Posted on 01/28/2006 1:15:41 PM PST by Eaglewatcher
Not to mention she asks the person to prove a negative. For reader's edification that's like the person who knows they cannot prove there is a Santa Clause towed by flying reindeer, thus instead, challenges the audience to prove there is not.
The only way they are going to get any momentum is to do what FairTaxers doLie?
Well, they could cut a lot of their accountants and lawyers and the cost it takes to take out income tax on their employees. That has got to help. If nothing else, it simplifies their business model.
One I can support. 377
What is the number in the House or the Senate of the bill that you can support?
I don't believe what I advocate has a number. And just so we're clear, a proposal (bill) has to have more than a number and co-sponsors to gain my support ... it actually has to be able to deliver what it promises. The FairTax cannot do that, so I do not support it ... regardless of it's number, regardless of how may clueless co-sponsors it may have.
"How will you solve future funding probelms for SSI and Medicare."
"It doesn't. Neither does the FairTax."
This has been repeatedly explained to YN, but I will post it again for the benefit of those with an open mind.
The primary problem with Social Security and Medicare is demographic. The ratio of workers paying into the system relative to the number of retirees drawing out of the system has been shifting in an adverse direction for years and that shift will continue as baby boomers retire. One economist has estimated that the 75 year shortfall in those two programs is somewhere north of $50 trillion. To put that number in perspective, the combined net worth of every household in America is around $43 trillion.
The FairTax addresses this problem directly by converting the revenue base of SS and Medicare from payroll to a general tax on the entire economy. If we succeed in doubling the economy over the first 15 years after enacting the FairTax (as some have suggested as a goal), then we double the base from which we draw these revenues. If we stick with a payroll base, there is no way that happens.
This is not to suggest that spending discipline and cost containment aren't going to be absolutley critical. It is going to take a concerted effort to save these two systems whch were never set up on an actuarially sound basis to begin with. It will also take, no doubt some painful and difficult decisions. However, to suggest that we simply limit our approach to spending cuts is absurd, given the magnitude of the problem and the politics involved. The kind of spending cuts involved to make a dent in such a huge shortfall would be staggering and they would involve telling the boomers "sorry, the money isn't there; we are cutting down the retirement income that you have been counting on and have been paying for for decades by more than 50%". Where is the political will to do that? I was watching the commentary before the President's SOTU message last night and one commentator speculated about whether the President would mention slowing down the rate of growth in entitlements, a topic he termed controversial. Where is the bill to drastically reduce those benefits, given that political environment?
Answer: It's the same place as the mythical flat tax bill that produces so many wonderful economic benefits and doesn't require any trade-offs - it's a figment of flatters' imaginations.
You're rambling.
Where is the bill which does all these things?
"Now, hopefully, the next time we are accused of supporting the Status Quo, you'll know the accuser is lying. This is not the first time we've laid out these ideas, but many, here, continue to pretend otherwise."
What you don't seem to understand is that pontificating on FR and actually getting legislation enacted are two very, very, very different things. I see no evidence that your ideas are gaining traction even among other flatters, much less among the general public or legislators. Unless and until you actually start gaining traction in the court of public opinion and actually get a bill moving forward, and unless and until your primary activity in advancing your ideas ceases to be attacking FairTaxers, you will remain an SQL in my mind.
"I don't believe what I advocate has a number."
Ok, we got that out in the open. Are there any other flat taxers who support your version? Do you and YN support the same version?
"Oh, and just for the record, a BAD bill with CLUELESS sponsors does not deserve support just because it's there."
Thanks for clearing that up. I suppose the 75+ professional economists who have endorsed the FairTax are similarly clueless?
"As you can see, LoisLane's a bad M...... when safely ensconced behind her computer screen hurling insults behind a cloak of anonymnity. Just challenge her to a debate in public and see how fast the bravado evaporates."
From 376
"Lie?"
Post 376 applies to YN, also.
"As you can see, LoisLane's a bad M...... when safely ensconced behind her computer screen hurling insults behind a cloak of anonymnity. Just challenge her to a debate in public and see how fast the bravado evaporates."I agreed to debate if you could arrange one with Boortz. I believe you said you would work on it. I would take Linder instead. Both these guys have never answered the hard questions. They take advantage of the ignorance of their interviewers and dodge the critical points.
I don't believe what I advocate has a number.
So you have read the flat tax bills. You have a belief that none of them meet your requirements of what you advocate. You don't actually know they don't meet your requirements. Instead you believe they don't. Why would you have a belief and not know for a fact? Is it because you question whether you understand them?
it actually has to be able to deliver what it promises.
Empirical evidence shows that a bill cannot promise. Only a person can deliver on a promise. Even then, how far have politicians strayed from the constitution they've strayed of the map -- they've strayed off the reservation, so to speak.
So, you have belief rather than knowledge of facts. You think a numbered bill can promise something.
BREAKING NEWS! You're The Guy That Bought The Brooklyn Bridge.
A requirement to engage in debate is that each person has credibility in the form of peer review or the equivilant. Presidential debates don't put Gore, Kerry or Bush against a dog catcher. Debates for high school class President don't put an honor student against the 21-year old senior. The FairTax has been peer reviewed by people with credibility in economics and the FairTax was created by real-world businessmen and businesswomen.
For you to be in a serious debate on the FairTax has you in the position to be the 21-year old dog catcher.
For you to be in a serious debate on the FairTax has you in the position to be the 21-year old, high-school senior, dog catcher.
"I agreed to debate if you could arrange one with Boortz. I believe you said you would work on it. I would take Linder instead."
You don't get to dictate who your opponent is. What is it about you SQLs that you think you can just order people around? We have plenty of other knowledgeable people who don't have their name recognition. If you want to get Dick Armey or someone of that stature, we will see what we can do.
In addition, you have called many of the FairTax supporters on FR (including me) liars. You should have the courage to say something like that to someone's face if you are going to post it anonymously on the internet.
"So, what's the status?"
The status is that I sent you a confidential message several weeks ago requesting your contact information so that we can set something up. I have yet to receive a response.
A requirement to engage in debate is that each person has credibility in the form of peer review or the equivilant. Presidential debates don't put Gore, Kerry or Bush against a dog catcher. Debates for high school class President don't put an honor student against the 21-year old senior. The FairTax has been peer reviewed by people with credibility in economics and the FairTax was created by real-world businessmen and businesswomen. For you to be in a serious debate on the FairTax has you in the position to be the 21-year old dog catcher.So why is Phil_will1 asking me to debate?
You don't get to dictate who your opponent is.Huh? I don't get to know who I'm debating before I agree?
What is it about you SQLs that you think you can just order people around?LOL! I'm not ordering you around. I told you I would agree to debate if you could get Boortz. You seemed to think you could - now you're getting all pissy.
We have plenty of other knowledgeable people who don't have their name recognition.Then it's not worth my time. These two are the guys spreading the misinformation. These are the two that need to be debunked.
In addition, you have called many of the FairTax supporters on FR (including me) liars. You should have the courage to say something like that to someone's face if you are going to post it anonymously on the internet.Right. No Fairie has ever made similar comments. Got it. And if you quit lying (#386, for example) I won't call you a liar.
The status is that I sent you a confidential message several weeks ago requesting your contact information so that we can set something up. I have yet to receive a response.The issue is you seem to be more interested in getting my personal information than arranging a debate with Boortz. It makes me wonder why. I don't know you from Adam. You're just some tax kook on the internet. I'm not about to give my personal information without some idea that you can really arrange a debate with Boortz.
I assume he's having difficulty convincing a 21-year-old-high-school-senior dog catcher that you are worthy of debate. If there was an audience with sincere intent to learn, such as here on FreeRepublic it would still be difficult to convince them to watch two dog-catchers debate.
How they hell would I know what or why phill_will1 is doing. From his post at 396 he's still waiting for you to send him your contact detail he asked you for.
The primary problem with Social Security and Medicare is demographic. The ratio of workers paying into the system relative to the number of retirees drawing out of the system has been shifting in an adverse direction for years and that shift will continue as baby boomers retire. One economist has estimated that the 75 year shortfall in those two programs is somewhere north of $50 trillion. To put that number in perspective, the combined net worth of every household in America is around $43 trillion.You know very well that HR 25 has the FairTax rate being adjusted every year based on the payroll tax's base (wages) so that it doesn't collect more for Social Security/Medicare than the current system. If the economy booms and the payroll base doesn't, the FairTax rate goes down so it doesn't collect more for SS. So your entire argument is wrong. You are too familiar with the bill to not have realized this. I can't see how this isn't you intentionally giving misinformation about the FairTax.
The FairTax addresses this problem directly by converting the revenue base of SS and Medicare from payroll to a general tax on the entire economy. If we succeed in doubling the economy over the first 15 years after enacting the FairTax (as some have suggested as a goal), then we double the base from which we draw these revenues. If we stick with a payroll base, there is no way that happens.
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.