The incredible deflation

[cncman]

Of Barack Obama,

This is amazing considering it is coming from Zuckerman, an outspoken and avid Obama supporter. This coupled with dems reeling from the Mass. Election and willing to throw the pres under the bus makes for an early let down on their high hopes.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/opini....html?PageNr=1

[bigjohn]

Kind of reminds me of the sentiments expressed in the first book a biographer wote on Regan just after year one of his term. Reagan's popularity numbers were so low and he had failed to that point to keep many of his promises that he predicted that Reagan would not run for a second term because he would know he couldn't win. Of course, in his second book on Reagan after Reagan's term, he had a completely different view of Reagan's now proven presidency. I bring this point up to state what I said in the beginning-the real test is going to be where we are near the end of Obama's term.

That said, I share in disappointment. I have gotten to where I do not respond very much to the Obama haters here because it all falls on deaf ears, but there can be no doubt that some of his promises-important promises-have not been kept to date. I realize that reality of Washington has altered some of his views (Gitmo, for instance) and made some promises difficult if not altogether impossible to keep. But there are things I can support even within some of the broken promises. He has consisently moved towards closing Gitmo and I wish he could get that done, but I can live with 20 or so terrorists remaining there that are deemed too dangerous to treat otherwise. I could live with it easier if they would be redesignated prisoners of war instead of hostile combatants. I have a major problem with the Xmas attacker on that airline being tried as a criminal instead of designated a prisoner of war. It isn't all peaches and cream.

The clowns on here that have decided that I will always defend Obama are just that-clowns to my left and jokers to my right. What I do not do is look for nothing but the good or nothing but the bad. Undoubtedly, Obama is down. He is not out.

I hope for a successful presidency because a successful presidency is good for the country. Period.

You clowns and jokers can continue with your Obama and dem bashing now. Carry on.

[cncman]

Ha, good to see you have been keeping everyone in check while I have been gone. To tell you the truth it is the nut job "conservatives" that have kept me from participating in the jungle forum, so I know what you mean. The only ones left there with any sense are joker, mc and ernest, even megabite seems rational now. Just haven't been in here to bug you, couldn't let the anniversary of GITMO closing go though! TC

Originally Posted by bigjohn

Kind of reminds me of the sentiments expressed in the first book a biographer wote on Regan just after year one of his term. Reagan's popularity numbers were so low and he had failed to that point to keep many of his promises that he predicted that Reagan would not run for a second term because he would know he couldn't win. Of course, in his second book on Reagan after Reagan's term, he had a completely different view of Reagan's now proven presidency. I bring this point up to state what I said in the beginning-the real test is going to be where we are near the end of Obama's term.

That said, I share in disappointment. I have gotten to where I do not respond very much to the Obama haters here because it all falls on deaf ears, but there can be no doubt that some of his promises-important promises-have not been kept to date. I realize that reality of Washington has altered some of his views (Gitmo, for instance) and made some promises difficult if not altogether impossible to keep. But there are things I can support even within some of the broken promises. He has consisently moved towards closing Gitmo and I wish he could get that done, but I can live with 20 or so terrorists remaining there that are deemed too dangerous to treat otherwise. I could live with it easier if they would be redesignated prisoners of war instead of hostile combatants. I have a major problem with the Xmas attacker on that airline being tried as a criminal instead of designated a prisoner of war. It isn't all peaches and cream.

The clowns on here that have decided that I will always defend Obama are just that-clowns to my left and jokers to my right. What I do not do is look for nothing but the good or nothing but the bad. Undoubtedly, Obama is down. He is not out.

I hope for a successful presidency because a successful presidency is good for the country. Period.

You clowns and jokers can continue with your Obama and dem bashing now. Carry on.

[Swells]

Perhaps the inevitable outcome was disappointment—and on this Obama has not disappointed. Alas, he has accelerated the deflation of hope with his extraordinary volume of public appearances.

So you're not talking about economic deflation, inflation, or worse yet stagflation. Thank goodness.

Shame on you, it's all a bunch of political wonks, journalists, and inter-web hacks having fun with a loss of "Ted Kennedy's seat." Get over it.

Listen folks, every US president we've had since George Washington has been a total retard in certain areas, some worse than others. Why do you demand perfection now (I waiting for a Republican version of Jimmy Carter, myself).

Tell you what, you put all that "deflation of hope" in one hand and take a dump in the other hand and let's see which one fills up faster.

[bigjohn]

I figured something like that. I really think they are trolls, personally. I don't post too much. Dboat is a really good addition here, imo. He leans right, but considers himself an independent. Unfortunately, he doesn't post all that much here either. I'm a moderate that leans left, but I am far from being a dem. I just think that things are not black and white, right and wrong...things are mostly shades of grey. I tend to look more at concepts and general directions than picky little details that tend to be more diversions than anything. Personally, my favorite candidate was almost Huckaby. He is the only one that believes in abolishing the IRS and the income tax. Unfortunately, h went too far with the "God in the constitution" thing and not far enough in pushing his IRS abolishment agenda. I stand by what I have said for years: if you want a strong economy we need too things: the abolishment of the IRS and income taxes (which are maxist by nature) and implementation of universal healthcare access. On Gitmo, he has moved in the right direction but he has been thoughtful and cautious. If you want to see that as a bad thing, alright. I see it as the right approach.

Originally Posted by cncman

Ha, good to see you have been keeping everyone in check while I have been gone. To tell you the truth it is the nut job "conservatives" that have kept me from participating in the jungle forum, so I know what you mean. The only ones left there with any sense are joker, mc and ernest, even megabite seems rational now. Just haven't been in here to bug you, couldn't let the anniversary of GITMO closing go though! TC

[dboat]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

Dboat is a really good addition here, imo. He leans right, but considers himself an independent. Unfortunately, he doesn't post all that much here either.

Jon, I'll take that as a compliment. I do lean right especially as it pertains to economics.. I do come to the site most everyday and see if there i something worth responding to as I am not much of a thread starter. I havent looked at the entirety of what Huckabee's plan is for taxation but I like what I have seen so far.. I would like to see a flat tax of around 10-15% for those above the poverty line and allow one or two interest deductions on houses.. beyond two and you are just and investor, IMHO. I would also have a 2% VAT tax to go to pay down the deficit and it is eliminated once the deficit is eliminated. I would also tie Congressional pay to the deficit, average pay and unemployment somehow, with the most of their pay connected to the deficit. If their pay went down when the deficit goes up, what do you think they would figure it out pretty quick? They could get a pay increase IF the deficit goes down, average pay goes up and the unemployment is below 5% (or some other reasonable number). I think this would definitely get their attention.. I may have posted my ideas on Congressional pay being similar to the Texas state lawmaker pay.. but I digress. I am also for term limits on these guys, politics should not be a vocation.
Dana

[bigjohn]

I suggest you read The Fair Tax Book by the authors of the Fair Tax Act they have presented every year for a decade or so now. It is precisely the act Huckaby favors. Currently, we pay about 23% in embedded tax on every purchase we make (the cost of tax compliance). The Fair Tax Act calls for a 23% tax on every NEW service or product we buy. It answers the unfairness to the lower income argument by providing a prebate check to everyone based on the number in the family, so the lower income folks will not be paying a high portion of their income for basic needs while giving higher income folks a equal amount per family member. That means we woud have zero corporate taxes (which they don't pay anyway-we do in the form on embedded tax on goods and services). This will bring business back to us because we will have the most favorable corporate tax laws in the world. Taxes are collected by the service or goods provider and would be included in the price of the service or product-not added on after the sale amount. So if you buy a product for $1.00, 23 cents of that goes to Uncle Sam. So, all of us, rich or poor, keep 100% of paycheck and when we buy a new product or service, we pay the taxes. If we can't afford it, we can don't buy it. Meanwhile, market forces will bring the price of goods and services down by near 23% since corportae taxes are not passed down to us and there is no cost of tax compliance being passed down, making the tax a virtual washout. If that isn't enough, the IRS spends about 60 cents for every dollar it collects! The cost of collection will be dramatically reduced thereby increasing tax revenue. So who wouldn't like this sort of tax and wouldn't prefer to eliminate the intrusiveness of the IRS? Well, CPA's hate this idea for one. Tax attorneys hate this idea. IRS employees hate the idea. But for the majority of citizens that don't have to spends hours and hours doing our taxes or pay cash to someone else to do our taxes for us, it's great. The current tax laws are not friendly to small business owners. I know a number of folks that closed a small business rather than deal with the taxes. The fair tax will not only bring more new small businesses into the market as well as large corporations (job creation), but will increase the number of new products and services that are now shelved thanks to tax consequences. If this bill were passed this october, we could have it enacted and be free from the IRS in January. The first prebate checks could go out January one. Everyone would pay taxes, based on how much they buy. Buy a used car-not tax because tax was already paid on it when it was new-no double, triple taxation-so now the price of cars come down. Read the book.

Originally Posted by dboat

Jon, I'll take that as a compliment. I do lean right especially as it pertains to economics.. I do come to the site most everyday and see if there i something worth responding to as I am not much of a thread starter. I havent looked at the entirety of what Huckabee's plan is for taxation but I like what I have seen so far.. I would like to see a flat tax of around 10-15% for those above the poverty line and allow one or two interest deductions on houses.. beyond two and you are just and investor, IMHO. I would also have a 2% VAT tax to go to pay down the deficit and it is eliminated once the deficit is eliminated. I would also tie Congressional pay to the deficit, average pay and unemployment somehow, with the most of their pay connected to the deficit. If their pay went down when the deficit goes up, what do you think they would figure it out pretty quick? They could get a pay increase IF the deficit goes down, average pay goes up and the unemployment is below 5% (or some other reasonable number). I think this would definitely get their attention.. I may have posted my ideas on Congressional pay being similar to the Texas state lawmaker pay.. but I digress. I am also for term limits on these guys, politics should not be a vocation.
Dana

[dboat]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

I suggest you read The Fair Tax Book by the authors of the Fair Tax Act they have presented every year for a decade or so now.

BJ, sounds pretty good, so I googled it.. will have to buy three books.. The Fair Tax book, the book that debunks it and then the rebuttal to the debunk book.. arghhh

thanks for sending me that way.. I just might make that purchase..

Dana

[bigjohn]

If you read chapter nine of the presidents advisory board (Pres. Bush) You'll quickly discover that the critics were largely answered in the first book. The board did not consider the fair tax. They considered a national retail tax act. While on the surface they sound they same, they are not becausethe retail tax act is added on after pruchase. Therefore it shows a 34% or so tax. It also does not take into account the passed down costs embedded into goods of tax compliance costs and corporate taxes. The fair tax calls for 23 cents of a dollar being tax. It's hard to explain, but the book does it well. The opponents claim it will tax the middle class the worse. Untrue again since everyone will get a prebate check (not a rebate check as the opposing studies largely refer to) based on the average costs of basic needs (food, medicine), leveling the tax burdon field. The opponents also claim that the tax would be unenforcable. It's a weak argument considering state sales taxes suffer little enforcement issues. The President's advisory Board favored a VAT tax in addition to the income tax. While it is true that the VAT would lower the income tax burden to a max of about 15% and increase efficiency of collection rates, it stil requires a huge, intrusive bureaucracy (IRS) for compliance and collection.

[dboat]

Thanks BJ, the more we can move government out of our daily lives the better I say.. especially the IRS..

Dana

[cncman]

What? So one of Obama's most well known and outspoken supporters flips on him and publically talks about what a disappointment he is and it is a sign that I expect perfection in a president? Again, what?

Originally Posted by Swells

So you're not talking about economic deflation, inflation, or worse yet stagflation. Thank goodness.

Shame on you, it's all a bunch of political wonks, journalists, and inter-web hacks having fun with a loss of "Ted Kennedy's seat." Get over it.

Listen folks, every US president we've had since George Washington has been a total retard in certain areas, some worse than others. Why do you demand perfection now (I waiting for a Republican version of Jimmy Carter, myself).

Tell you what, you put all that "deflation of hope" in one hand and take a dump in the other hand and let's see which one fills up faster.

[cncman]

If nothing else the first book is worth it for the history on how the income tax came about. Did you know people used to send one check in a year for their taxes? But the government used false patriotism in the war to push witholdings so people wouldn't question what they were writing one big check for. It's a great read.

Originally Posted by bigjohn

If you read chapter nine of the presidents advisory board (Pres. Bush) You'll quickly discover that the critics were largely answered in the first book. The board did not consider the fair tax. They considered a national retail tax act. While on the surface they sound they same, they are not becausethe retail tax act is added on after pruchase. Therefore it shows a 34% or so tax. It also does not take into account the passed down costs embedded into goods of tax compliance costs and corporate taxes. The fair tax calls for 23 cents of a dollar being tax. It's hard to explain, but the book does it well. The opponents claim it will tax the middle class the worse. Untrue again since everyone will get a prebate check (not a rebate check as the opposing studies largely refer to) based on the average costs of basic needs (food, medicine), leveling the tax burdon field. The opponents also claim that the tax would be unenforcable. It's a weak argument considering state sales taxes suffer little enforcement issues. The President's advisory Board favored a VAT tax in addition to the income tax. While it is true that the VAT would lower the income tax burden to a max of about 15% and increase efficiency of collection rates, it stil requires a huge, intrusive bureaucracy (IRS) for compliance and collection.

[Swells]

Untrue again since everyone will get a prebate check

When people start taling smoke like that I tend to tune out, and no disrespect, but a "prebate." I was doing that when I was 10 years old. I darn near went blind!

And CNC, who said I was an Obama arse-kisser? I'm an independent. Both parties are inherently corrupt and there is no independent third party, aside from from some social retards and ex-Nader socialists.

[cncman]

prebate is easy, they already have businesses lined up to do it if it goes through, government already sends out a lot of checks each month they Awouldn't have to anymore. and no, prebate isn't when you are just figuring out how to do it. I give up, who said that? I didnt. Totally on board about both parties. Neither of them are out for anything other than your vote and their power only difference is how they are going to do it and who they will use to get there.

Originally Posted by Swells

When people start taling smoke like that I tend to tune out, and no disrespect, but a "prebate." I was doing that when I was 10 years old. I darn near went blind!

And CNC, who said I was an Obama arse-kisser? I'm an independent. Both parties are inherently corrupt and there is no independent third party, aside from from some social retards and ex-Nader socialists.

[bigjohn]

CNC is correct. The government is a check writing machine. Prebate refers to getting a check upfront instead of later, such as a rebate. The opponents position that the fair tax would make people dependent on government checks for a substantial portion of their income is flat wrong. Let's say the average person spends $1,000 month on food and medicine (arbitrary number). 23% equals $230. That would be the amount of the prebate check per individual-hardly a significant portion of the middle class's income, especially considering that we would now be keeping all of our pay.

[Swells]

Hey I'm open to learning more about it, and getting educated here ... but some of it sorta smells like the Global Warming deal. It means Big Government to slap a Carbon Tax on everything made that releases CO2, like "cap & trade," and then turn around and give money back to the people.

Why do it in the first place if you're just shifting money around, giving and taking it away from taxpayers?

Myself, I'd rather keep more of my money and no thanks to Big Government giving me play money and then taxing it away with a sales tax. Is this more social welfare?

But like I said, perhaps there's something to what y'all say on tax reform and "prebates." The current Tax Code is like 6 feet tall! I'll look further into it...

[bigjohn]

Play money? Welfare? You are kidding right? The fair tax is not a tax cutting bill, it is an alternative more efficient way of tax collection without the hugly expensive and ineficient bureaucracy (IRS). The prebate answers the criticism of a sales tax being unfair to the lower class because the the lower class would have to spend a significant portion of thier money on basic needs. It also answers unfairness because everyone of all income taxes would get the same amount of prebate based upon number in household only.Additionally, it answers the unfairness question of the lower class not paying any taxes at all because they buy stuff too. It addresses multiple taxation because the tax only applies to new goods and services. And, you get to keep all of YOUR money, so it answers that issue as well.

[Swells]

Sorry I'm still not buying it. I have property taxes for city, county, and local school district along with some goofy health district. I pay sales tax of 8.5 cents or so, with the EDC two cents. I pay IRS income taxes at about a 34 percent rate. And if you look at the taxes on everything from motel rooms to oil and gas royalties and corporate/franchise taxes, soon we're talking a lot on money here. A vehicle registration fee is a tax. How about the estate taxes, that can claim 30 percent of your property? You can't solve all that with some strange idea to get rid of the IRS.

Now states (with local governments such as EDC) charge sales taxes, not the IRS. To change that, you're going to have to take away a lot of state revenue - have you thought about that? A shift to sales versus income taxes would be a huge thing, and the states are going to fight you every step of the way. Folks, by next year even Texas will be officially broke! There is a good chance that a casino bill will be filed because of the need for more revenue (another kind of tax). In fact, an income tax - and unthinkable thing in Texas - might be required if things keep going bad. Governor Perry has already asked each state agency to submit plans for 5 percent reductions.

The "fair tax" only addresses part of the issue, the Fed. I am sure it is a wonderful proposal in theory but in the midst of this recession, I just don't see that happening. People still aren't buying anything. Housing is off by the most since the year 1940. Aside from "cash for clunkers," auto sales are horribly low. I don't see sales taxes being the answer in such a fickle economy, even though it might be a great idea. -sam

[cncman]

States get a cut of the revenue for collecting it at the local registers, as do the businesses. This invites more to participate. The massive influx of billions of dollars from offshore tax shelters and the larger tax base could help pull us out of the economic slump we are in. No, I don't think it will happen soon as there are too many people vested in the current system and it takes power from the fed and transfers it back to the people. It really is a simple, easy and efficient system. Here is the brief run down and the FAQ, most of what you have been asking is covered there or in other parts in the site.

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServ...ame=about_main

[Swells]

thanks for the link