11 comments

  1. pvsys says:

    Mad Dog:

    I know you are but what am I.

    (just trying to point out the incitefulness of your most brilliant and well thought out criticism of the fair tax)

    Rob McEwen

  2. stephaniemills21 says:

    When trying to be a smartass it is wise to ensure that your smartass remark be beyond reproach. Now, while any remark about the fair tax is sure to incite folks into a war of words, as has been proven on this site time and time again, I think you may have been critiquing what you see as MD’s lack of insight regarding the Fair Tax.

  3. RuralDem says:

    I keep telling myself I am going to purchase Boortz’ Fair Tax book next time I go to the bookstore but I always forget after I get there :/

    First we have “Big Mac” and now we have “Max Mart”. What’s next?

  4. pvsys says:

    stephaniemills21

    Yes, I was being sarcastic in my last post!

    I’d love to have an intelligent debate about the Fair Tax. While I’m a strong supporter of the Fair Tax, I admit that there are a few intelligent arguments against the Fair Tax. (But much more evidence in favor of it!)

    Sorry to have such a “hair trigger” on my sarcastic rebuttals, but I’ve seen a few too many one-liner opinionated posts lately at Peach Pundit where NOTHING is provided as evidence or fact to back them up.

    I think that this blog (and public policy in general) benefits when assertions are backed up by facts and evidence and reason and logic. It doesn’t take writing a book… just a couple of sentences are always a good start.

    But to merely call something a fraud which many smart economists advocate is juvenile.

    Also, I get a little emotional about this because my children are going to be hit with an avalanche of taxes when the younger baby boomers join the older baby boomers in nursing homes and the worker-to-retiree ratio then gets out of control.

    In fact, future financial obligations for the entitlements that our government has promised is out-of-control and I’m tired of good ideas to prevent this pending disaster being shot down without any other alternative proposal other than the status quo.

    –Rob McEwen

  5. Rob,

    Voters that live outside of massively Republican Congressional districts (such as Georgia 6 or Georgia 7) do not favor the fair tax. And if they do, it’s easy to change their mind with some simple arguments about their taxes going up while wealthy folks taxes go down. And all you have to do is shown them that a bunch of millionaires like Boortz, Linder and Clark Howard are for it for them to believe that the millionaires taxes would be lower and if it would be revenue neutral (as politicians promise) that means someone else’s (their) taxes go up.

    It’s interesting, but Barrow used it pretty effectively in 2004 when he beat Burns. You’d think some Republicans would take notice but in many cases they are blinded by ideology which on issues like Social Security privatization and the Terry Schiavo disaster has helped get the national Dems to the place they are at now.

  6. pvsys says:

    chrisishardcore:

    Actually Neal Boortz makes a convincing case that the rich will pay MORE under the Fair Tax. But he also states that Fair Tax will result in economic growth which would increase wealth (across the board, btw) such that such tax increases on the rich would be more than off-set.

    Also, much has changed since 2004. There are a sizable amount of people today who didn’t even know what the Fair Tax was in 1994, but who are now strongly in favor of it today.

    Also, the group of people who you say could be easily swayed against the Fair Tax will vote against Republicans, regardless of the Fair Tax. So I see little harm in Republicans campaigning on it. They’d have lost these folks either way.

    In contrast, for every 1 voter lost due to the fair tax (that is, in those VERY rare cases where such a voter might have actually otherwise voted Republican), I see Republicans gaining 100+ votes from two groups: (1) people who would otherwise vote Libertarian (2) others who don’t usually vote at all, but who are motivated to vote to support the Fair Tax. Yes, there are reports of these types… and this brings in a whole new dynamic.

    It is ironic that you group the Fair Tax and Schiavo together as helpful to Dems because both issues couldn’t be more opposite. Issues like the Fair Tax unites the social conservatives and social moderates and, additionally, reels back in the libertarians. Therefore, this will create a Republican victory EVERY time in any district that is remotely competitive.

    In contrast, issues like Schiavo often drive a wedge between these groups and divides the Republican party… and, therefore, give the Democrats the advantage in competitive districts.

    Therefore, if you want liberal Democrats to win, you should be praying for another “Terry Schiavo disaster”

    …and, frankly, the Fair Tax is your worst nightmare.

    Could it be that that, deep down, you already know that everything I said is true, but you might be either (1) suffering from delusional wishful thinking …OR… (2) your last post is a kind of bluff… sort of like Bill Clinton recent interview on his terrorism record.

    Rob McEwen

  7. Mad Dog says:

    The Fair Tax has been beaten to death on this blog.

    Search the blog and see the arguments.

    I’ll add one that proves the fraud.

    Page 76 of the Holy Mother Mary of all Tax Books…

    “Revenue neutral” is used to describe the bill aka the Fair Tax .

    But, the book nevers defines the Fair Tax in terms of its spending.

    Using the figures given by a Kellie Weeks in the Gainesville Times, the “prebate” could cost $1.4 trillion dollars the first years.

    Ms. Weeks claims to be quite the expert.

    If you would like to see her comments, go to:

    http://www.michaelwparker.blogspot.com/

    The bill creating the mis-represented “Fair Tax” is a huge spending bill that is not at all “revenue neutral.”

    The Fair Tax and its sponsors, co-sponsors, and supporters are seditionists.

    (Okay so I made up the part about including the supporters as being seditionists. I just thought it had a nice Republican ring to it.)

    But, if you read my whole blog (without falling asleep), you should get a big kick out of my surprise ending. (The underlying premise for “the Fair Tax movement)

  8. Fogle says:

    This is just a very pathetic attempt to revive a very weak candidate. Barrow is struggling and he’s desperately trying to keep up with Max.

    We covered this a few days ago: Whenever you see an incumbent in a US House race run a “campaign” of attack ads, you know he’s floundering.

  9. pvsys says:

    Mad Dog,

    OOOOOPSS

    Forgive me. i was all confused about that blog and misread certain things. It seems that the post I linked to is against the FairTax… But what I think is what is really going on is that Ms Weeks is doing a poor job of defending it and while some of her mistakes are being properly trounced upon, these still don’t prove much against the FairTax.

    Also, I’m having a credibility issue with your anti-FairTax guy when he posts rediculous stiff like this:

    “So why does Bozo and Lintel hate law enforcement, at least in the form of the IRS?” …on a post where he hadn’t even read their book yet

    …or…

    “The South continues to fight the American Civil War, the war that stopped slavery. The FairTax Book helps promote the fight against the ‘Union'”

    The guy is clearly a nutjob and a hack.

    Rob McEwen

Comments are closed.