Posted on 01/21/2008 3:28:34 AM PST by bd476
Implementation of the Fair Tax would require the repeal of the amendment creating the income tax. I frankly don’t see that happening. I’d prefer someone who has policies that can actually be implemented in the REAL world.
Like the one in Post 138?
They must be afraid to say much in SC after Strom died.
Fred NEVER said he would sign the Fair Tax bill. Go back and look at the video. He said that if it ever passed Congress, he'd consider it. He didn't lock himself into something he knows is extremely unlikely.
Fred's more popular than Jesus, just like the Beatles.
Even in the debates, the candidates are preaching to their respective choirs, because the audience for those debates are usually people who are supporting one candidate or the other. The general population doesn’t usually watch them.
False, Fred only said he would consider it. In the video the fairtax site put out, they HIGHLY edited it. In the unedited video there was a person in the background screaming about Fred being a CFR and other stuff that was being hauled off during the question, so it is doubtful Fred even heard the question clearly. The fairtax people, retaped a segment and spliced it in so the question could be heard. That is why there was multiple angles that were pieced together.
If you are talking about the video from the airport, that was a fraud. They spliced in the question. The unedited video shows the question was not audible because of some screaming fanatic. If you watch it, they show Fred approaching, then the cut away to a different angle and the questioner is all along asking the question, then Fred responds on the same questioner is all of a sudden shoulder to shoulder with a dozen people. Pure fraud.
So what is the reason for any candidate’s movement in the polls. If the debates had no affect, then why do people’s minds change?
If there is no affect, then why have a debate in the first place?
Fred has said he has concerns whether or not the FairTax is feasible and would work at the 23% rate called for.
There are several reasons for that.
One is that the FairTax gives people the choice of where to spend their money and thereby legally avoid paying taxes. That is good from the perspective of giving people choices, but if you think about it, it is also bad. The FairTax REQUIRES that the same amount of money is spent on Retail goods and services HERE in the US as has been done in the past. If people change their spending habits, then the FairTax rate would need to be higher than 23%. Just as one example, the top 1% of income earners in the country earn 17% of all income, which means $2.2T out of a total of $14T is being spent by this 1%. This 1% of people could easily live anywhere in the world, still earn their money here in the US, and pay less than 23% in taxes. If they exercise their FairTax choice to spend money outside the country, then there won’t be enough money spent where the FairTax applies — and the rate would need to be 35% instead of 23%.
Another point is that the FairTax rolls SS/M taxes into itself, which forces people who currently are not involved in paying SS/M taxes — the rich, schoolteachers, those already retired, people earning cash tips — into paying SS/M taxes via the FairTax. That makes the SS/M system much more like a welfare program by expanding taxes to other than wages and breaking the connection between contributions and benefits. Fred has his own plan to save SS/M via private accounts and reducing the promised benefits. So the expansion of SS/M liabilities that the FairTax would entail is not something I would expect Fred to support.
Won't happen, just another wasted vote.
He was standing face to face with the guy asking him the question, when he said “Yes, absolutely”.
He couldn’t hear someone standing within 2 feet, facing him?
And I disagee, the tape is unedited. That’s the point and that’s the link.
According to Fred Thompson’s own plan, if I make $99,000 this year (after my allowable deductions), my tax is $9,900, netting me $89,100.
If I make $101,000 (after making the same deductions, my tax is $25,250, netting me $75,750.
Who puts on debates? Hmmmmm?
The Media, that’s who.
It used to be the League of Women voters or some such organization, way back when.
It isn’t the candidates themselves.
Think about it.
Why do candidates show up? It’s mostly defensive. Each one is afraid to let the opponents who DO show up get that air time while missing it themselves, and is afraid of being negatively portrayed for not participating, or just negatively portrayed by the participants and not be there to respond.
So many other factors are at play that it isn’t possible to tell how much debates have to do with polling swings or actual vote swings.
Huckabee used the debates to showcase himself as a gabby, witty sort who can connect to people through the media.
As a Baptist preacher, if he COULDN’T do that, he would be the first one I’ve known who couldn’t. That’s a Baptist preacher’s stock and trade.
I’m not electing a Baptist preacher when I vote, though... (I know he was AR Gov...my point is about something else, so don’t bother going there).
That video was unedited, but in that video you couldn’t hear what was said. The fairtaxers though put out this video to the media and posted it on YouTube as proof of Fred Thompson’s ‘pledge’.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSoLzWBxMdc
A good edit job, but the scene where you can hear the question clearly, was re-taped and spliced in.
I was responding to:
“Even in the debates, the candidates are preaching to their respective choirs, because the audience for those debates are usually people who are supporting one candidate or the other.”
Which is it? The debates have an effect or don’t they?
An ability to communicate is good? bad?
Why is Reagan called the “Great Communicator”? If he hadn’t been, would he have been the same President we know and love today?
No one is asking you to vote for “Pastor in Chief” so you are responding to the question that wasn’t asked.
Well, I can’t support McCain or Huckabee, but if Fred drops out I would take a chance on Romney rather than just concede to socialism. At least Romney isn’t afraid of the veto pen. I’ll cling to a liferaft rather than try to breathe water.
You misunderstand Fred’s tax plan. From:
http://www.fred08.com/virtual/taxrelief.aspx
[The simplified tax code would contain two tax rates: 10% for joint filers on income of up to $100,000 ($50,000 for singles) and 25% on income above these amounts.]
This means your tax on $101,000 would be $10,250 and not the $25,250 you claimed.
You can be made to see the light in the internment camps rather than conceed. Either way comrade, we will meet in the shoe line and can talk about how horrible the sawdust they are putting in the bread tastes while we wonder if they have any shoes in our size.
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.