I’d like to talk with those among us who still consider ourselves “Conservatives”, whatever that means these days.
There is a choice we have to make, and it is between Saxby Chambliss and Jim Martin. Trying to position this race in any other manner is an attempt to fool yourself and/or others. This vote isn’t about the last six years; it’s about the next six.
For everyone who wants to vote against Saxby for his votes that have expanded government programs/spending, I urge you to take a look at Jim Martin’s one constant criticism of Saxby:
Saxby didn’t expand government enough. Jim Martin will expand it more, and faster.
Whether the bailout, or SCHIP, or Medicare Part D, Jim Martin doesn’t want to reform or eliminate any of these programs for less spending, or less control of your lives.
He wants them bigger. He wants them more complex. He wants government to have more control of your lives. And most importantly, He wants more of your tax money.
Saxby Chambliss voted against expanding SCHIP to those who were adults, and to those with six figure incomes. Jim Martin and his Democratic friends see expanding SCHIP as the natural path to government run health care.
Saxby Chambliss voted for the TARP bailout/rescue bill. A lot of us have problems with that bill, and even more problems with the way it has been implemented. But Jim Martin’s criticism is that it didn’t go far enough. It’s ludicrous to assume that Jim Martin, had he been a voting member of the Senate, would have voted no against his Democrat leadership based on the trivial points of extra government control that he raises. Thus, on this point, Martin also transitions from a big government Democrat to disingenuous demagogue.
If you believe that Jim Martin and his cries that government isn’t involved enough in your daily life are best to represent Georgia, then by all means, vote Martin.
But if you somehow think that voting for Jim Martin is the road to a more conservative policy coming from Washington, I kindly suggest you’re holding the map upside down.
Saxby Chambliss was elected six years ago with a lot of help (especially in clearing the decks in the primary) from George W. Bush. He’s voted in lockstep with Bush, which a lot of us now wish he hadn’t. But at the time, it was what we demanded of him. Anyone who went against the Republican agenda, inside or outside the party, was labeled unpatriotic and traitor. We, as a base, helped enforce this perception.
For the rest of my days, I will never allow myself, as a small part of this political apparatus, to be used in this way again. Going forward, I will make sure that my feelings on major legislation are know to both Senators and my U.S. Rep, regardless of party desires or strategy. However, as part of taking responsibility for my own actions, I will not throw overboard a Senator who voted the way I’ve demanded of him up until now.
Moving forward, Saxby will not be bound to Bush’s loyalty, and the often schizophrenic Republican base seems to be finally coalescing around the mantra of lower spending/less government as our top priority. Saxby does have a record of listening to us when we make it clear what we want (Immigration Reform, Gang of 10), and is now opposing the new handout to the auto industry.
Which brings us back to the choice at hand. Senators are in place for 6 years. A minimum of two Thirds of this term will be under a Democratic president. At this point, I think it is safe to assume that at least two thirds of this term will also be in a heavily Democratic Senate.
During this time, we can either have a go-along, get along Jim Martin, who wants to help President Obama implement his agenda of bigger government, higher taxes, added restrictions on lawful gun owners, the largest expansion of union death grips on companies in a generation, and a willing participant in granting Statehood to the District of Columbia? Or do we want Saxby Chambliss, a somewhat imperfect servant of a very imperfect Republican Party who, despite often criticism from conservatives here, still maintains a voting record as one of the top 10 Conservatives in the U.S. Senate?
To me, the choice, and my conscience, is clear. I’m going with Saxby.
{ 70 comments }
Next Comments →
I won’t vote for the apostate.
The GOP is a corrupt party and the only path to reform is to throw out the perps.
It is truly sad that there are no provisions to recall a US Senator, otherwise the best move would be to launch a recall effort against Saxby Chambliss immediately after the run-off.
As it stands, suffering the damage that Martin can do is simply the price to pay for reforming the GOP and ridding it of this lousy traitor to any semblance of party principles.
Don’t be insane Indy. If Jim Martin is elected, there goes our filibuster ability and the remainder of our freedom. Let’s find a good Republican candidate and beat Saxby in six years.
The Democrats will have too much power with a filibuster proof Congress.
Steven
http://thenewrepublicans.net – forum on how the Republican party should “reinvent,” while staying true to its convictions
After attending a Chambliss rally today I’ve come to the conclusion that those of us who would like to hear at least some admission that Saxby’s own voting record, and not votes for the Libertarian, is responsible for him being in a runoff just isn’t going to be forthcoming. However, I do plan to vote for him and will encourage others to do the same only because I’m certain the alternative would be even more devastating for the country.
I believe that the most telling outcome of this runoff, regardless of how it turns out, is how our other Senator votes in the coming two years. I certainly hope he’s paying attention to the lack of enthusiasm GOP voters are showing. If he isn’t I believe there could/should be a challenger in the primary in 2010.
Real Republicans cut spending AND taxes.
If you vote for Saxby , we will have him for life. This a game for him, sucker us into voting for him then go back to his owned by the LOBBYIST ways. Monday, I plan to hold my nose & vote for Jim Martin. In 6 years we will have a real Conservative to vote for otherwise it’s Bo & Saxby for life.
Real Republicans cut spending. The taxes will take care of themselves.
I you need a reason to vote for Saxby, just look at Southerland’s post a few down from here. The Dems are running ads stating that Saxby is too conservative and hasn’t come up with enough “give aways”.
Anyone who has this “cut your nose off to spite your face” attitude about voting for Jim Martin just needs to watch that ad.
I’m guessing there will be another ad coming out from the DNC stating that Saxby is too pro-gun.
Anyone who votes for Saxby is putting PARTISANSHIP above principles.
How many contributions did Martin get from Jack Abramoff?
Ga Values,
The idiots on PP try to use the ‘logic’ that Saxby can be persuaded by constituent pressure to vary his ways, when less than 2 months ago the BIGGEST OUTPOURING OF VOTER OPPOSITION ever was ignored by this jackass.
You Saxby supporters really are stretching the boundaries of logic, now.
Ga Values,
The GOP will NEVER reform and Saxby is in their for life.
This is a TWO FOR ONE deal, for if Saxby is safe so is the other LIBERAL, Isakson.
HOW on earth do you guys look your kids in the face, voting for a man who has stolen their futures for Wall Street?
Or, we could be taking the pragmatic approach that he is still better than the alternative until a better alternative comes along however long that takes.
Gritting my teeth and voting.
If it was Johnny on the ballot — we would not have been in a runoff
Lots of white farmers in South Georgia stayed home and didn’t vote for Saxby
Farmers stayed home? Didn’t they hear about the farm bill?
I’d vote for him because he’s a FairTax supporter, though I worry about to whom he pledges his loyalty as that Gang of 10 nonsense got him a well deserved earful.
Furthermore, I would like to think that his straying off the reservation could be attributed to party unity or attempting to reach a compromise but I’m relatively convinced that he’s been disabused of those ideas given the nature of his opponents.
Another point in his favor is that he at least tries to justify his positions to constituents who disagree with him.
In contrast, most congressional democrats won’t give you the time of day let alone listen to opposing viewpoints.
Something tells me that to Jim Martin having a tin ear would be a compliment given how well he parrots the party line.
bluemcduff
Why do you disagree with factcheck.org?
Unspinning the FairTax
We look at the numbers behind the numbers.
Summary
In our recent article on the second GOP debate, we called out Gov. Mike Huckabee as well as Reps. Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter for their support of the FairTax. We wrote that the bipartisan Advisory Panel on Tax Reform had “calculated that a sales tax would have to be set at 34 percent of retail sales prices to bring in the same revenue as the taxes it would replace, meaning that an automobile with a retail price of $10,000 would cost $13,400 including the new sales tax.” A number of readers pointed out that H.R. 25, the specific bill mentioned by Gov. Huckabee, calls for a 23 percent retail sales tax and not the 34 percent used by the Advisory Panel on Tax Reform. That 23 percent number, however, is misleading and based on some extremely optimistic assumptions. We found that while there are several good economic arguments for the FairTax, unless you earn more than $200,000 per year, fairness is not one of them.
Update June 14: In a letter, Americans for Fair Taxation wrote to say that it disagrees “very strongly” with FactCheck’s analysis of the FairTax. For their objections and our response, see the end of the “Analysis” section.
http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinning_the_fairtax.html
FYI
By-Bruce Bartlett
He was deputy assistant secretary of the Treasury for economic policy from 1988 to 1993.
WSJ-For those who never heard about it, the FairTax is a national retail sales tax that would replace the entire current federal tax system. It was originally devised by the Church of Scientology in the early 1990s as a way to get rid of the Internal Revenue Service, with which the church was then at war (at the time the IRS refused to recognize it as a legitimate religion). The Scientologists’ idea was that since almost all states have sales taxes, replacing federal taxes with the same sort of tax would allow them to collect the federal government’s revenue and thereby get rid of their hated enemy, the IRS.
Rep. John Linder (R., Ga.) and Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R., Ga.) have introduced legislation (H.R. 25/S. 1025) to implement the FairTax. They assert that a rate of 23% would be sufficient to replace federal individual and corporate income taxes as well as payroll and estate taxes. Mr. Linder’s Web site claims that U.S. gross domestic product will rise 10.5% the first year after enactment, exports will grow by 26%, and real investment spending will increase an astonishing 76%.
In reality, the FairTax rate is not 23%. Messrs. Linder and Chambliss get this figure by calculating the tax as if it were already incorporated into the price of goods and services. (This is known as the tax-inclusive rate.) Calculating it the conventional way that every other sales tax is calculated, with the tax on top of the price, yields a rate of 30%. (This is called the tax-exclusive rate.)
The distinction is confusing, but think of it this way. If a product costs $1 at retail, the FairTax adds 30%, for a total of $1.30. Since the 30-cent tax is 23% of $1.30, FairTax supporters say the rate is 23% rather than 30%.
This is only the beginning of the deceptions in the FairTax. Under the Linder-Chambliss bill, the federal government would have to pay taxes to itself on all of its purchases of goods and services. Thus if the Defense Department buys a tank that now costs $1 million, the manufacturer would have to add the FairTax and send it to the Treasury Department. The tank would then cost the federal government $300,000 more than it does today, but its tax collection will also be $300,000 higher.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118800635034508655.html
Konop,
Shhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I have decided to enter the fray as a FairTax accountant. Don’t ruin it for me.
I will make a FORTUNE, if this deal passes.
Maybe I ought to reconsider and vote for Saxby.
You too can benefit. Just remember who is behind the FairTax and invest accordingly.
Buckley has offered to endorse whichever candidate signs a pledge to slash federal spending and take up Libertarian positions on other issues, but both Martin and Chambliss have said they won’t sign it.
Unless Chambliss signs the pledge, Libertarians will probably turn out for Martin or stay home, Libertarian Party of Georgia Chairman Daniel Adams said.
“(Chambliss) continues to talk the talk of a conservative, but he’s never seen a spending bill he didn’t vote for,” Adams said. “That’s why we’re torn. At least with Martin you don’t get the hypocrisy.”
What does this have to do with the Georgia Gang or transvestites that sing country songs?
Indyinjun
I didn’t think you NEEDED fair tax accountants. I thought the bar code appeared automatically on my home grown ‘maters.
Game,
Keep on listening to Boortz.
Please note that in his book to refute critics, he started out saying the book was not a defense of the Fair???Tax bill. Hahahahahaha!!! For months of promoting that book as a learning tool about that tax, it started out disclaiming knowledge. Priceless!
Boortz really should read the bill and perhaps get input from some SALES TAX ACCOUNTANTS, before he gets a nasty surprise when the Fair???tax passes. The stations carrying his show are consumers under the bill and they are going to show him point blank that it is a 30% tax…….
Back on topic, Saxby is not too wild about making the Fair??? tax the centerpiece of this runoff, no more than he has gotten a vote on it in his 14 years in DC.
What Saxby has done is to vote – against overwhelming voter protest – $700 billion to be spent at Hank Paulson’s discretion, which is to reward the same financial interests that gave Saxby $1.5 million. Ain’t that nice?
Within 2 weeks of that vote, the money was predictably redirected. Mind you, that action was something Saxby said HAD to be done.
The bailout vote proved beyond all doubt that Saxby is unfit to be a United States Senator.
Maybe Martin is, too. Maybe he ain’t. On Saxby there is zero doubt.
there is no vote ‘for’ saxby, just a vote against a filibuster proof senate.
this lame argument is reliant upon the ludicrous notion that saxby chambliss is a solid fiscal conservative voter which is just not the case. check any of the fiscal conservative groups that grade senators, none have him rated highly.
saxby represents the problem conservatives need to eradicate. instead of letting another rino slide, let’s make this election the turning point where fiscal conservatives let it be known there is a new day dawning with conservative voters holding their elected officials accountable. to do otherwise only continues the gop decline into complete irrelevancy.
Three Jack,
If nothing else, I’m glad I finally got you and Konop on the same page.
With regards to this vote, however, I believe Saxby will still represent me much better than Jim Martin will, and if we conservatives* aren’t happy with the new results, there will be a primary 5.5 years from now to address it.
I’ve certainly heard enough about why folks don’t like Saxby, and on spending some of the complaints are founded.
I never seem to hear what people like about Martin, other than he wasn’t in the Senate during the bailout vote or that they are hoping Martin helps the Democrats destroy the country so badly that it will make the Libertarians a legitimate political party. Can somebody give me some sound issue reasons as to why they like Martin – Gun Control, Spending, Growth of Government, Green Energy, etc..
Icarus,
If you re-elect Chambliss now, your entire party will be too weak to defeat him in 5.5 years. If you re-elect him today, you are stuck with him until he is tired of you.
FYI
Chambliss Refusing to Speak in Imperial Sugar Case?
Why should a Senator have immunity in this case?
3News-News Three was the first to tell you Georgia Senator Saxby Chambliss had been subpoenaed by Savannah Attorney Mark Tate in the case against Imperial Sugar.
Tate, who represents families of the deceased, subpoenaed Chambliss because he believes Chambliss has pertinent information for the case.
In a News Three follow-up, we’ve gotten word that Chambliss’ lawyer is moving to quash the subpoena.
Tate says attorneys for Chambliss claim he has immunity because he’s a U.S. Senator.
“Our clients have said to reporters that they have felt like he was trying to influence them and dissuade them from filing lawsuits. That’s the kind of activity a U.S. Senator does not enjoy privilege to conduct,” explains Tate.
We were unable to reach Senator Chambliss’ Office for comment.
http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/chambliss-refusing-to-speak-in-imperial-sugar-case
atlantaman
Good Question!
That it why so many people do not know if they will vote at all.
icarus, i’m sure it will be a temporary thing re: me and konop.
atlman, there is nothing to like about either candidate. kind of like having to choose between rosie o’donnell or roseane barr for a sexual rendevous. just stay home.
Three Jack
Sorry I am married and have kids. If you play on the other team I will not hold it against you.
I’ve had enough of this pragmatic nonsense and fear-mongering. Where have those things gotten us? They have gotten us career politicians like Saxby Chambliss who obviously care more about staying in power than doing the will of the people who elected him. I will be happily voting my conscience which means a vote against Saxby. I’m sick of being threatened with all the possible worst-case “what if’s” if I don’t vote for the right guy. I’m not saying that I agree with everything (or even anything) that Jim Martin says. But we really don’t know how he will vote once in office. However, we know EXACTLY how Saxby Chambliss will vote and THAT is reason enough to vote against him.
Hi John,
Not a fan of Factcheck, because they tend to lack the context needed to fully understand an issue.
There is also the point of forgetting the fact that the President’s tax commission redefined the fundamental rules of the FairTax and then rejected it–in other words, the FairTax was not evaluated as written.
Besides, did you bother to deduct any embedded taxes first?
To be clear, any reasonable comparison to the current tax system to the FairTax does not compare today’s prices plus 23% but rather deducts those imputed taxes and then applies the consumption tax thereby making it revenue neutral–without this key adjustment there is an implied double taxation that isn’t really happening.
Here’s an example–let’s assume that the imputed taxes are 20% and the FairTax is 23% so for a $1 good the starting price is really 80 cents after the deduction of embedded taxes such as the employer’s share of FICA.
Add the 23% and you get 98.4 cents–roughly the same final cost because the effect of repealing the incremental taxes are taken into consideration.
Unlike the FairTax, you don’t see these incremental taxes because they are already applied to the price you first see as the consumer.
Saxby Chambliss is as much a symptom as a cause. Hopefully sooner rather than later conservatives will start to realize that COR-POR-ATIONS are starting to call all the shots. And our “representatives” are nothing more than well-paid actors.
bluemcduff
“Unlike the FairTax, you don’t see these incremental taxes because they are already applied to the price you first see as the consumer”
Can you help me understand this concept? My price has nothing to do with the tax rate. You could argue my investment in my business can be motivated by tax breaks not my price.
And if you are against incentive style tax system that would be an argument for the flat tax.
Many businesses are bought and sold on Earnings before Interest & Tax. The real issue is Capital Gains tax.
Look -
I got really freaked out at Saxby AND Isakson for that matter….
When they threw their support to McCAIN – It was the typical “Gatway – Power Play”. I loathed that! I raised hell about it!! I KNEW McCain would NEVER pull off the White House!
Before I get off on ” the GOP would have taken the White House if Huckabee had gotten the nomination”…. I just want to say …..
As mad as I am at Saxby for endorsing McCain … ( what an idiot) ….
I SUPPORT SAXBY for US SENATE! I HAVE TO!!! My grand kids
are depending on me to protect their future. That is the bottom line!
John,
If it costs me $100 to produce an item, and I want to make $20 on the sale of each item after taxes, at 0% income tax, I would need to sell it at $120. If the corporate tax rate was 35%, on the other hand, in order to make $20, I would need to sell it for $131. Then, let’s say that wages were 40% of the cost of my goods. Payroll and employee income taxes would mean about another 25% on 40% of that cost, which is $10, raising the required selling price to $141.
Now let’s say that was a parts manufacturer, who sells that item to another manufacture who assembles a final product.
Lets say that the assembler just takes the part mentioned above and does some amount of labor of it, adding 40% for labor cost, plus another 20% for overhead and other expenses. Without tax, you get the item for $120, and with your costs, the item is $192. To get the same 20% markup rate, you would then sell it for $230.
Now, lets add taxes back into everything. That $120 part becomes $141. I will apply the labor and overhead percentage on the tax free basis to be fair, and the cost becomes $213. Now, the employee taxes adds another $12 making it $225. Using the same $38 per part sold markup, the selling price is $263.
(263-230)/230 = 14% higher cost to the consumer just from this simplified example. What does this mean when you include energy cost increases, and more than 2 layers in the supply chain? What about tax compliance costs? Taxes would easily embed 20% to the cost of goods that are bought and sold.
If I was going to create our taxation system from scratch, I would probably use something close tot he Consumption Tax model, but the turmoil to the markets that it would create may not be worth it unless the current tax system is simplified first and governmental spending brought under control.
The biggest reason I think the current tax system is a bad system is the double taxation in foreign markets that US goods suffer from.
If something is made in the EU, their VAT is not applied unless it is sold in the EU. If it is shipped here, we then do not apply anything but importation taxes to it when it is sold (at the Federal Level). On the other hand, our high corporate taxes are applied to the cost of producing the good here. Then, when they are sold in a VAT country, they get socked with yet another layer of taxes (not even including importy duties). This hurts our exports and makes it increasingly likely that our industry would rather “send jobs overseas”.
I think we need to remember something that Ronald Reagan once said. ‘My 80 percent friend is not my 20 percent enemy.’
Saxby may have strayed a bit on some votes but if it is conservative values that you want protected, Saxby will defend them far greater than Jim Martin will.
Doug-
I liked your analysis of the Fairtax as I’ve never seen it laid-out with a hypothetical profit requirement for a business and its price charged with and without the embedded tax.
In addition to the points you’ve made, the main reason I like the Fairtax is that it puts domestic manufacturers on equal footing with imports. If another country has a more favorable tax system for business (most do), then it gives their manufacturers a competitive advantage in selling goods to the United States (they don’t have a high tax rate embedded in the cost of their products). The Fairtax equalizes the advantage and places the same tax burden on manfacturers exporting to the US as domestic manufacturers.
Chuck,
My analysis is a bit simplistic, but it is quite worrisome when people who claim expertise in economics cannot see how taxation increases the cost the goods sold to consumers. The Federal Retail Sales Tax (I do not like propaganda names like “FairTax”) actually probably helps the poor and working class more than anyone else, but the partisanship of Washington requires the D’s to be against it since the R’s proposed it. Nothing would stop the bleeding of manufacturing jobs to foreign countries faster than altering the taxation of our goods. This would help the union member a great deal, but his allegiance to the D’s prevent him from supporting it.
However, I am not a supporter of the plan because there are some unsolved problems with it in my mind (black marketing, devaluating current tax paid cash holdings for retirees, etc) as well as the turmoil it would likely cause when the overly complicated tax code is wiped out and releases a dam of uncertainty on the sleepy riverside village of our economy.
The GOP is like a battered wife who keeps going back to the same old abusive husband for another beating.
Unless you cull the heard, you’re gonna keep getting picked off one by one.
Icarus’s logic that keeping Saxby Chambliss is good because he’s better than Jim Martin is like fighting over a meal of goat sh*t and cow sh*t. You’re eating sh*t either way.
If you keep Saxby now, you have no chance of getting rid of him in 6 years. Sorry, but that is a FACT. You Republicans know d*mn well that you don’t have the balls to oust an incumbent Senator in a primary. Whoever wins this runoff (Saxby or Martin) will continue to lead us down a path of fiscal recklessness and complete abandonment of personal liberty. The difference is, we can have that guy in for six years (with Martin) and elect a fiscal conservative six years from now, rather than keep a fiscal liberal (Saxby) in until he wants to retire.
Then again, it’s impossible to reason with people whose only justification for voting for someone is the “R” or “D” beside his/her name…
“The GOP is like a battered wife who keeps going back to the same old abusive husband for another beating.”
And libertarians are like marraige counselors who have never had a date.
Doug-
The Fairtax isn’t perfect, but I belive it’s better than what we have now. Obviously it would increase the temptation to sell goods on the black market, but we already have tax cheats with the current system. The sales tax is very black and white, without loopholes for shenanigans.
I think the idea the Fairtax would eliminate the IRS is a little optimistic as there would still be a need for tax enforcement officers, they would simply shift from verifying income to verifying sales.
Proving a sale occured is easier than proving the grey areas of income. Again, there will always be folks trying to cheat the government revenue system, the question is will there be more cheating under sales tax or income tax? As we move to electronic commerce it will be increasingly difficult to cheat sales tax.
The rules of the game.
The fuel for small business is venture capital. A VC wants to make north of 30% on 3 to 5 year deal.
The first 1 to 3 years a new business usually has loses. The next 2 years you pay very little in taxes via loses you carry forward and re-investment. The focus is on earnings before interest and taxes since that is how the business is sold not net profits. The capital gains tax is a bigger focus since that is when the money is split via a sale of the business.
John,
Most existing businesses are not in the start up phase of their existence, so most are trying to turn a profit. Additionally, I will not argue with you on the size of the stake represented by VC investments, but a huge swath of small business is way below the radar of venture capital firms, who are usually looking for investments that are revolutionary in some way.
What percent of the economy do venture capital backed start-ups represent, do you know?
What percent of our gross national product is a result of the contributions of companies that are breaking even or losing money?
It is my assumption that it is a small, but likely not totally insignificant portion of our economy. That means in the long run, to the consumer, the traditional existing businesses would be the ones that effect cost. This means that tax policy will inflate the cost of good purchased, thus offsetting most, if not all or more of the cost of the sales tax.
I do not see how anything you wrote in your last response refutes this. Oh, and under a sales tax regime, there would be no capital gains tax, so that would make investing in the USA more attractive.
Will Hinton,
Can you show us ONE time Jim Martin did not vote with his party while he was in the Georgia House?
If you cannot, then we know ONE thing about Jim Martin too: He will ALWAYS vote what Obama wants him to vote for.
Good point Bill. Maverick is not what comes to mind when thinking about Jim Martin’s long tenure at the Georgia Legislature. We all know had Martin been in the US Senate that he would have been first in line to vote for bailout, perhaps pausing to wonder why it wasn’t larger. Martin has the luxury of not being in the Senate during that vote, much like Obama was able to criticize Hillary for her votes on the war.
Martin is not the kind of guy who tries to slow the train down, he’ll be the one searching for more coal to throw in the fire.
Mike H.
You got it wrong.
Saxby is our 100% enemy.
After getting bum rushed by Bush on an entirely too-hasty vote for the $multitrillion Iraq War, an unnecessary war in the wrong place when the enemy, then as now, was clearly Pakistan. We clear-thinking conservatives warned then that it was a mistake. Now we have very little capability in Pakistan, other than giving them ANOTHER $8 billion this week. RUINOUS VOTE #1
Then Bush ‘tricked’ him into votes for Medicare D, which took $100′s of billions of liabilities off of corporations and rolled them into the $8 trillion unfunded liability. RUINOUS VOTE#2
Two months ago, despite warnings running 9:1 against the Mother of All Bailouts, Saxby swore it was something that could not be delayed and voted for it. Less than 2 weeks later it was apparent that the bailout was using to fund bonuses and that the money would not even be used as was “absolutely necessary.” $700 billion is about the appropriations to day for Iraq, and Saxby voted with no debate, despite warnings, despite voter opposition. RUINOUS VOTE #3.
Three strikes…..Saxby is OUT or should be, if REAL CONSERVATIVES have one ounce of principles.
The game is to make us FEAR Obama and the Dems, yet the Dems could not do more damage to responsible, frugal Georgians than this destroyer of savings.
Saxby is the enemy of the middle class and scares me to death.
There is no greater cornucopia for tax accountants than the FairTax.
Everyone in the profession should be donating to FairTax.org.
FairTax does NONE of the things advertised, but why fight it when you can capitalize from all of the misled public who is demanding that it be passed, no matter how great the damage to their own interests?
Con Jobs are beautiful in this. Accountants just need to loosen up and join the looting.
Doug Deal
Big business grows in general via buying smaller competition or a company that helps grows line extension. Economist measure the amount of VC capital deployed as a health factor since once again it is the fuel for small business. And the lack of new ventures for big business to buy throws a wrench into the system.
FYI
THE VC ECONOMY
Study says early investors have boosted firms that account for 17% of GDP
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2007/03/21/BUGVJOO6V237.DTL&type=business
Indy,
I despise Saxby for his vote performance. BUT, I FEAR a steamroll by the Dem-Left MORE than I dislike Saxby.
Don’t wrap yourself up in this frilly sofa blanket that says “I’m a REAL conservative.”
Bill:
Don’t wave a “vote Chambliss” sign in my face.
It is like waving a red cape before an enraged bull.
Frilly or not.
Next Comments →
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 1 trackback }