Posted on 05/12/2005 7:46:54 PM PDT by Your Nightmare
You mean 25% more than 0%?
You're the one who purposely deleted that portion of a paper that said it, you should know.
You mean 25% more than 0%?Right. Nothing. You do realize that when you have 0% of something, you have nothing. So what is 25% more than nothing?
BIG (basic income guaranty) a world wide communist group proposal that has linked its future to the success of the so-called farttax. They see it as the vehicle to establish a BIG in the USA. Google it.It's pretty remarkable to see people who call themselves conservatives support such a plan, isn't it? The whole while they are complaining about people who don't pay taxes and the plan they are blindly promoting would make the situation much worse. It's almost funny.
You were caught.
... and I thought you were bloviating about how educated and cultured you were just a couple of posts ago. 'Fraid you need a better dictionary and I need to revisit the thought about you being educated and/or cultured.
The word "infer" was quite appropriate in the usage I offered.
Since you've never read the FairTax bill, you're hardly a decent judge of what it does or doen not contain.
Read the bill.
Actually, I already had and thought that might be what you meant but didn't want to INFER that.
That's what one of the founders, Block, of UC Davis staff (one of the more leftie UC hotbeds) is promoting but it is guaranteed income effort which has nothing to do with the FairTax. Here's a description so others won't need to bother:
"The basic income guarantee (BIG) is a government insured guarantee that no citizen's income will fall below some minimal level for any reason. All citizens would receive a BIG without means test or work requirement. BIG is an efficient and effective solution to poverty that preserves individual autonomy and work incentives while simplifying government social policy. Some researchers estimate that a small BIG, sufficient to cut the poverty rate in half could be financed without an increase in taxes by redirecting funds from spending programs and tax deductions aimed at maintaining incomes. "
And notice that they push for an increase in taxes (income taxes; the kind we now have). The FairTax does nothing of the sort nor does it "redirect funds from spending programs" and is revenue neutral to boot.
If you keep this up you'll be showing up as "dumb as a post". Please read the bill so you have a better knowledge of it.
He sounds like Bruce Bartlett or David Gale with that sort of stunting.
Can you imaging the existing tax sysem (or even the wunnerful, undefined Nightmare Tax) after 20 30 more years of political manipulation ... which is much easier under those tax systems than under the FairTax which has only a single visible-to-all rate?
You keep refereing to a "bill" that is the farttax. Until it is a law it is just a dream. BTW, no serious effort to establish a communist BIG in this nation would go about it by advocating a new tax, except of course the Farttaxers.
He sounds like Bruce Bartlett or David Gale with that sort of stunting.Who's David Gale?
You said I infered. I can't infer when I write to you, but if you wrote, I infered from what you seemed to imply, then your useage would be correct.
Tell it to Shakespeare, pal ---
"... this doth infer the zeal I had to see him --" Shakespeare
OR - take it up with Merriam Webster's dictionary:
"...another survey... infers that two-thirds of all present computer installations are not paying for themselves" -- H. R. Chellman.
You are clearly full of beans.
IF you indeed read the bill in 2000 it is quite apparent you inferred the wrong corpus of information from it. I suggest you read it again with more of your cultured education so you know more about it.
CHIEF negotiator's home did not "blow up" as you put it - one more thing you're wrong about. Your track record is building and building.
A guy who thinks a lot like you, Bruce.
I thought it caught on fire and it didn't give him much of a chance. Is that understanding correct?
Maybe I have it wrong and you can clear this up for all of us. I sort of inferred that a bill was a pre cursor to a law and you didn't get the latter without the former. What is it they call that first thing that results in a law???
Perhaps you missed that the BIG is an attempt to RAISE income taxes. And so far as I know it is not even a bill before Congress let alone a law.
Why don't you Google it and see ...
On 257 you say you are inferring. You can't if you are implying that a bill was a precursor. I inferred that all along but a bill is not a law and this bill will never report out as it was read in.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.