You're merely flip-flopping again. That has been clearly shown on this thread. Or peerhaps you prefer "misspeaking" again. Or maybe just lying?
To be accurate, you support the theoretical notion of a VAT or flat tax which is best described as a Nightmare VAT or Nightmare Flat and you have no specifics on either and no showing of revenue neutrality (which is required for Congress to enact such a law BTW).
no showing of revenue neutrality (which is required for Congress to enact such a law BTW).
Might be good to note that we can actually propose a tax cut now without being shot down by objection of one Congress Critter anymore.
Seems the way Bush got his tax cut past the Dims, is the Repubs allowed PayGo rules and the Budget enforcement act expire. Guess what, neither have been re-instated in any form much less the original:
Ersatz Congressional Budgeting
Jack Kemp, June 14, 2004
You're merely flip-flopping again.No I'm not.
That has been clearly shown on this thread.No it hasn't.
Or peerhaps you prefer "misspeaking" again. Or maybe just lying?Easy, slick. You were wrong twice in just the first paragraph. If you want to start throwing the liar crap around, you better tape up your glass house.
To be accurate, you support the theoretical notion of a VAT or flat taxHate to break it to you but the FairTax is just a theory.
best described as a Nightmare VAT or Nightmare FlatBy using names like that you describe yourself more than any tax reform. This isn't grade school.
no showing of revenue neutrality (which is required for Congress to enact such a law BTW).BTW, revenue neutrality isn't required for Congress to enact such a law. So you either misspoke, lied, or were mistaken. Which was it.
no showing of revenue neutrality (which is required for Congress to enact such a law BTW).I'm still waiting. Were you misspeaking, lying, or mistaken when you made this statement? Which was it?
Still waiting on #157.