At the same time, FairTax proponents totally ignore misstatements and obvious falsehoods that are made by other proponents, making the debate too muddy to even follow.
I don't know about "evil" but there are plenty of disparaging comments made not about the points that someone raises, but about the motivation for daring to question the Plan at all. It is an "anything but the IRS" mentality and I think there are many possible plans that would be worse than what we have now, so I'm not willing to jump on the "Anything But" bandwagon.
Dear RobFromGa,
Actually, it's phil_will1 that imputed evil intentions to me, with this comment:
"So you want a period of several years in which we have both an income tax and a sales tax? Could it be that the reason that you want that is that you know it would kill the FairTax politically by validating the very fear you pretend to address?"
Here, ol' phil states that I take a position - providing a constitutionally-mandated transition period - for the purpose of harming the implementation of the NRST, rather than for the actual purpose - to make sure that the income tax can't be eventually resurrected, because the 16th amendment will be finally repealed.
From my own perspective, and you may judge from yours, Rob, it seems to me that this is a low tactic, that if I and others lose the argument straight up, and the NRST is passed as is, in the current environment, that I would do all that I could to sabotage its implementation so that people will then reject it.
I suppose that phil_will1 thinks that is an acceptable way to play the game.
I don't. I view it as deceitful, even perhaps unpatriotic.
If a majority of Americans supported this mess, and the Congress passed it into law, and the President signed it, I'd do what I could, as a loyal American, to make it work.
To do less is kinda skunky.
At least that's my view.
To be accused of anything else impugns my integrity.
sitetest