VAT style national sales tax being considered...quietly

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Does Obama actually think the economy is going to increase by 4.3% next year. Does anybody believe that?

I dunno, it could happen though.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: n yusef
I think this is where "empathy" comes into play. BoberFett and his "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" libertarian ilk know nothing of poverty or what it's like to be poor, and they are satisfied with their ignorance.

And neither do most white well to do liberals. That doesnt stop them from giving the impression of faux outrage as they get into their volvo's and head back to the better side of town to sip white wine and pat each on the back while their policies rot the poor.

Your point?

White liberals are often just as ignorant, but at least they pretend to care about the working class. Hopefully, class privileged white liberals realize that poverty is not (necessarily) a product of stupidity or laziness.

I agree, liberalism is not the cure for poverty. But compared to BoberFett's libertarianism, liberalism is great.

The poor used to have much less govt interference in their lives. The question right now doesnt become is a more libertarian approach better than liberal? The question is have liberal policies delivered what they promised 40+ years ago? If not, how can we change them?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Does Obama actually think the economy is going to increase by 4.3% next year. Does anybody believe that?

It is possible with the nearly 1 trillion in money that will begin to flow into the economy. But the question is will it be stripped by higher inflation? And what happens when the money dries up?

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: Genx87
The poor used to have much less govt interference in their lives. The question right now doesnt become is a more libertarian approach better than liberal? The question is have liberal policies delivered what they promised 40+ years ago? If not, how can we change them?

It isn't that liberal policies failed to deliver what was promised. Rather, authoritarian conservatism and libertarianism, as exemplified by the War on Drugs and the reaction to Katrina, has undermined any attempts at progressive solutions. Many "liberals" are to blame for these conservative and libertarian policies--they are the wolves in sheep's clothing of which you speak.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: Genx87
The poor used to have much less govt interference in their lives. The question right now doesnt become is a more libertarian approach better than liberal? The question is have liberal policies delivered what they promised 40+ years ago? If not, how can we change them?

It isn't that liberal policies failed to deliver what was promised. Rather, authoritative conservatism and libertarianism, as exemplified by the War on Drugs and the reaction to Katrina, has undermined any attempts at progressive solutions. Many "liberals" are to blame for these conservative and libertarian policies--they are the wolves in sheep's clothing of which you speak.

If they failed, they failed on their own merit imo. There is no libertarianism within our govt and hasnt been since the Coolidge administration 80 years ago. Each party has grown govt well beyond its means and provided ample funding for these programs. The simple fact of the matter is you cant give a cat food and expect it to fend for itself. Much like you cant enable poor decisions and expect people to stop making those poor decisions.

The war on drugs is imo a complete and utter failure. But it is continued under conservative and liberal administrations.

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Does Obama actually think the economy is going to increase by 4.3% next year. Does anybody believe that?

I don't think it's much higher than the growth projections the CBO used in their analysis of Obama's 10-year budget plan. Don't forget, though, that even very small differences in growth can make a very large difference in tax revenue, and therefore deficits. This is why the CBO shows the deficit ballooning over the next decade compared to the White House's projections, the CBO assumes a slightly lower (a few tenths of a percent, I believe) rate of economic growth.

As far as the VAT, I'd applaud the federal government for actually trying to pay for all this stuff they're spending money on, but I really doubt it will ever be implemented. It's extremely regressive and would be political suicide for the Democrats IMO. Easier for them to just promise constituents the world and then deficit spend to deliver on their promises.

 

[QuantumPion]

The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: Genx87
The poor used to have much less govt interference in their lives. The question right now doesnt become is a more libertarian approach better than liberal? The question is have liberal policies delivered what they promised 40+ years ago? If not, how can we change them?

It isn't that liberal policies failed to deliver what was promised. Rather, authoritative conservatism and libertarianism, as exemplified by the War on Drugs and the reaction to Katrina, has undermined any attempts at progressive solutions. Many "liberals" are to blame for these conservative and libertarian policies--they are the wolves in sheep's clothing of which you speak.

If they failed, they failed on their own merit imo. There is no libertarianism within our govt and hasnt been since the Coolidge administration 80 years ago. Each party has grown govt well beyond its means and provided ample funding for these programs. The simple fact of the matter is you cant give a cat food and expect it to fend for itself. Much like you cant enable poor decisions and expect people to stop making those poor decisions.

The war on drugs is imo a complete and utter failure. But it is continued under conservative and liberal administrations.

I speak of lowercase-l libertarianism that pervades our society. Small government and economic freedom (capitalism) produce great inequities in society. To justify these inequities, one must believe that status is earned. Libertarianism is based on the idea that we live in a meritocracy, that social position is determined by merit. Poor people are dumb and lazy. Rich people are smart and hard-working. And the middle class is taught to think that if it is smart and hard-working, it can become rich.

Libertarianism may or may not be a popular governmental philosophy (business interests allow for economic freedom, but other interests do not allow for social freedom). But, it is incredibly popular as a social philosophy, particularly among the powerful in society, the white male middle class. People of color, women and the poor realize that meritocracy is a sham.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: n yusef
People of color, women and the poor realize that meritocracy is a sham.

And it also explains why you're still poor.

Stop allowing yourself to be a victim.

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: n yusef
People of color, women and the poor realize that meritocracy is a sham.

And it also explains why you're still poor.

Stop allowing yourself to be a victim.

I am not poor. I was, at one time. My parents "pulled themselves up by their bootstraps" (or really, had stock options in the right company at the right time).

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: n yusef
People of color, women and the poor realize that meritocracy is a sham.

And it also explains why you're still poor.

Stop allowing yourself to be a victim.

I am not poor. I was, at one time. My parents "pulled themselves up by their bootstraps" (or really, had stock options in the right company at the right time).

Wow, way to completely destroy your entire theory of the world in one post. You should stop posting here now.

 

[BoberFett]

By the way, "liberals" control the federal government now almost entirely. Has the War on Drugs ended yet?

Yeah, I didn't think so. You need to pull your head out of your ass yusef. The smell is affecting your ability to think.

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: n yusef
I am not poor. I was, at one time. My parents "pulled themselves up by their bootstraps" (or really, had stock options in the right company at the right time).

Wow, way to completely destroy your entire theory of the world in one post. You should stop posting here now.

If you read carefully, you will notice that I am implying that my parents are lucky. There are millions of people who worked retail for $7 an hour, just like my mother, but didn't end up in our position.

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
By the way, "liberals" control the federal government now almost entirely. Has the War on Drugs ended yet?

Yeah, I didn't think so. You need to pull your head out of your ass yusef. The smell is affecting your ability to think.

If you read carefully, I called the War on Drugs a authoritarian conservative policy. Genx claimed that liberalism had not lived up to its promises. I responded that liberalism has been undermined by conservatism (the WoD) and libertarianism (the negligence of Katrina).

Read more, insult me less.

To clarify, "liberals" who support the WoD aren't very liberal. I am blaming them as well.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: BoberFett
By the way, "liberals" control the federal government now almost entirely. Has the War on Drugs ended yet?

Yeah, I didn't think so. You need to pull your head out of your ass yusef. The smell is affecting your ability to think.

If you read carefully, I called the War on Drugs a authoritarian conservative policy. Genx claimed that liberalism had not lived up to its promises. I responded that liberalism has been undermined by conservatism (the WoD) and libertarianism (the negligence of Katrina).

Read more, insult me less.

To clarify, "liberals" who support the WoD aren't very liberal. I am blaming them as well.

FEMA wasn't around before Katrina? Let me get this straight. We create FEMA to help people in time of emergencies, and when an emergency occurs and FEMA fails, it's the fault of libertarians? Is that the picture you're painting?

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: BoberFett
By the way, "liberals" control the federal government now almost entirely. Has the War on Drugs ended yet?

Yeah, I didn't think so. You need to pull your head out of your ass yusef. The smell is affecting your ability to think.

If you read carefully, I called the War on Drugs a authoritarian conservative policy. Genx claimed that liberalism had not lived up to its promises. I responded that liberalism has been undermined by conservatism (the WoD) and libertarianism (the negligence of Katrina).

Read more, insult me less.

To clarify, "liberals" who support the WoD aren't very liberal. I am blaming them as well.

FEMA wasn't around before Katrina? Let me get this straight. We create FEMA to help people in time of emergencies, and when an emergency occurs and FEMA fails, it's the fault of libertarians? Is that the picture you're painting?

:laugh:

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: Genx87
The poor used to have much less govt interference in their lives. The question right now doesnt become is a more libertarian approach better than liberal? The question is have liberal policies delivered what they promised 40+ years ago? If not, how can we change them?

It isn't that liberal policies failed to deliver what was promised. Rather, authoritative conservatism and libertarianism, as exemplified by the War on Drugs and the reaction to Katrina, has undermined any attempts at progressive solutions. Many "liberals" are to blame for these conservative and libertarian policies--they are the wolves in sheep's clothing of which you speak.

If they failed, they failed on their own merit imo. There is no libertarianism within our govt and hasnt been since the Coolidge administration 80 years ago. Each party has grown govt well beyond its means and provided ample funding for these programs. The simple fact of the matter is you cant give a cat food and expect it to fend for itself. Much like you cant enable poor decisions and expect people to stop making those poor decisions.

The war on drugs is imo a complete and utter failure. But it is continued under conservative and liberal administrations.

I speak of lowercase-l libertarianism that pervades our society. Small government and economic freedom (capitalism) produce great inequities in society. To justify these inequities, one must believe that status is earned. Libertarianism is based on the idea that we live in a meritocracy, that social position is determined by merit. Poor people are dumb and lazy. Rich people are smart and hard-working. And the middle class is taught to think that if it is smart and hard-working, it can become rich.

Libertarianism may or may not be a popular governmental philosophy (business interests allow for economic freedom, but other interests do not allow for social freedom). But, it is incredibly popular as a social philosophy, particularly among the powerful in society, the white male middle class. People of color, women and the poor realize that meritocracy is a sham.

And again Ill ask where have we had small govt types in our govt in the last 80 years? The small govt mantra may be a popular philosophy among the middle class in this country but the govt hasnt been run like it for nearly a century. So again I dismiss claims small govt types have somehow made liberal(left) policies fail. Because I havent seen any sizeable movement within the govt for smaller govt in my entire lifetime. And chances are neither have your parents.

 

[BriGy86]

Sounds like this, I'm surprised it hasn't been brought up yet.
http://www.fairtax.org/site/Pa...er?pagename=about_main

The Fair tax would be a national sales tax to replace all current federal tax schemes. Imagine not paying SS, federal income tax or anything else. Even though goods may cost a bit more you would actually see your entire wage on your pay check.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: BoberFett
By the way, "liberals" control the federal government now almost entirely. Has the War on Drugs ended yet?

Yeah, I didn't think so. You need to pull your head out of your ass yusef. The smell is affecting your ability to think.

If you read carefully, I called the War on Drugs a authoritarian conservative policy. Genx claimed that liberalism had not lived up to its promises. I responded that liberalism has been undermined by conservatism (the WoD) and libertarianism (the negligence of Katrina).

Read more, insult me less.

To clarify, "liberals" who support the WoD aren't very liberal. I am blaming them as well.

You're blaming Katrina on libertarians? Other than Ron Paul, name one libertarian in congress or the Bush administration. I'll be waiting.

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: BoberFett
By the way, "liberals" control the federal government now almost entirely. Has the War on Drugs ended yet?

Yeah, I didn't think so. You need to pull your head out of your ass yusef. The smell is affecting your ability to think.

If you read carefully, I called the War on Drugs a authoritarian conservative policy. Genx claimed that liberalism had not lived up to its promises. I responded that liberalism has been undermined by conservatism (the WoD) and libertarianism (the negligence of Katrina).

Read more, insult me less.

To clarify, "liberals" who support the WoD aren't very liberal. I am blaming them as well.

LOL.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: bamacre
Is there anyone in Congress who, God forbid, thinks the problem is not that they don't have enough money, but that they spend too much?

Yes and he is a crazy person(ron paul).

fixed for accuracy.

Are you still here? I still have yet to see you say anything of substance.

ironic coming from you, you're nothing but a blind mountain of hate, and also contribute nothing of substance.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: BoberFett
By the way, "liberals" control the federal government now almost entirely. Has the War on Drugs ended yet?

Yeah, I didn't think so. You need to pull your head out of your ass yusef. The smell is affecting your ability to think.

If you read carefully, I called the War on Drugs a authoritarian conservative policy. Genx claimed that liberalism had not lived up to its promises. I responded that liberalism has been undermined by conservatism (the WoD) and libertarianism (the negligence of Katrina).

Read more, insult me less.

To clarify, "liberals" who support the WoD aren't very liberal. I am blaming them as well.

No i didnt, I said liberal programs\policies havent. Liberalism(small govt, economic freedom, liberties) in its original form has little to do with american liberals today.

That said you have a lot of blaming to go around considering democrats and republicans alike all support the WoD.

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: BriGy86
sound like this, I'm surprised it hasn't been brought up.
http://www.fairtax.org/site/Pa...er?pagename=about_main

The Fair tax would be a national sales tax to replace all current federal tax schemes. Imagine not paying SS, federal income tax or anything else. Even though goods may cost a bit more you would actually see your entire wage on your pay check.

VAT would NEVER replace income tax, though. This would be on top of current income tax if they were to actually implement it.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: n yusef
I am not poor. I was, at one time. My parents "pulled themselves up by their bootstraps" (or really, had stock options in the right company at the right time).

Wow, way to completely destroy your entire theory of the world in one post. You should stop posting here now.

If you read carefully, you will notice that I am implying that my parents are lucky. There are millions of people who worked retail for $7 an hour, just like my mother, but didn't end up in our position.

OK, so then you're the fortunate rich and don't really know anything about poverty either. Either way you're fraud. A sham. A shyster.

Crawl back to your mansion, Richy Rich. Stop pretending to be a friend of the proletariat when clearly you're just another silver spoon sucking spoiled brat.

 

[BriGy86]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: BriGy86
sound like this, I'm surprised it hasn't been brought up.
http://www.fairtax.org/site/Pa...er?pagename=about_main

The Fair tax would be a national sales tax to replace all current federal tax schemes. Imagine not paying SS, federal income tax or anything else. Even though goods may cost a bit more you would actually see your entire wage on your pay check.

VAT would NEVER replace income tax, though. This would be on top of current income tax if they were to actually implement it.

I should have been more clear. I think the Fair tax may be a good idea but VAT would not be since it wouldn't repeal the federal income tax.