Posted by antonsirius on 8/9/2011 7:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 8/9/2011 9:12:00 AM (view original):
I have looked at both sides honestly. In fact - When I first looked into the fair tax in 2008 I thouight it was an absolute joke (just like huckabee was)... until I started reading more into it. The positives outway the negatives BIG TIME imo.

And a big YES to starving the government - they need to spend more responsibly before they can eat well again. Why is it my wife spent 2 hours waiting at the social security office to change her last name yesterday, and another 30 minutes to get a new drivers license... but only 3 minutes to change her name at the bank? I work with a guy that used to order $6 rolls of toilet paper for the military... $6 !!?!?! Come on. Yes the gov't needs a bit more starving if they think they can afford these types of goods and provide shoddy services.

I absolutely agree that there's all kinds of government wastage that needs to be eliminated, and all kinds of departments and services that could be streamlined and made more efficient.

What do you think the odds are of a Congress that would pass a FAIR tax actually cutting Pentagon spending as opposed to, say, gutting Social Security?

To me, that seems like an extremely risky way to get where we need to go. To extend the metaphor past the point of silliness, we need to get government on a diet and hitting the gym regularly so that it's healthy, and then cut back its food supply, rather than starving its fat *** and hoping the country survives the process.

But then, I also think inefficient government stimulus during a massive recession, to inject at least some spending and job growth into the economy, is still better than slashing government spending when the corporate sector is stuffing every dime under their mattresses rather than re-investing. I'm cuckoo like that.

Posted by moy23 on 8/10/2011 8:11:00 AM (view original):

Posted by antonsirius on 8/9/2011 7:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 8/9/2011 9:12:00 AM (view original):
I have looked at both sides honestly. In fact - When I first looked into the fair tax in 2008 I thouight it was an absolute joke (just like huckabee was)... until I started reading more into it. The positives outway the negatives BIG TIME imo.

And a big YES to starving the government - they need to spend more responsibly before they can eat well again. Why is it my wife spent 2 hours waiting at the social security office to change her last name yesterday, and another 30 minutes to get a new drivers license... but only 3 minutes to change her name at the bank? I work with a guy that used to order $6 rolls of toilet paper for the military... $6 !!?!?! Come on. Yes the gov't needs a bit more starving if they think they can afford these types of goods and provide shoddy services.

I absolutely agree that there's all kinds of government wastage that needs to be eliminated, and all kinds of departments and services that could be streamlined and made more efficient.

What do you think the odds are of a Congress that would pass a FAIR tax actually cutting Pentagon spending as opposed to, say, gutting Social Security?

To me, that seems like an extremely risky way to get where we need to go. To extend the metaphor past the point of silliness, we need to get government on a diet and hitting the gym regularly so that it's healthy, and then cut back its food supply, rather than starving its fat *** and hoping the country survives the process.

But then, I also think inefficient government stimulus during a massive recession, to inject at least some spending and job growth into the economy, is still better than slashing government spending when the corporate sector is stuffing every dime under their mattresses rather than re-investing. I'm cuckoo like that.

Mike is right. We are talking about what's fair for taxes.

That said I will answer your OT post. You are right that timing is an issue and it is a risky proposal. I bet social security will be cut before defense.... Obama is setting record highs in defense spending ($850 billion vs bush $600 billion). I was in a cab once and one of the people asked what has the government ever run well? We all said nothing but the cab driver blurted out "the military". He's right imo.... it could be run less expensively but these guys are efficient and deadly.

As for taking risks.... at some point someone will have to take a risk. Social security is going defunct, the healthcare system is a mess, illegal immigration runs rampant, the deficit is increasing, unemployment has been at 10% for over two years now, 8 million foreclosures the last 2 years, etc. The system as is is broken. Taxing the rich even more is not the answer..... its just enabling the government to do what it does best.... throw good money after bad.

You're full of ****.  You respond to me all the time.   Odd behavior when you have me blocked.

Get back on topic.  You stray off topic every time you're proven to be a moron.  Which is quite often.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2011 4:39:00 PM (view original):
Yeah, like talking about taxation in a thread named "What is a fair share when it comes to taxes?"     Shame on me for thinking it was about taxation and not government waste after taxation. 

Dumbass.

Posted by antonsirius on 8/10/2011 3:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 8/10/2011 8:11:00 AM (view original):

Posted by antonsirius on 8/9/2011 7:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 8/9/2011 9:12:00 AM (view original):
I have looked at both sides honestly. In fact - When I first looked into the fair tax in 2008 I thouight it was an absolute joke (just like huckabee was)... until I started reading more into it. The positives outway the negatives BIG TIME imo.

And a big YES to starving the government - they need to spend more responsibly before they can eat well again. Why is it my wife spent 2 hours waiting at the social security office to change her last name yesterday, and another 30 minutes to get a new drivers license... but only 3 minutes to change her name at the bank? I work with a guy that used to order $6 rolls of toilet paper for the military... $6 !!?!?! Come on. Yes the gov't needs a bit more starving if they think they can afford these types of goods and provide shoddy services.

I absolutely agree that there's all kinds of government wastage that needs to be eliminated, and all kinds of departments and services that could be streamlined and made more efficient.

What do you think the odds are of a Congress that would pass a FAIR tax actually cutting Pentagon spending as opposed to, say, gutting Social Security?

To me, that seems like an extremely risky way to get where we need to go. To extend the metaphor past the point of silliness, we need to get government on a diet and hitting the gym regularly so that it's healthy, and then cut back its food supply, rather than starving its fat *** and hoping the country survives the process.

But then, I also think inefficient government stimulus during a massive recession, to inject at least some spending and job growth into the economy, is still better than slashing government spending when the corporate sector is stuffing every dime under their mattresses rather than re-investing. I'm cuckoo like that.

Mike is right. We are talking about what's fair for taxes.

That said I will answer your OT post. You are right that timing is an issue and it is a risky proposal. I bet social security will be cut before defense.... Obama is setting record highs in defense spending ($850 billion vs bush $600 billion). I was in a cab once and one of the people asked what has the government ever run well? We all said nothing but the cab driver blurted out "the military". He's right imo.... it could be run less expensively but these guys are efficient and deadly.

As for taking risks.... at some point someone will have to take a risk. Social security is going defunct, the healthcare system is a mess, illegal immigration runs rampant, the deficit is increasing, unemployment has been at 10% for over two years now, 8 million foreclosures the last 2 years, etc. The system as is is broken. Taxing the rich even more is not the answer..... its just enabling the government to do what it does best.... throw good money after bad.

I re-blocked Mike a while ago because he seems more interested in stirring up **** than having a conversation right now. But I don't even know how to respond to the idea that spending is OT to taxes. That's like saying talking about the car is OT to an engine discussion.

There are degrees of risk. I think it makes more sense to stabilize the economy first, then cut spending once we have some forward progress again, then look at something as radical as switching from an income tax-based revenue stream to a sales tax-based stream. That way the risk is mitigated if the radical plan doesn't work, or there are (as is almost certain to happen) unintended consequences.

Now, if you think the economy simply can't be stabilized under existing conditions, then yeah, we'd have no choice but to look at radical changes such as the FAIR tax. But I don't believe that. We're just a couple of years removed from one of the biggest economic shitstorms in history, and we haven't even adequately addressed the root causes of it yet, nor done much to deal with its effects. We might want to try that first before we look for radical answers.

Basically you're arguing for a hail mary, and I look at the clock and its only the middle of the third quarter.