org list, here are some of the prominent corporate contributors behind leading candidates (as of 1/11/08):

 

Republicans

 

John McCain

 

Blank Rome LLP

Citigroup

Bank of New York Mellon

Merrill Lynch

Goldman Sachs

JP Morgan Chase

Credit Suisse

Lehman Brothers

Morgan Stanley

MGM Mirage

Univision

 

Mitt Romney

 

Bain Capital (note: Romney’s own company)

Goldman Sachs

Merrill Lynch

Citigroup

Marriott

Kirkland & Ellis

Morgan Stanley

PriceWaterhouse

JP Morgan

UBS

Lehman Brothers

 

Rudy Giuliani

 

Ernst & Young

Credit Suisse

Merrill Lynch

Citigroup

Bear Stearns

Lehman Brothers

Bracewell & Guiliani (Guiliani’s own firm)

Morgan Stanley

UBS

Milbank Tweed

Goldman Sachs

JP Morgan

Bank of America

 

Mike Huckabee

 

State of Arkansas

Wal-Mart

Tyson Foods

Morgan Stanley

 

Democrats

 

Hillary Clinton

 

DLA Piper

Goldman Sachs

Morgan Stanley

Citigroup

National Amusements

Emily’s List

JP Morgan

Kirkland & Ellis

Skadden Arps

Merrill Lynch

Time Warner

Lehman Brothers

Bear Stearns

Ernst & Young

Blank Rome LLP

 

Barack Obama

 

Goldman Sachs

Lehman Brothers

National Amusements

JP Morgan

Exelon Energy (parent of Commonwealth Edison)

Citigroup

Citadel Investments

Credit Suisse

Skadden Arps

Morgan Stanley

Time Warner

UBS

Harvard University

 

John Edwards

 

Fortress Investment Group

Act Blue

Goldman Sachs

Skadden Arps

Deutsche Bank

Citigroup

 

This is the bare tip of the iceberg that OpenSecrets.org's database exposes. The site also tracks the money coming from lobbyists, wealthy individuals, and industries, cross-references money flows by industry, and updates the financial status of every campaign -- for those who bother to look it up. There is dirty money that is not even being reported.

 

What is clear is the fact that major corporations are collectively hedging their bets, financing both sides. For example, Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley have money behind every leading candidate. Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns, and UBS are also prominent players, in virtually all of the camps.

 

Corporate law and accounting firms, many of which are not household names (not all of them mentioned in this article), but well known in Washington and on Wall Street, are heavily involved with the campaigns -- assuring that the laws and the books will be cooked.

 

Look up the upper management of the companies, and the pattern is clear.

[Guest]

I think you've been sleeping too much.

[Nightwing 0]

Dear God.

 

Candidates receiving CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS?

 

FROM MAJOR CORPORATIONS?

 

Jesus. It's already too late.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Nacroleptic Jumper: GOLD STANDARD, people. GOLD. FUCKING. STANDARD.

 

No amount of conspiratorial bullshit can divert my attention from the fact that he's basically running William Jennings Bryan's campaign a hundred and ten years later.

 

William Jennings Bryan wanted bimetallism. McKinley wanted the gold standard in the 1896 election. Bryan gave the whole Cross of Gold speech...gold wasn't a good thing in that speech.

[Nightwing 0]

Nacroleptic Jumper: GOLD STANDARD, people. GOLD. FUCKING. STANDARD.

 

No amount of conspiratorial bullshit can divert my attention from the fact that he's basically running William Jennings Bryan's campaign a hundred and ten years later.

 

William Jennings Bryan wanted bimetallism. McKinley wanted the gold standard in the 1896 election. Bryan gave the whole Cross of Gold speech...gold wasn't a good thing in that speech.

 

I know my history. It's just simpler to say "Gold Standard" today because we aren't running on it. Has a better ring to it. Isn't Ron a bimetallist (Silver Standard) guy, anyways? So technically the comparison does hold up, even though I simplified the platform.

[snuffbox 0]

Hey snuffbox: despite the fact that you and I disagree on pretty much every issue and seem to generally react to each other in a highly catalystic manner, let us both stop in our petty bickering for just one shining moment as we gaze with awe upon the post by Narcoleptic Jumper, and nod in unison as each says to the other, "At least you're not THAT guy."

 

Middle ground has been found.

 

And, Czech, I wont begrudge you a name change.

[Guest Shylock]

Is there any real evidence that any of those machines have been hacked, though?

They can be hacked very easily.

 

[Nightwing 0]

Is there any real evidence that any of those machines have been hacked, though?

They can be hacked very easily.

 

The question was actually "Is there any proof", not how easily they are hacked.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Bush's Tax Reform panel in 2006 said fair tax could be revenue neutral as low as 20% but that was 2 years ago so who knows.

 

...the President's Advisory Panel on Tax Reform...calculated that a 34 percent rate on the actual price of consumer goods would be necessary to make the program revenue-neutral...The Advisory Panel did in fact begin with the 30 percent figure that proponents of the FairTax submitted. But the panel rejected those figures, claiming that they were based, at least in part, on the unrealistic assumption that there would be full compliance with the FairTax. In other words, proponents assume that no one will cheat on taxes...

 

More significantly, however, the panel found that FairTax supporters were employing questionable accounting. In calculating federal revenue, proponents assumed that purchases made by the federal government would be taxed at the full 30 percent rate.

FactCheck.org

 

Prices will drop up to 20% because companies wont have to pay corporate taxes.

 

I already explained why this can't happen while maintaining revenue neutrality. But you don't have to take my world for it [/readingrainbow]:

 

A bit of critical analysis shows that this cannot be right. The FairTax is revenue-neutral. That means that for every tax dollar collected under the current system, the FairTax has to collect a dollar. If the FairTax exactly equaled embedded taxes, then it could not possibly be revenue-neutral, since embedded taxes do not take into account personal income or estate taxes. The FairTax rate would have to be high enough to replace embedded taxes plus income and estate taxes.

 

Chris Edwards, the Cato Institute's director of tax policy studies, points out that prices do not really matter; corporate, payroll, income and estate taxes currently generate approximately $2.4 trillion, and a revenue-neutral FairTax would still require that taxpayers pony up $2.4 trillion. Nor is it clear that the 22 percent embedded tax figure is particularly meaningful. David Burton, chief economist of the Americans for Fair Taxation, calls it "simplistic" to think that the entire cost of corporate taxes is borne by consumers. Cato's Edwards suggests that while consumers do pay at least part of the costs, producers also bear some of the burden. That is, employees pay part of the costs of hidden taxes (in the form of lower wages), and corporate shareholders pay another portion (in the form of lower returns on their investments).

FactCheck.org

 

And I dont see how anyone would worry about a 3% tax burden increase on the middle class if they were getting to keep almost $4,000 themselves, all other things being equal (government getting the same ammount of money and the family buying the same ammount of goods/services).

 

Because they would end up with less money than they had before. A "3% increase in tax burden" is not the same thing as a "3% tax increase". If you increase the tax burden on a group of people by 3% given a 2 and a half trillion dollar budget--that's a 75 billion dollar tax increase on that group. That doesn't mean your taxes would go up by 3%, that means that group will be paying 75 billion more dollars in taxes that year.

[snuffbox 0]

Does anybody but big-govt Republicans want the "Fair Tax"?

[Jingus 0]

anyway, the most important part of that article was the list of the people who are supporting and advising the major candidate-puppets. is that list not disconcerting to you in any way? if so, why? look at this list, and ask yourself the same question.

Nightwing already answered this in the best way possible:

Dear God.

 

Candidates receiving CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS?

 

FROM MAJOR CORPORATIONS?

 

Jesus. It's already too late.