[Your Nightmare]

"three" - A presentation to Ways & Means Committee of William Gale of Brookings Institute. Perhaps you haven't noticed (but others have) that Mr. Gale's handiwork shows up repeatedly throughout the heated opposition by status quo forces to tax reform such as the FairTax. He is a staunch status quo defender and if he's not personally on these threads, his views and disciples certainly are and his effect upon the Tax Panel report has been noted before.

So you can't address what he actually said? Frankly, in the economic world, Gale is respected - Payne isn't even in the economic world.

Also we note that Joel Slemrod (one of the authors of your link "one" is a Gale/Brookings colleague by reading one of the footnot

Are you going for the record for logical fallacies in one post? Joel Slemrod is an extremely respected economist. Why don't you address what he said instead of trying the "guilt by association" crap (oh, right, because that's all you got).


This whole post by you is typical pigdog. There is absolutely nothing of substance in it. It's a pathetic joke.

[Bigun]

This whole post by you is typical pigdog. There is absolutely nothing of substance in it. It's a pathetic joke.

That is, of course, your opinion and you are entitled to it, but I doubt that many others share it. I certainly don't.

[pigdog]

"So you can't address what he actually said? Frankly, in the economic world, Gale is respected - Payne isn't even in the economic world. "

OH, but I DID address what he said. If you perhaps overlooked post #77 you're welcome to go read it.

Speaking of "logical fallacies" (your term), the more correct statement should have been {modifications in brackets):

"Frankly, in [certain specific parts of] the economic world, Gale is respected - Payne isn't even in the economic world [of course not, he was never claimed to be so and is a "polysci" guy]. "

Mr. Gale is also well-known in other parts of the economic world as being a hot-eyed defender of the Beltway status quo from which he earns his living and he frequently (in papers he authors or influences) inserts little techniques that some might call "untruths" - things such as the "94% tax rate" in the paper at hand or the arbitrary slashing of a figure of Dr. Payne's to half its value while offering no valid reason for doing so except that "it isn't done". He nowhere shows that.

"... Joel Slemrod is an extremely respected economist. Why don't you address what he said instead of trying the "guilt by association" crap (oh, right, because that's all you got) ..."

Joel Slemrod may or may not be an "extremely respected economist" but should he continue to co-write things with equal credit to William Gale as he has frequently done, it will certainly paint him with the same brush of questionable veracity as Mr. Gale. And he has and does co-author these in views very like Mr. Gale and the Brookings Institute facade. Anyone with a computer handy can certainly find this out for themselves so your attempt at pumping up the reputations of the two is not required. It is public information --- as is the "94% tax rate".