Community

.
....the "Baby Democrats", of course, being the Republicans.

I view the Democrats of today as equal, in principle, to the American socialist Party of 1932. If you don't believe me, read the 1932 American Socialist Party platform. You really wouldn't know the difference between that document and what the Democrats espouse today. The socialist movement in America really picked up steam in the 1930s. One of FDR's vice presidents was even a socialist; and we all know what FDR did for the movement.

I view the Republican Party of today as being more similar to the Democrat Party of 1960, especially the Kennedy wing of the Democrat Party (the John F. Kennedy wing, that is ..... Ask not what your country can do for you ..... and the lower tax rates to generate higher government revenue). But LBJ took it back for the socialist wing real fast. (And most theories concerning JFK's assassination, lead to some sort of socialist origin -- Oswald and the Soviet connection, Cuba, LBJ himself, et al.)

However, the Republicans are not much better today. In my estimation, whatever they are doing, is either too little or too late -- or both.

Are ALL Republicans "Baby Democrats" in my eyes? No, not all. But to be politically successful, and for political expediency, almost all of them have to be. And the ones who aren't are the ones targeted for persecution -- people such as Newt Gingrich and Tom Tancredo. (And Barry Goldwater in 1964, by the way.)

The bottom line is that all too many Americans are asking -- and expecting -- what their country can do for them, not what they can do for their country -- and for themselves. And in the long run, we will all be worse off as a result. And most people neither know or understand history. They don't know the real principles upon which this country was founded, and they don't know the political origins of the system we have today.

What's the answer, you might ask, as to how we can get this thing turned around? That is indeed the sixty-four thousand dollar question.

.
If I could sum up in one word, why I like the FairTax plan, that word would be control. Under that FairTax plan, I would control my income, and I would control my spending. Under the current system, the government controls my income by the progressive and selective taxation of it, my spending by the selective exceptions and loopholes of the monstrous tax-code, and my investments for the same tax-code reasons.

I want total control of my own income; I want total control over my own spending; and I want total control over my own investments. It's about as simple as that. And regardless of the reasons or arguments levied by those who want to continue, or even grow big-government, they don't want me to have that control over my own life, pure and simple.

Who is this "Republican" economist who claimed the FairTax plan would create a depression and all that crap? If you can't cite specifics about it, and who actually said it, you shouldn't cite it at all. But if you want to delve into the details of the FairTax plan, you have (in me) a most interested party. I'm all in favor of it, not only for the reasons I cited, but for a myriad of others as well. And it's exponentially better than the system we have today.

http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=178992&messageID=1823428

http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=178992&messageID=1823434

Read that whole discussion, if you feel so inclined, or at least my contributions to it.

Or we can continue the discussion right here.

Max,

While I cannot site the Republican economist, one of my concerns about the "Fair Tax Plan" is that unless it were to be phased in, it would cause serious economic upheaval in the US that could lead to a global recession.

It's not any gloom and doom, just greedy human nature.

Here's my scenario:

With a 24% or higher sales tax coming up, the 6 months prior to the tax change would see a surge in retail sales.

The last month, would have goods flying off the shelf faster than they could be restocked.

Come the last week, even perishable items would sell right off the loading dock at every store.

Retail being what it is, the planners would think they were looking at a booming economy and increase orders dramatically.

The supply cycle being what it is, most of the goods would not arrive until after the sales tax went into effect.

When the tax shifts to a sales tax, retail sales are going to drop like a rock. I predict that the first quarter after the "Fair Tax" goes into effect will record the lowest retail sales since the depression.

The rest of the year won't be any better as the public struggles with record personal debt from their buying binge.

The "Fair Tax" also provides a new opportunity for organized crime.
With goods sitting on store shelves and loading docks, OC will find it easy to acquire goods at a discount and a thriving black market in untaxed goods will spring up across the US. The profits for OC will be as sweet as they are for selling tax free cigarettes in New York. And the risks will be no greater.

As a result of the now missing sales tax revenue, government borrowing will climb to record levels. Eating up every penny that might have gone to business investment.

With a soft economy, employers won't have any incentive to give any of their tax relief back to employees, and will begin laying workers off in record numbers.

Since a large portion of our retail goods are imported, the sagging sales in the US will result in recessions in Mexico, China, Korea, and all of Asia.

This doesn't even consider what will go on in the stock and financial services markets as ALL present investment and market strategies undergo unprecedented change.

With any luck, in 2 to 5 years, we will start to crawl out from under the personal debt load and begin consuming again.

Long term bodes even worse for the US.

Without the tax incentives, most US companies will not spend on long term basic research. Basic research is a hard sell to stockholders and executive boards as is. With no short term benefit, the stockholders won't allow it.

The US will loose it's role as a technology innovator.

Chas

You have a huge hole in your basic premise. You state that the planners would think they were looking at a booming economy and order accordingly. The planners would also be aware of the tax changes and would factor that into their future orders. They would cut back in orders to be delivered after the tax went into effect for the reasons you stated. Consider the ordering of water and batteries in the states being hit by hurricanes. The planners didn't adjust their future orders because sales went up 400%. They knew the reason behind the increase and acted accordingly. So there wouldn't be the large amount of additional goods delivered after the tax went into effect that you have predicted.

I also don't believe that all items would be affected. People aren'y going to be concerned about a few extra cents of tax for their groceries. The increase in sales would be the high ticket items that people were probably already planning on purchasing in the near future. So even though they bought it earlier than planned, it was an expense that they had planned on absorbing anyways.

The embedded taxes in goods and services (an average of 22%) will be gone under the plan. The big question is "will companies keep that 22% as profit?"

What will happen is that one goods or services provider will try to get a competitive advantage by lowering the price. To be able to compete; others will follow suit.

Besides, if the plan passes, many consumers will know the embedded taxes are gone and not stand for still paying them.

But even if it doesn't (it will; but for arguemnts sake say it doesn't); you're still getting a monthly check for the basic neccesities of life and still receiving 100% of your pay check. You still come out on top.

.
Every time you post such an "opinion", Chas, I can't help but compare it to some nonsensical analogy such as two plus two equals forty-two, just because you want it to. Your opinion, just like the equation, has absolutely no basis in fact or reason, it has no support or agreement whatsoever by any reputable economist, and it's no more than a desired conclusion in a desperate search for justification. Two plus two equals forty-two because you have a two and then you have another two, which together makes a four, and there are two of them, so the answer is forty-two. Sorry, that bird won't fly.

Not only can't anybody cite a Republican economist predicting such a massive recession if the FairTax plan were to become reality, but you couldn't site ANY economist of ANY political persuasion to provide a legitimate argument for such an assertion. Go ahead, find one. And if you can't, don't suggest such a thing, unless, of course, you also want to suggest that two plus two equals forty-two.

I will concede, however, that there might (with a strong emphasis on might) be some growing pains with such a drastic change. But experiencing some short term pain for the long term gain is a long-established and reasonable method to bring about the basis for long-term good. Just because a fat-*** 400 pound frame would experience some short-term discomfort, it isn't reason enough not to change the diet -- and the entire life-style -- so that person can live a more healthy long-term life in a more lean body.

I thought you experienced a socialist "revaluation", Chas? You don't have to play games any more. You can come right out and admit that you espouse a collectivist society in which income is controlled by the state. You can come right out and admit that you espouse a collectivist society in which income is taken from the person who earned it so it can be given to a person who did not earn it. You don't need to advance such silly arguments. Go ahead, Chas, you rest on your principles, and I'll rest on mine; and we'll just let the chips of public opinion fall where they may.

I don't want the government controlling my income, while you do. And therein lies one difference between you and me.

Max,

If I were a true socialist, would I not want business to pay ALL of the costs of government and society?

One social issue that we have some agreement on is that taxes on business income are counter productive.

Just how does a progressive income tax control your income?

Are you so strong an ideologue that you would refuse a raise that might place you in a higher tax bracket?

That is one thing I would like to see changed in our present income tax system. When your income increases such that you are placed in a higher tax bracket, only the income above the bracket level should be taxed at the higher rate.
Changing the tax table from a series of fixed percentages to a set of steps would take care of most of the inequities that people complain about. Including the marriage penalty.

I would love the opportunity to fund the research to prove or disprove my postulates on the US economic system. However, since I'm just a poor working stiff, all I can offer is the results of my personal observations and convoluted thought patterns.

What I see as a very big difference between us in relation to government spending, is that I am willing to compromise and accept that there are other spending priorities than just my own. If I want the government to spend money on my programs, I also need to accept and allow the government to spend money on programs that to me personally are a waste.

So, you agree that we cut military spending by 90% and I'll agree that we cut welfare spending by the same 90%.

Or how about, you agree to require employers to pay a living wage, and I'll agree that we eliminate equal rights quotas.

Like it or not, the US government will always be twice as large as either of us want it to be. As neither of us is willing to just give up the government programs that are important to us.
Nor, would the rest of our fellow citizens.

Chas

Max,

Even if I could find sources that support my ideas, would you accept them?

Would my sources need to pass some mystical test for you to accept them?

For that matter, you have stated mistrust of scientists who support evolution, and those that support global warming.
Yet, you accept the ramblings of economists!

Imagine the weather forecast if it were presented the same way economic forecasts are:

Check back with us in 9 to 18 months, and we will fill you in on what the weather conditions are today.

It's September 22nd, the Autumnal Equinox. Typically, that means that fall is on the way. We won't know if it will be fall or spring until we have time to evaluate all of the data. However, according to 75% of my fellow economists, 3 years ago today, fall did begin.

If an economist can't determine what is happening in the economy today, what makes you believe they can predict the results of an unprecedented fundamental change in US economic structure?

I have come to another revelation, in many aspects you are a self appointed ideologue.

If someones ideas don't agree with your social views, you challenge them to prove their concepts.

Then, you find ways to refute their sources.

I don't see any time that you have been open to ideas that do not support your own preconceptions of what is best for society.

Your ideas and concepts aren't necessarily any better than mine, just different.

Chas

.
You asked, "Even if I could find sources that support my ideas, would you accept them?"

Well, I don't know if I would accept them or not. You've never done it. I can't recall a single instance when you've suggested anything that wasn't pure conjecture on your part. You seem to say whatever sounds good and suits your desired end conclusion, but it's all guess work. Some people might call it blowing smoke. Try, just once, to present an idea that's even somewhat supported by anything other than guess work, and I'll let you know if I accept it or not. But, most likely, if I did not accept it, it would be because your source was building from a different premise than me and/or my source. In which case, we would have to back-up and consider the premise.

You said, "For that matter, you have stated mistrust of scientists who support evolution......"

I never said that. I challenge you to find one message where I stated a mistrust of scientists who support evolution. I never said that. I never implied that.

You said, "...you have stated mistrust of scientists....that support global warming."

Actually, that would be the scientists who support MAN-CAUSED global warming. That's a very important distinction, you know. Why is it that people like you always misstate what others say?

You said, "Yet, you accept the ramblings of economists!"

You might call it "ramblings of economists", but are YOU an economist? You are the one who rambles nonsense without any basis in fact. And I suppose I'd be more inclined to "accept the ramblings of economists" over the ramblings of an economic simpleton.

You said, "Imagine the weather forecast if it were presented the same way economic forecasts are.....Check back with us in 9 to 18 months, and we will fill you in on what the weather conditions are today."

Ooooookay. Are you really comparing forecasting the weather with forecasting economic outcome? First of all, the former we have no control over, while the latter we do. Second of all ..... oh, never mind. The comparison is just too absurd to comment any further. Besides, you, yourself, were forecasting stormy weather under the FairTax plan, and you're neither an economist or a meteorologist. How silly is that?

You said, "I have come to another revelation, in many aspects you are a self appointed ideologue.....If someone's ideas don't agree with your social views, you challenge them to prove their concepts......Then, you find ways to refute their sources."

Let's see, self-appointed ideologue. Well, ideologue is your word, not mine. Personally, I would choose to say that I appointed myself to define my own ideals. Perhaps yours are defined by others, or perhaps you haven't given much thought to your own ideals. But I have to wonder whose ideals you think I should choose to live by if not my own. Besides, my ideals dictate that I not infringe on the rights of others. You, on the other hand, continually espouse infringing on the rights of others. If living an ideal-based life makes me wrong in your eyes, not only do I not care, but I have to wonder about your deep-seated emotional need to judge others in such a way. In fact, I really pity someone who otherwise seems intelligent, but has such a warped need to judge others in such a way. Do you really presume to tell others how to live?

As far as challenging your concepts and refuting them, isn't that what debate is all about? It must really chap your *** that you've never been able to out-debate me, or even come close. I often prove your assertions flawed or incorrect, and I leave you literally speechless or blabbering nonsense. But look at the bright side. If this was an in-person, live debate, you'd look really foolish. This way, you can at least escape such personal embarrassment.

You said, "I don't see any time that you have been open to ideas that do not support your own preconceptions of what is best for society."

It gets back to the ideals thing, I suppose. And my ideals prevent me from telling other people how to live their lives, and I expect the same in return. My ideals dictate that I take self-responsibility so that I'm not a burden on others. But when others try to force me to take responsibility for them, I find it more difficult to take responsibility for myself. You carry your backpack, and I'll carry mine. And furthermore, you choose what to put into your backpack, and I'll choose what to put into mine. If you have a problem with that, too bad.

You said, "Your ideas and concepts aren't necessarily any better than mine, just different."

Oh, I disagree. My ideas and concepts, while you may not like them, ARE better for me. You live by your ideas and concepts, without infringing on mine, and I'll live by mine. But for some reason, Chas, you and people like you who want to force others to live by your ideas and concepts, not me.

And yea, that's the difference between you and me, at least one of them.

First off Max, if you think any of my comments are in jest or part of an elaborate joke, you are in denial. I have espoused my thoughts from the heart and core of my being more here than any other place or to any other group of people.

Further, I'm reasonably certain that my transformation into a liberal grinds you more than your comments and challenges influence me.

I'll even go so far as to suggest that I would still be supporting and voting for Republicans were it not for our exchanges.

You have shown me that my previous conservatism was in deep conflict with my core self.

As practiced in the US, conservatism is neither fair, just, nor tenable.

Further, one cannot be a true Christian and practice US style conservatism.

Jesus Christ IS the original liberal, and the path of US conservatism is anathema to his teachings.

I have neither the time nor the need to search for evidence to support my assertations.

I take comfort that I am on the right path, leading to the betterment and ultimate destiny of mankind.

Chas